Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bit of a preface here, this is something I've noticed in so many video games over the years, I'm surprised we haven't really discussed this on this forum (or maybe we have, and I missed that thread)

So many games, IMO, are designed backward in regard to space. I'm talking about open world games, like WoW, Ghost of Tsushima, TES series, Fallout series, etc. etc.

What I mean is, when you first start out, every mission seems to be within 500 game meters of the starting location. . . by the end of the game, you have to cross the entire map to fetch one dingleberry for some monk making a stew.


Why do I think this is backward? Well, at the beginning/ outset of the game, you as player are eager to explore the world, find things and largely just "run around" the world. . . by the end of it, if you're like me, 3/4ths into the game you're just kind of done. Like, "gimme this quest so i can get it done and move on" sort of mindset, where you're less interested in exploration and finding things. And, so many open world games end up sort of empty after a while, so it isn't entirely like you can line up the start and end points of various side quests to get out to the main quest you're actually wanting to do.

The quick and easy progress at the start gets you hooked, simple as.

Yeah, that. In terms of game design, you want to get players into it first. Then, if its done properly, the quest chains leaves breadcrumbs to the next major area (town/zone/hub/whatever).

For open world games (which definitely doesn't include WoW as the reigning 'theme park' game) you want a loose guiding structure to the main story, and options that players can pursue- meaning there are hooks that came take them to side areas if they want to. Largely the late game 'all over the map' quests means you're catching on late to quests that you could have taken earlier. [Or you now have access to some sort of fast travel system that makes it a non-issue]

The various Fallouts have some good and bad examples of this:

Fallout 1 leashes you with a timer, and not-so-many settlement locations. Not doing shady sands/vault 15, then necropolis/junktown, then hub/brotherhood then Boneyard is
pretty much not viable. (Yes, yes expert and speed runs and so on. The game's expectation is you'll do things properly)

Fallout 2 is basically a difficulty barrier as you work your way down the map.

Fallout 3 has a definite 'intended' progression, but its easy to skip around- the map is very open, but very dead outside the few 'inhabited' areas.

New Vegas actually leads players around by the nose in a set arc around the map with lots of blocking terrain and only has one or two 'hardcore' shortcuts through super-monster territory (if you know about them).

FO4 is a bit more subtle, but wants you in specific places at certain stages, and the quests are largely structured around introducing certain groups. But you can absolutely ignore that.

---
Skyrim basically leads you to major city #1 (Whiterun) and then shrugs at you. What little it has for plot and story is ignorable and you can do whatever. Nothing at all is going to happen until you poke the main quest. Nothing changes hands, no dragons appear, nada.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Bit of a preface here, this is something I've noticed in so many video games over the years, I'm surprised we haven't really discussed this on this forum (or maybe we have, and I missed that thread)

So many games, IMO, are designed backward in regard to space. I'm talking about open world games, like WoW, Ghost of Tsushima, TES series, Fallout series, etc. etc.

What I mean is, when you first start out, every mission seems to be within 500 game meters of the starting location. . . by the end of the game, you have to cross the entire map to fetch one dingleberry for some monk making a stew.


Why do I think this is backward? Well, at the beginning/ outset of the game, you as player are eager to explore the world, find things and largely just "run around" the world. . . by the end of it, if you're like me, 3/4ths into the game you're just kind of done. Like, "gimme this quest so i can get it done and move on" sort of mindset, where you're less interested in exploration and finding things. And, so many open world games end up sort of empty after a while, so it isn't entirely like you can line up the start and end points of various side quests to get out to the main quest you're actually wanting to do.

Are you maybe missing that a lot of these titles allow you to instantly travel to anywhere you've been before?

IDC if the priest needs a dingleberry from whitehelm if I can just zoop to my map, click "whitehelm" and be there.

the_scotsman wrote:


Are you maybe missing that a lot of these titles allow you to instantly travel to anywhere you've been before?

IDC if the priest needs a dingleberry from whitehelm if I can just zoop to my map, click "whitehelm" and be there.

Nope. . . and while sure, that is definitely a feature, its not always possible or very helpful. . . Just last night, in Ghost of Tsushima, I get up to the northern most area of the map. my CLOSEST fast travel point to a quest marker, is 2.3 game km away. Even with clearing strongholds/mongol areas as i find them, the map reveal those provide, doesn't give you much at that stage in the game.

So is this just a Ghosts of Whatever complaint?

Because 2.3 km in most open world games I've played... that's just a minor inconvenience of maybe a couple minutes.

But in the OP you mentioned its a problem 3/4s of the way through the game, but if you're still unlocking fast travel points, it doesn't sound like you're at that point.

Voss wrote:
So is this just a Ghosts of Whatever complaint?

Because 2.3 km in most open world games I've played... that's just a minor inconvenience of maybe a couple minutes.

But in the OP you mentioned its a problem 3/4s of the way through the game, but if you're still unlocking fast travel points, it doesn't sound like you're at that point.

In Ghost, 2.3km is a hefty distance, given the overall size of the game. . . Some games are much larger, or take even more time to get there. . . And mind, distance in games is an arbitrary measurement, hence why I'm saying "game kilometers"

2.3km in a game like, Cyberpunk, you're right, is nothing. . that's just a short hop on the bike or car. But by "end game" in cyberpunk, you could receive a quest that takes you across the entire map. And sure, if you didn't unlock any fast travel points, that would be a pain. (similar situation for Witcher 3)


My "complaint" if you can really call it such is. . . take any open world game: at lvl 1, you "suck" at combat, and will often rely on potions or whatever the game calls a temporary combat aid mechanic (potions, stims/chems, etc) . . My thinking is, early on in games, when you're wanting to explore and such, the missions ought to be spread out where you explore, and slowly your bag space doesn't have as many potions in it as it does loot. . . As you progress, your character gets better at combat (through perks, gear, whatever). . and you rely less and less on temporary things like potions, and by end game, depending on your difficulty level, you are nigh unstoppable in combat. . . So, what I personally would rather see, is by the time you get to that point, the missions end up being closer together, or have a greater density. your character becomes "older", by end game its the grizzled vet who wants to get the mission over quickly so they can get back to their drinking, or sleeping or whatever.

Its that in so many open world games, they say they "reward" exploration. . but by the time you get near the end of the story, I am so uninterested in exploration, I just want to see the story to its conclusion, and I just want to get on with it.

Ah, I guess I see? Rewarding exploration means you get bonus stuff (loot, XP, money) that you wouldn't get if you just stick to the main story. It's optional.

If all you want is to see the end of the story, you can generally... just do that.

For me, the appeal of open world games -is- the exploration. It's literally why I want to play them. It's kind of important, since generally I find the 'story' of open world games to be so much dog-crap. Skyrim being the perhaps one of the best examples- if there wasn't exploration, I wouldn't bother at all. I stalled out on Cyberpunk because I finished all the side stuff (beyond racing, which I find pointless and dull) and only had the crap story with its detestable character left.

I suppose it is a valid complaint for a late game quest to take you longer distances for no reason other than arbitrary game difficulty increase.

I think that is why Skyrim did this the best because, unlike a lot of other games, you at least had to unlock all the fast travel points once before you could fast travel there. In Oblivion you had all of the major cities unlocked to begin with, but Skyrim didn't let you fast travel anywhere unless you got there legitimately the first time. Plus you didn't ever feel like you were under a time crunch unlike, say, Cyberpunk which really falls into a trap of making it seem like you need to blitz the main story fast as possible. They never reach a point of chill where you feel like you can just faff about. Again, Skyrim doesn't ever feel like they're forcing you to do anything. You can just never go to High Hrothgar and go do side quests forever, and there are even some Easter Egg dialogues if you do stuff out of the conventional order.