Can A Game World Be Too Big?
Title says it all...
I've been making steady progress on generating procedural content for a retro 2d/3d space game recently. So far I've got random tile planets, psuedo-3D solar systems and a freaking huge map of visitable stars. But as I've toyed with going farther along the macro (sectors to galaxy) and micro (towns to floor plans) I've been plagued by whether or not it's possible to have too much of a good thing.
I've posted about this before (back when it was more of an "on the drawing board" thing) but now that I can play things a bit the problem is far less abstract. It's got me thinking about whether or not there is really any overall game goal that can justify so much territory. If a game world is too large, there's a chance that anything you do in it will either take forever (by din of total real estate) or be dwarfed by the sheer size of space in comparison to what you can do in it. Even if the ultimate goal is exploration in sandbox gameplay it seems to me that the size / depth creates a kind of tension that's opposed to the satisfaction / reward of completing the game.
While this is certainly a problem with physical space, it seems to me that it can be a problem with space of any kind, especially possibility space. A game that offers zillions of weapons and armors, things to collect or tasks to complete probably suffers from the same potential problem.
So what do you think? Is it possible for the size of a world (literally or figuratively) to dwarf and thereby invalidate the player? If so, how big is too big? If not, why not?
Yes, it can be too big.
As a player, I want to have an achievable goal (endgame).
The main point is to make sure you have quality everywhere - I prefer
a smaller world with high quality quests & staging, then a large empty
world, where the issue is to go from one place to the next.
As a player, I want to have an achievable goal (endgame).
The main point is to make sure you have quality everywhere - I prefer
a smaller world with high quality quests & staging, then a large empty
world, where the issue is to go from one place to the next.
Yes a game world, or even an abstract (decision) space can certainly be too big.
There are many reasons that a world can be too big:
- If the player would not be able to explore the whole space in a reasonable amount of time (eg: if the game take place in a singe city, then having a dozen other cities would not be necessary). The reason is that this costs development time and therefore takes away resources from the other features.
- If there are too many options or too large a space for the player to understand properly, then this leads to what is called "Analysis Paralysis", where the player is so overwhelmed by their options (what to choose or where to go) that they can not make meaningful decisions to proceed with the game.
- If the size of the space (physical or conceptual) is so large that it would make the play time too long, then this is a problem. In the real world, it might take you a day or two to walk from one medieval village to the next, but when playing a game, a player does not want to spend that same time just to reach the next village.
The best quick rule I can think of is that game worlds should be: "the smallest possible, but no smaller".
There are many reasons that a world can be too big:
- If the player would not be able to explore the whole space in a reasonable amount of time (eg: if the game take place in a singe city, then having a dozen other cities would not be necessary). The reason is that this costs development time and therefore takes away resources from the other features.
- If there are too many options or too large a space for the player to understand properly, then this leads to what is called "Analysis Paralysis", where the player is so overwhelmed by their options (what to choose or where to go) that they can not make meaningful decisions to proceed with the game.
- If the size of the space (physical or conceptual) is so large that it would make the play time too long, then this is a problem. In the real world, it might take you a day or two to walk from one medieval village to the next, but when playing a game, a player does not want to spend that same time just to reach the next village.
The best quick rule I can think of is that game worlds should be: "the smallest possible, but no smaller".
The bigger the game world the more effort it is to make it interesting.
Having a huge, but empty (in terms of interesting gameplay) world is a waste of time.
The trick is to make the world _sound_ huge, in order to spark the exploration instinct, and to make it as small as possible.
Think Star Wars: The Empire stretches over millions of star systems (we are told), yet the story actually takes place on a handful of planets with one or two locations each.
Having a huge, but empty (in terms of interesting gameplay) world is a waste of time.
The trick is to make the world _sound_ huge, in order to spark the exploration instinct, and to make it as small as possible.
Think Star Wars: The Empire stretches over millions of star systems (we are told), yet the story actually takes place on a handful of planets with one or two locations each.
Quote:Original post by Rattenhirn
The bigger the game world the more effort it is to make it interesting.
Having a huge, but empty (in terms of interesting gameplay) world is a waste of time.
I agree with you there. One additional problem I'd also think a waste of time is having a massive world where the gameplay repeats wherever you go. Even if the gameplay is interesting in one area, it seems the size of the universe subtly implies variety. (In other words, you shouldn't see the same groups of enemies throughout the whole universe-- it doesn't make sense).
Quote:
The trick is to make the world _sound_ huge, in order to spark the exploration instinct, and to make it as small as possible.
Think Star Wars: The Empire stretches over millions of star systems (we are told), yet the story actually takes place on a handful of planets with one or two locations each.
In movies I agree, and in linear games this is possible. But what's a sandbox style game to do? Part of the magic of a game (especially one with an open world) is that you can look behind the waterfall or see what's beyond the next hill.
I think you make a valid point but I can't see using that approach unless I take away the player's freedom to travel and explore. At that point, it's a mission-based game, which isn't what I'm trying to do.
Quote:Original post by Kitt3n
As a player, I want to have an achievable goal (endgame).
What would your opinion be on achievable goals that leave the world free to explore and leave more emergent gameplay available? Does the game have to end in order for the goal to feel worthwhile?
For instance, I'll be totally cliche and assume that there's some big bad enemy you have to defeat. In service of this goal and to support less goal directed, sandbox gameplay, you have some sort of personal wealth/empire building (let's say trading, building up trade posts and finding trade goods for now).
Let's also say that when you defeat the main bad guy it makes this subsidiary gameplay easier. You're not being hounded by his minions, he's not blowing up your outposts, etc. etc.
When you defeat him, which works better:
1) Game acknowledges your victory and tells you you can keep playing, but it won't be "keeping score" (for lack of a better way of putting it)
2) Game ends ("and they lived happily ever after")
3) Victory is more organic-- the world changes and you get to cruise about experiencing how it's changed before you ultimately decide to quit
Quote:
The main point is to make sure you have quality everywhere - I prefer
a smaller world with high quality quests & staging, then a large empty
world, where the issue is to go from one place to the next.
I think it's a given that quality is preferable to lack of quality, but I'm not certain that large automatically implies empty. What if you have quality all over the place, yet the sheer size dwarfs what you can hope to experience in a reasonable amount of time. Would you defeat the game and pick it up later just to see what else there was to do?
What everyone has said so far is true. If it were me though, I'd probably try and see how big I could make it. I'd try to breath as much life into every corner of the universe as I could before the game became completly unplayable due to background processing. Just to see if I could do it. But that wouldn't necissarily leave me with an entertaining product (for lack of a better word) to share with anyone else.
I think it's something of a storyteller's problem. You have to give the audience every detail they want about what's going on immediatly around the central figure and hint about the other things going on in the larger picture. If one of those events spills over into the central figure's path then of course you reveal more info as needed. But otherwise, it's only when the audience takes the bait and expresses interest in those other events that you reveal more details about them.
Your challenge is preparing everything for the audience when they choose to go for the hook. And since you're doing a sandbox style game, you don't really have the luxury of using flashbacks for exposition. So, you'll need to find some other technique to give the player reasons to be interested in the other events.
This all assumes that empire activity is supposed to have a sigificant effect on what the player experiences while playing the game or for that matter is a part of the game at all.
I think it's something of a storyteller's problem. You have to give the audience every detail they want about what's going on immediatly around the central figure and hint about the other things going on in the larger picture. If one of those events spills over into the central figure's path then of course you reveal more info as needed. But otherwise, it's only when the audience takes the bait and expresses interest in those other events that you reveal more details about them.
Your challenge is preparing everything for the audience when they choose to go for the hook. And since you're doing a sandbox style game, you don't really have the luxury of using flashbacks for exposition. So, you'll need to find some other technique to give the player reasons to be interested in the other events.
This all assumes that empire activity is supposed to have a sigificant effect on what the player experiences while playing the game or for that matter is a part of the game at all.
Quote:Original post by Edtharan
- If the player would not be able to explore the whole space in a reasonable amount of time (eg: if the game take place in a singe city, then having a dozen other cities would not be necessary). The reason is that this costs development time and therefore takes away resources from the other features.
I've heard this argument before and I know it definitely applies to hand created content. But procedurally generated content seems somewhat different. When you take something like land feature generation or the arrangement of stars I don't think there's going to be a noticeable tradeoff between what you could have done by hand and how long it took you to perfect your procedural algorithms.
Now it might be a pipe dream but I'd like to build almost ALL player activity around procedural generation methods. This means missions come from autonomous AI activities, findable loot is generated from attributes and enemies increase in difficulty based on player relation to the center of the game world. It seems to be a system that can scale (although practice will prove what's playable).
The point I'm trying to make is that game size shouldn't be taking away from other areas. This wouldn't be a game with a set narrative revealed by a ladder of escalating missions.
Quote:
- If there are too many options or too large a space for the player to understand properly, then this leads to what is called "Analysis Paralysis", where the player is so overwhelmed by their options (what to choose or where to go) that they can not make meaningful decisions to proceed with the game.
Good point. A counter point would be "chunking," the idea that we group thing in order to manage overwhelming detail. I think there are certain design choices you can make to support chunking: For instance, constraining movement via fuel reduces even a massive universe of locations down to local decisions. Only being able to take a limited number of missions would be another way, as would the idea of limited availability of equipment by location.
Quote:
- If the size of the space (physical or conceptual) is so large that it would make the play time too long, then this is a problem. In the real world, it might take you a day or two to walk from one medieval village to the next, but when playing a game, a player does not want to spend that same time just to reach the next village.
I'm very concerned about this. I don't want to get into "walkplay," the current side effect of the industry seems to be experiencing where you get more territory but much of your time is spent simply navigating it (WOW, Halo, Gears of War, etc)
I can see allowing a kind of progression where you're restricted to moving slowly then break free of these restrictions as you advance (teleporting, for instance). But that doesn't address the paradoxical problem of "too many fun places to visit."
Quote:
The best quick rule I can think of is that game worlds should be: "the smallest possible, but no smaller".
Haha, well, that's good, if somewhat abstract advice. [smile] It will probably come down to testing, really. We may have passed the era of random for the sake of random (Elite, for instance) and I just haven't caught up yet.
If there is more to do and I enjoyed it the first time, i would definitely pick it back up and play more. On the flip side, I will also definitely still put it back down for whatever reasons I put it down for in the first place.
If I find it overwhelming, maybe I'll play for awhile but then put it down after it becomes to much to navigate through again.
I hardly think you could fill so much space with meaningful content though. A hundred planets with a hundred locations each is so much. And what if each location had a hundred buildings? and What if all that were only one of even a few, let alone a hundred galactic sectors?
Sure you can create procedural content for it. You can make procedural floorplans, and location layouts, and procedural planets and solar systems. You can fill rooms with art assets, but can you fill them with a story worth the players time?
You should have as many characters and settings as is necessary to tell your story and no more. You should spend time with each and allow the player to enjoy it fully, not sweep him from one locale to the next spinning about your universe like a whirling dervish.
If a place can offer something engaging to the player, it should be there, but if it is no more interesting than the last building, or the last town, or the last planet, or the last system, or the last sector, then it is not worth your players time, even if your code can make it instantly.
If I find it overwhelming, maybe I'll play for awhile but then put it down after it becomes to much to navigate through again.
I hardly think you could fill so much space with meaningful content though. A hundred planets with a hundred locations each is so much. And what if each location had a hundred buildings? and What if all that were only one of even a few, let alone a hundred galactic sectors?
Sure you can create procedural content for it. You can make procedural floorplans, and location layouts, and procedural planets and solar systems. You can fill rooms with art assets, but can you fill them with a story worth the players time?
You should have as many characters and settings as is necessary to tell your story and no more. You should spend time with each and allow the player to enjoy it fully, not sweep him from one locale to the next spinning about your universe like a whirling dervish.
If a place can offer something engaging to the player, it should be there, but if it is no more interesting than the last building, or the last town, or the last planet, or the last system, or the last sector, then it is not worth your players time, even if your code can make it instantly.
I'd say there are two sides of the coin.
Lots of people have covered side 1. If the world is too big, it takes too long to get from point A to point B. If the world is too big, some places seem repetitive. Some places are higher quality than others. Over all people start to get the feeling of arbitrary size. If I feel a 15% slice of the universe is repetitive, large for the sake of large, or otherwise disinteresting, then I'm going to wonder why the other 85% exists. If you get it closer to me seeing a 50% slice of the universe, yet feeling the same disinterest, then the world doesn't seem as bad, and I might feel motivated to see if the other 50% has something better I was missing.
Side 2 is that sometimes points of side 1 don't matter. I remember games like EVNova and WingCommander Privateer. They had "end goals" as little stories you could follow. But overall they were just big sandbox games. Interesting "quality" parts were spaced out between usless crappy parts. But having the quality spots seperated by junk made the exploration aspect more rewarding. The vast amount of space allowed for gradual changes in who you ran into and what you could do. The amount of time to get from point A to point B, combined with your fuel limit made for challenges like "how many missions can i pick up and complete in one go?"
As long as the size of the world in relation to the spacing of quality places and resources is good. The total size of the universe doesn't matter as much.
If I can enjoy the game while visiting 15% of the world, then that 15% could be 5% or 1% and it wouldn't make any difference. I'd just feel "oh, if I had more time, I bet there is something cool out there for me to find.".
You could take the EV Nova route. There are several main story quests. One for each faction. You can't complete them all at once, so it leaves you more room to explore and find the different stories. This could be turned into something more organic, like just siding in a war between any two of the random factions. Siding with faction A could cut you off from area B, thus making replay more interesting if you can insure that truely interesting areas are cut off no matter what side you choose (and even closed areas when you don't pick any side).
Lots of people have covered side 1. If the world is too big, it takes too long to get from point A to point B. If the world is too big, some places seem repetitive. Some places are higher quality than others. Over all people start to get the feeling of arbitrary size. If I feel a 15% slice of the universe is repetitive, large for the sake of large, or otherwise disinteresting, then I'm going to wonder why the other 85% exists. If you get it closer to me seeing a 50% slice of the universe, yet feeling the same disinterest, then the world doesn't seem as bad, and I might feel motivated to see if the other 50% has something better I was missing.
Side 2 is that sometimes points of side 1 don't matter. I remember games like EVNova and WingCommander Privateer. They had "end goals" as little stories you could follow. But overall they were just big sandbox games. Interesting "quality" parts were spaced out between usless crappy parts. But having the quality spots seperated by junk made the exploration aspect more rewarding. The vast amount of space allowed for gradual changes in who you ran into and what you could do. The amount of time to get from point A to point B, combined with your fuel limit made for challenges like "how many missions can i pick up and complete in one go?"
As long as the size of the world in relation to the spacing of quality places and resources is good. The total size of the universe doesn't matter as much.
If I can enjoy the game while visiting 15% of the world, then that 15% could be 5% or 1% and it wouldn't make any difference. I'd just feel "oh, if I had more time, I bet there is something cool out there for me to find.".
Quote:
What would your opinion be on achievable goals that leave the world free to explore and leave more emergent gameplay available? Does the game have to end in order for the goal to feel worthwhile?
For instance, I'll be totally cliche and assume that there's some big bad enemy you have to defeat. In service of this goal and to support less goal directed, sandbox gameplay, you have some sort of personal wealth/empire building (let's say trading, building up trade posts and finding trade goods for now).
Let's also say that when you defeat the main bad guy it makes this subsidiary gameplay easier. You're not being hounded by his minions, he's not blowing up your outposts, etc. etc.
When you defeat him, which works better:
1) Game acknowledges your victory and tells you you can keep playing, but it won't be "keeping score" (for lack of a better way of putting it)
2) Game ends ("and they lived happily ever after")
3) Victory is more organic-- the world changes and you get to cruise about experiencing how it's changed before you ultimately decide to quit
You could take the EV Nova route. There are several main story quests. One for each faction. You can't complete them all at once, so it leaves you more room to explore and find the different stories. This could be turned into something more organic, like just siding in a war between any two of the random factions. Siding with faction A could cut you off from area B, thus making replay more interesting if you can insure that truely interesting areas are cut off no matter what side you choose (and even closed areas when you don't pick any side).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
