I have been playing the Legend of Zelda for the first time and it definitely has the sense of being a world, so much that it is downright inspiring. There is almost no story and almost no social interaction. When I started playing, I too wanted to figure our why it felt like a world. I came up with these points, which are all in your first post:
* Non-linear goals
* locations that can be traveled to in a mostly arbitrary order. There are places that you can't get to with your initial equipment but it doesn't feel contrived
* costs to travel. When I first started out the monsters were hard. As I improve my skill as a player and my character's equipment and hearts it becomes easier to travel around.
The other parts: social interactions and cause/effect make a world richer but are not essential. In some ways they can detract from it, because social interactions often lead to linear stories, and pre-scripted stories are kind of the opposite of the feel of a world.
I have a fourth point which I don't think is essential but leads to a stronger sense of it being a world: user generated maps, I don't mean in-game maps either. I mean the kind that you make with a sheet of paper and some markers or a pen so that you can find your way around in the game. I am making a Zelda map as I go so that I can find places back. I refer to it constantly while I play. When I played Everquest I remember that there were map sites. Older PC games often involved wandering around in dungeons of rooms that were essentially identical and so people made maps of them. I think that the ability to get lost makes the world seem much, much, bigger. So in someways making a world too detailed can hurt, because if worlds are too detailed it is hard to get lost. Detailed worlds have a "made feel" which makes them feel like levels.
What Creates A World?
The key word I think is consistency. The rules that govern the world must apply to player entities and non-player entities equally, at all times, without exception, regardless of whether the player is observing or not. Also, there must be nothing in the game that is not a subject to or a consequence of the rules - no silly plots and cutscenes and dialogue and quests and back story that use any _word_ that the game world doesn't fully understand.
Game worlds must perforce be highly abstract, and the level of abstraction must be consistent throughout. One should refrain from adding detail unless willing to add details with the same "zoom" level everywhere else in the game.
A decision to add such an insane level of detail as a 3D environment virtually guarantees the result will not be a world - all the other elements of the game cannot possibly keep up and the result is a stage with props on it.
Quote:He stands at the Citadel of Shimeril, looking Norhtwest to the Plains of Blood.
It is dawn and Shimeril is slightly tired. The Ice Fear is very mild. Shimeril is very bold.
The Lord of Shimeril commands one thousand warriors and eight hundred riders. His warriors are invigorated. His riders are invigorated.
Game worlds must perforce be highly abstract, and the level of abstraction must be consistent throughout. One should refrain from adding detail unless willing to add details with the same "zoom" level everywhere else in the game.
A decision to add such an insane level of detail as a 3D environment virtually guarantees the result will not be a world - all the other elements of the game cannot possibly keep up and the result is a stage with props on it.
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
How important do you think it is to have the following:
- Non-linear goals (you can make up your own objectives)?
- Freedom of movement / free roaming ability?
- Lots of different locations which act as points of challenge which can be approached in arbitrary order?
- Limits / costs to travel (e.g., no "fast travel" because the "world" must not be experienced as a bunch of terrain pieces or it becomes a level)?
- A sense of social structure which can be changed / impacted?
- Actors / agents engaging in behaviors (fighting, plotting against each other, fleeing danger, etc.) the player can exploit / affect?
- Gameplay that maps to social situations, such as the ability to steal, consequences for crimes, a reputation that can be improved or harmed, etc.?
- The ability to affect the world in meaningful ways, such as removing a force or character from the game and seeing the results play out?
- The ability to tackle challenges indirectly or through a combination of abilities (as opposed to having to kill your way through everything)
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important
1.) Non-linear goals (you can make up your own objectives) 10
I think this is one of the best features any designer can include in their design. This allows individuals, and groups of people who RP together, to inject their own agenda or storyline into their new environment. This is the #1 feature our Writer's Guild looked for way back when we jumped from message board RP to games.
2.) Freedom of Movement / Free roaming ability 10
Actually I believe the rating of this feature should be off the scale. Without this, can there really be any true exploration or adventure?
3.) Lots of different locations....
I didn't rate this because I think much depends on the type of game you're designing. It is supposed to be a massive world to explore, or a dark dank cave that is the entirety of the game?
4.) Limits/Costs to travel (no fast travel...) 8
I know a lot of people feel it's an inconvenience, but I'm kind of a fan. I believe it does add a sense of just how expansive the world is. Not to mention the other possibilities it opens up. In one game I played, it was necessary to take a 45 minute ship ride to get to one of the outer islands. During that time players could fish, hang out and drink at the on-board tavern, and sometimes Pirates attacked and boarded your ship. Overall I'm a bigger fan of the no fast travel than portals, though insta-travel does have its place.
5.) A sense of social structure which can be changed, impacted.
This seemed to be the same as #8.
6.) Actors/Agents...
I apologize, I'm not quite getting what you mean, could you please explain in a little more detail?
7.) Gameplay that maps to social situations... ability to steal.... 9
I love games that allow players the freedom to engage in a variety of social situations with other players, and, afford them the means to implement their own consequential remedies for acts such as stealing, murder or grave-robbing for example. As for reputation, I think it is highly underrated; has a ton of potential; and personally, I have included it as part of my own game design.
8.) The ability to affect the world in a meaningful way... 9
I wish this was prevalent in more games. To me, this feature gives life to the game. It shows players that the world is changing, progressing, and that their actions may affect the events and history of the world they live in. e.g. On such-n-such a day, these characters banded together to build a bridge across an impasse and attacked..., stuff like that.
It would also be nice to see the actual game world change sometimes. Tornado takes out a castle, or levels the town market.
9.) The ability to tackle challenges indirectly or through a combination of abilities (as opposed to having to kill your way through everything) 10
Yes, why must we always be forced to poke the dragon in the eye with a sharp stick every time... why not GO AROUND just for a change of pace. Or as you say, a combination, perhaps of attributes/skills/in-game objects. Or maybe joining forces with another player.. e.g. Can't push the boulder out of the way by yourself, but could with the aid of another player's strength.
Re: Wavinator
I always assume that all of your posts correspond to one same game that you are designing, which I always thought to be a single player game.
I always assume that all of your posts correspond to one same game that you are designing, which I always thought to be a single player game.
To create a world, it just has to be seamless i.e. you can walk from one place to another, no loading screens followed by an appearance in a new random place.
It's a good idea to keep the world with "stuff" close together, or else it becomes segmented and areas get created. So a smooth transition and game play that moves you between areas, not just complete the whole of this snowy area and move on to a desert one. Spend some of the missions in one area then another, force movement.
To make it real, as previous posters have said you need movement and player independent change.
This could be seasons, day/night, storms, NPC battles with a victory. Consequences of NPC action.
Levels are segmented and forced, worlds have less linear play, worlds have multiple options. You can decide what missions to do in worlds, linear play (none world) forces sections to be completed, if not completed there is no progression.
Just my 2 cents.
PureBlackSin
It's a good idea to keep the world with "stuff" close together, or else it becomes segmented and areas get created. So a smooth transition and game play that moves you between areas, not just complete the whole of this snowy area and move on to a desert one. Spend some of the missions in one area then another, force movement.
To make it real, as previous posters have said you need movement and player independent change.
This could be seasons, day/night, storms, NPC battles with a victory. Consequences of NPC action.
Levels are segmented and forced, worlds have less linear play, worlds have multiple options. You can decide what missions to do in worlds, linear play (none world) forces sections to be completed, if not completed there is no progression.
Just my 2 cents.
PureBlackSin
Re: Seamlessness
Pretty messed up fundamental questions:
If you create a seamless white empty space and let the player's avatar walk in it, does the environment feel like a world?
Does it not feel like a world because it has nothing?
Or does it feel like a world which has nothing in it?
What is the difference between a world, a planet, and an environment?
When you consider Mars in real life, most people would call it a planet, but not a world. Why not? What is the difference? Similarly, when you look at a forest, you are more likely to say that it is an environment than a world. Why?
I think that when you call something a world, there is an implication of entities and a web of interactions among them that is highly confined in the environment.
Which of the following feel like a world?
o Empty continuous space with absolutely nothing
o A planet with no life and no climate
o A planet with no life but has a climate or volcanic movements
o A planet with life that constantly needs supplies from outside the planet
o A planet with life that needs no supplies from the outside
o A planet with life that evolved from the planet itself
o A planet with cooperative civilizations
o A planet with civilizations in conflict
o A planet with no life, but has relics of civilizations
o A closed aquarium: Ecosphere
I don't think the observer needs to be allowed to do anything to sense that the environment is a world. So there is something fundamental about what the environment has that cues us that the environment is a world.
When the player gets to control an avatar in the environment, the game mechanics can serve to break the impression that there is a world. But the player's impression that the environment is a world has already formed before the player starts to do anything.
Things in game that act against the impression of the world
- Where less is better than more
One thing that acts against the impression is a shopkeeper that always stands there. In an attempt to make it more real, a designer might try to implement a routine so that the shopkeeper goes to sleep at night. Once that is implemented, the player might notice that the items the shopkeeper has comes from nowhere. There is no end to trying to make the world real if you keep giving the player freedom. However, with a different context, there is a easier way to handle shopping without adding complexity.
Say the game takes place in modern world, the player avatar only buys stuff online (due to the context of the character design). The merchandise arrives in the mail. Since the player does not see the shopkeeper, the player has no basis to complain that about the shopkeeper. The player's impression that the game world seems real remains. The impression remains by letting the player see less and by reducing the player's freedom so that the player cannot encounter the discrepancies.
For a complete illusion the context would have to make sense: that for a legitimate reason, going to a shop and buy the item is not an option. Not that the game designer retricts the player from doing so, but that such an option would not be applicable.
[Edited by - Wai on July 11, 2010 6:50:56 PM]
Quote:PureBlackSin:
To create a world, it just has to be seamless i.e. you can walk from one place to another, no loading screens followed by an appearance in a new random place.
Pretty messed up fundamental questions:
If you create a seamless white empty space and let the player's avatar walk in it, does the environment feel like a world?
Does it not feel like a world because it has nothing?
Or does it feel like a world which has nothing in it?
What is the difference between a world, a planet, and an environment?
When you consider Mars in real life, most people would call it a planet, but not a world. Why not? What is the difference? Similarly, when you look at a forest, you are more likely to say that it is an environment than a world. Why?
I think that when you call something a world, there is an implication of entities and a web of interactions among them that is highly confined in the environment.
Which of the following feel like a world?
o Empty continuous space with absolutely nothing
o A planet with no life and no climate
o A planet with no life but has a climate or volcanic movements
o A planet with life that constantly needs supplies from outside the planet
o A planet with life that needs no supplies from the outside
o A planet with life that evolved from the planet itself
o A planet with cooperative civilizations
o A planet with civilizations in conflict
o A planet with no life, but has relics of civilizations
o A closed aquarium: Ecosphere
I don't think the observer needs to be allowed to do anything to sense that the environment is a world. So there is something fundamental about what the environment has that cues us that the environment is a world.
When the player gets to control an avatar in the environment, the game mechanics can serve to break the impression that there is a world. But the player's impression that the environment is a world has already formed before the player starts to do anything.
Things in game that act against the impression of the world
- Where less is better than more
Quote:Wavinator:
I've played in many pretty environments, some with very expansive, realistic terrain and seen many games with extensive story and background-- but they don't give me the sense that the game environment is a world. It often feels like just another level.
One thing that acts against the impression is a shopkeeper that always stands there. In an attempt to make it more real, a designer might try to implement a routine so that the shopkeeper goes to sleep at night. Once that is implemented, the player might notice that the items the shopkeeper has comes from nowhere. There is no end to trying to make the world real if you keep giving the player freedom. However, with a different context, there is a easier way to handle shopping without adding complexity.
Say the game takes place in modern world, the player avatar only buys stuff online (due to the context of the character design). The merchandise arrives in the mail. Since the player does not see the shopkeeper, the player has no basis to complain that about the shopkeeper. The player's impression that the game world seems real remains. The impression remains by letting the player see less and by reducing the player's freedom so that the player cannot encounter the discrepancies.
For a complete illusion the context would have to make sense: that for a legitimate reason, going to a shop and buy the item is not an option. Not that the game designer retricts the player from doing so, but that such an option would not be applicable.
[Edited by - Wai on July 11, 2010 6:50:56 PM]
Having NPCs with a complex AI routine that emulates daily life is not sufficient IMO. As much as I was impressed by what they were able to do in Fable and wish that more developers put that much thought into their games, to me the majority of Fable was a bunch of anonymous, generic levels.
I think one of the major goals in world-building is to create a sense in the player that the geography, history, and "logic" of the world exists on its own merits, not solely as the setting for the player to fight and quest.
For example, lots of games have ruins of a deceased civilization. And who can blame them? Ruins look cool. But if there is no historical context or geographic logic offered to the player for why the ruins exist and/or exist where they do, then they're just a cool background to move around against.
*The first step IMO, is to have NPCs refer to locations and features in a way that makes it clear to the player that the inhabitants of the world are aware of them and consider them part of their world -- that they don't just exist to the player, they exist to the people he or she interacts with also.
*The first step is probably not sufficient in and of itself. To take it a step further, the various locations and features of the world must appear to mean something to the inhabitants beyond what they mean to the player. The player doesn't live in that world, so to him a river is an obstacle to cross and a mountain is something to climb to get to the Magic Sword of Pwnage. But to the NPCs a mountain might be the "mother" that protects their town. A town might receive notoriety and respect from those far away because the ruins of a great library are there. When NPCs acknowledge the existence of other parts of the game world, they reinforce the idea that while the maps may be separate, they are part of a single whole.
*To pick up on that last point. Adventures and RPGs rarely take place over an entire world (though some MMOs are there, or come close). Acknowledging different parts of the game world outside of the scope of the game and its story can be a helpful world-building tool. NPCs that have traveled or relocated to or from other parts of the world help reinforce the interconnectiveness: the town, or the kingdom, or whatever, don't exist by themselves. For example: the town blacksmith is not just an anonymous figure who exists for the purpose of selling weapons and armor to the player. He's a former soldier from a far away land that deserted the army when his people warred with the land in which the game takes place. Because he's form the land of the enemy, he's distrusted or looked down upon by the people in his town, though they respect his work.
I think one of the major goals in world-building is to create a sense in the player that the geography, history, and "logic" of the world exists on its own merits, not solely as the setting for the player to fight and quest.
For example, lots of games have ruins of a deceased civilization. And who can blame them? Ruins look cool. But if there is no historical context or geographic logic offered to the player for why the ruins exist and/or exist where they do, then they're just a cool background to move around against.
*The first step IMO, is to have NPCs refer to locations and features in a way that makes it clear to the player that the inhabitants of the world are aware of them and consider them part of their world -- that they don't just exist to the player, they exist to the people he or she interacts with also.
*The first step is probably not sufficient in and of itself. To take it a step further, the various locations and features of the world must appear to mean something to the inhabitants beyond what they mean to the player. The player doesn't live in that world, so to him a river is an obstacle to cross and a mountain is something to climb to get to the Magic Sword of Pwnage. But to the NPCs a mountain might be the "mother" that protects their town. A town might receive notoriety and respect from those far away because the ruins of a great library are there. When NPCs acknowledge the existence of other parts of the game world, they reinforce the idea that while the maps may be separate, they are part of a single whole.
*To pick up on that last point. Adventures and RPGs rarely take place over an entire world (though some MMOs are there, or come close). Acknowledging different parts of the game world outside of the scope of the game and its story can be a helpful world-building tool. NPCs that have traveled or relocated to or from other parts of the world help reinforce the interconnectiveness: the town, or the kingdom, or whatever, don't exist by themselves. For example: the town blacksmith is not just an anonymous figure who exists for the purpose of selling weapons and armor to the player. He's a former soldier from a far away land that deserted the army when his people warred with the land in which the game takes place. Because he's form the land of the enemy, he's distrusted or looked down upon by the people in his town, though they respect his work.
Talking in general and not about details:
You have to let the player explore the world and give him a huge variety of interactions, but don't give him the feeling of "everything" is here for you to interact, and there is no other reason.
I think players want to have a story based context of their characters existence, but they want to create their own little story / character inside of this context.
So you have to find the balance between letting the world interact with the player and letting the world change no matter what the player is doing.
Very good approach *thumbs up* +1
You have to let the player explore the world and give him a huge variety of interactions, but don't give him the feeling of "everything" is here for you to interact, and there is no other reason.
I think players want to have a story based context of their characters existence, but they want to create their own little story / character inside of this context.
So you have to find the balance between letting the world interact with the player and letting the world change no matter what the player is doing.
Quote:
*The first step IMO, is to have NPCs refer to locations and features in a way that makes it clear to the player that the inhabitants of the world are aware of them and consider them part of their world -- that they don't just exist to the player, they exist to the people he or she interacts with also.
*The first step is probably not sufficient in and of itself. To take it a step further, the various locations and features of the world must appear to mean something to the inhabitants beyond what they mean to the player. The player doesn't live in that world, so to him a river is an obstacle to cross and a mountain is something to climb to get to the Magic Sword of Pwnage. But to the NPCs a mountain might be the "mother" that protects their town. A town might receive notoriety and respect from those far away because the ruins of a great library are there. When NPCs acknowledge the existence of other parts of the game world, they reinforce the idea that while the maps may be separate, they are part of a single whole.
*To pick up on that last point. Adventures and RPGs rarely take place over an entire world (though some MMOs are there, or come close). Acknowledging different parts of the game world outside of the scope of the game and its story can be a helpful world-building tool. NPCs that have traveled or relocated to or from other parts of the world help reinforce the interconnectiveness: the town, or the kingdom, or whatever, don't exist by themselves. For example: the town blacksmith is not just an anonymous figure who exists for the purpose of selling weapons and armor to the player. He's a former soldier from a far away land that deserted the army when his people warred with the land in which the game takes place. Because he's form the land of the enemy, he's distrusted or looked down upon by the people in his town, though they respect his work.
Very good approach *thumbs up* +1
A world requires an expansive place with a detailed environment. I don't think interaction is a necessity of this: an immersive world is a different beast altogether. That is, immersion is a different concept than "world".
A game set in a single town where each townsperson interacts with the other townsfolk would not be a world. Nor would a dungeon filled with enemies with brilliant AI.
Now when I say "detailed environment" I mean that this environment can either be realized through in-game assets such as terrain and models and the like, or through backstory, or both. A game set in a single town can still feel like part of a world if there's sufficient backstory about the setting. Or, if the town/city is Earth-like or set on Earth than it being a part of a world is implied.
So really I think expansive environments with freedom of movement are key to feeling like you're in a world. Oblivion, GTA, Red Dead, etc.
A game set in a single town where each townsperson interacts with the other townsfolk would not be a world. Nor would a dungeon filled with enemies with brilliant AI.
Now when I say "detailed environment" I mean that this environment can either be realized through in-game assets such as terrain and models and the like, or through backstory, or both. A game set in a single town can still feel like part of a world if there's sufficient backstory about the setting. Or, if the town/city is Earth-like or set on Earth than it being a part of a world is implied.
So really I think expansive environments with freedom of movement are key to feeling like you're in a world. Oblivion, GTA, Red Dead, etc.
Why don't let the players partially build such a world?
Give them assets and simple ingame tools.
Would be a nice experiment.
Give them assets and simple ingame tools.
Would be a nice experiment.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
