A Balanced World

[Empire²]

Recently, I was having thoughts about RPGs and how they handle their worlds differently and to what effect. I then realised that this is a perfect opportunity for a discussion about an upcoming RPG that is still a mystery in many ways- Sui Generis.

When you look at the plethora of (fantasy) RPGs out for sale today in retail and on digital platforms, there's a lot of differences. Terms like "open world" and "exploration" get thrown about a lot in flashy headlines, while their appearance in the game may be weaker than advertised.

The Witcher 2: Assassins Of Kings handled Open World very well. While it was fully story driven, and very linear in some respects, there was no forcing progress upon the player unless you were curious about the story. You were free to explore every area to your heart's content, and as soon as you were done exploring and finished the main questline for that area, they drop you in the next one, where you get to do it all over again. This is, in my opinion, a perfect concept for a game with a world that is too large and expansive in itfor the gameplay to support full exploration.

Fable handles things a little bit differently. The world is open for full exploration, but the roads to specific areas are blocked to prevent you from leaping halfway through the story. For the remainder of time, the areas are only divided by loading screens, with one or two ones you cannot return to in response to story events (The Tattered Spire, to those who played Fable I and II). There are a lot of sidequests that require you to travel long distances to small farms and settlements, that really make the world feel lively. Collectibles are also spread throughout the areas to be found by the player, as well as properties for them to buy. There are also jobs available in every town, like blacksmithing, woodchopping and playing music. Another great example of a story driven RPG with open world elements.

My last example is Mount & Blade: Warband. While the Mount & Blade franchise is one that is spoken of quite often here on the forums, its premise is very different to that of Sui Generis. Where SG is an action-(c)rpg in it's purest form, Mount & Blade is like a fusion between Dynasty Warriors, Civilisation 5 and the Total War franchise. With no story to drive the player forward, everything is left in your hands. You can go where you wish and do what you will, and feel like you're in a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. With the small addition of a political and relation system and a wide arrange of different quests,you don't feel too disconnected when you win a battle and get dropped back into a Total War style map. The conquest of the world is completely left up to you, from choosing whether you join an existing faction or create one yourself, to rallying your troops and riding anywhere you'd like to expand your borders. There are no restricted areas, only ones you'd rather not find yourself strolling through without an army to back you up. For a game that has no true exploration, Warband handles its world very well, giving the player no illusions as to what they will find on their travels.


If there are any games you'd like to reflect upon, please do so. I feel it's a very interesting discussion and would love to hear other views on it.

Also, post your hopes and wishes about the Sui Generis world here. What do you expect the world to feel like when traversing the wilderness or the backalleys of a great capital, and how far do you hope the interaction with this world will go?

 

[fluffydino2000]

Well an obvious style to address is that of the TES games. A truly open world but one that often lacks in depth. There are few boundaries and the direction of the game is decided by the player. It doesn't really have enough content and is never dynamic enough to allow for a truly open world experience as you are left thinking "I may as well do what they want me to because there isn't much else".

Personally, I hope for a TES styled open world for SG but one in which the dynamic AI will never leave you with the inability to make your own story or do what you want.

 

[Empire²]

Ah yes, definitely one to be noted. As you said though, it lacks player input as far as creating your own legacy inside the universe goes. Quests felt a little cut out for me, with the impact you have on the world feeling static and predetermined. I guess that is the premise of most of the TES games, as lame as that may sound. You're always some sort of prophesied hero or champion, with your fate cut out for you no matter what. The thing I liked most about Skyrim is how you could become the leader of a lot of different factions, like the Mages' College, the Thieves Guild, the Dark Brotherhood. However, it would be nice to feel like more of a soldier or a unit for once, rather than working your way up through coincidence until they arbitrarily decide you are most fit to lead a faction they have been a part of for years.

 

[Zervostyrd]

Yes the TES and Bethesda made/sponsored Fallout games are in my mind great franchises, but it always lacks in depth and while I can spend 100s of hours playing the games over and over again, I always feel like the only way I can make my experience different from the last is with mods and doing the quests in different orders...

I'm a hoarder in these games, I hoard and hoard, but never felt I got anything out from it, until Skyrim where I got a mod that allowed me to hire a lot of mercenaries (togheter with a "unlimited followers mod".) and I set out to "conquor" Tamriel (or well Skyrim) but again, NPCs killed it for me.... They don't give me the respect I deserve when I march into town with a band of 30 mercenaries equiped with uniform armor (except for my "officers" which got better gear, still uniform, and me off course, having the most menacing looking armor of all!)

Still I get insulted "Ever been to the cloud district? of course not, you're not important enough!" Things like that... and of course the repetiveness, I may have a few choices, but in the best case scenario it's only A), B) or C)... I'd like the whole alphabet (+åäö)

Gosh I ramble somtimes...

 

[Empire²]

Still I get insulted "Ever been to the cloud district? of course not, you're not important enough!"

That is exactly what I was thinking of. Another great example is:

"Hey, I'm the Archmage of the Mages' College in Winterhold, the Riften Thieves Guild Master, leader of the Dark Brotherhood Family in Skyrim, Harbinger of the Companions and the last of the Dragonborn."

"Let me guess, someone stole your sweetroll?"


I understand it's not an issue for everyone, but for me it's almost rage inducing. The fact that guard dialogue rarely changes, not to mention their behaviour, is just a wasted opportunity.


I cross my fingers that in Sui Generis, there are many ways I can influence an AI character's opinion of me in many different ways. Persuasion, intimidation, bribing, charming, threatening and more.

 

[Komuflage]

The balance between a open world and a meaningful world with depth, is something I've never seen done 'right' in a single - coop game and I can only imagine how hard it can be.
The biggest reason why I do not like Skyrim is just because the balance is to of.
The world is quite big, and you can explore it "however" you want. But there really is no depth, you never really fell connected to the world at all.

To me, the witcher 2 was a bit to linear. even if you could explore the zones pretty much however you wanted to, the zones them self was very small, hence the scale, and the felling of being in a big world was lost.

Some older games like Baldur's gate 2 was very good at giving you the illusion that the world was big, there were a lot of restrictions do to the fact that the technology wasn't as advanced back then. Hence the world was cut down in smaller sections (Kind of how The Witcher 2 is) however, there were quite a lot of them, and they were filled with content, many towns felt more alive than towns in today's games, so the game felt huge, even if they really wasn't.

One game that is truly massive in it's scale is Eve.
There is about 5k star systems in known space + another 2,5k in wormhole space (Won't go into detail) So a total of around 7,5k star systems. In every system there can be between one to a dozen stations, a few planets and asteroid fields etc.
There is ofc very little depth to the world itself. However, since it's a MMO, and every player is on the same server. The players provide the depth to the world.

So while most games balance Scale/depth, eve gets (imo) the best of both. You get scale like no other. (Took a guy on the forum about 7months to visit all 5k systems in known space) And with around 50k+ players online in the same world, and with almost no restrictions in what you can do (Kill whoever you want, steal whatever you want, scam whoever you want etc (You won't get banned for tricking/scamming other players)) except the limitations of you and your character, you get more depth than any other game I personally ever played, it's truly Massive.



Regarding Sui Generis.
The world itself is supposed to be quite small. (Depending on what you compare it to) But It's also supposed to be quite content heavy. If they can make it fell the same size as Baldur's gate, and provide about the same amount of content, then I'll be truly happy.

 

[Zervostyrd]

I cross my fingers that in Sui Generis, there are many ways I can influence an AI character's opinion of me in many different ways. Persuasion, intimidation, bribing, charming, threatening and more.

Yes, IMO that is more important for me, than having a big world with lots of stuff in it, (not that I pass though) I really want my actions to have meaning, another thing the TES games fall short off in some cases... Like in Oblivion, where Kvatch was ruined. In the vanilla state the suvivors were sitting outside the walls in their little tents even if it passed years! (I did bad things and spent 5 years in prison ) when I got out, I went directly to Kvatch, only to find the people there saying;

"We will rebuild one day"
The overseer Dictator in me just wanted to scream "GET TO WORK THEN!!! LIKE... TODAY!!".
(there were other quests though were some settlers did "build" their house in a period of a few days after you've completed a quest, thus making me even more annoyed over the kvatch thingie)

Another example of the incompetent AI was in Fallout New Vegas. Being the hero in shiny armor, I killed soooo many of Caesars legion, litteraly hundreds of them in my last play through. And I took my sweet time getting to the stage where I get pardoned by Caesar, and until then I as said picked of half the legions strenght or something like that... Anyway, after being pardoned I felt Like I should behave for a time so I started to hang around the legion from time to time, and what do I get to hear? "I know your kind. You die easily enough."

Really? I've slaughtered half the legion single handed, fromt the lowliest recruit to the most senior of his Praetorians. I've all but destroyed a whole tribe aspiring for inclusion in the legion. And yet I die "easily enough"??

 

[Empire²]

I just had a sudden streak of discussion ideas that would fit in well here.

The first topic has to do with shallowness in RPGs. There are some games (and this is the worst for Open World RPGs) that are incredibly empty. In a game like Skyrim, the world is absolutely massive, but at least it's filled with places to explore and many random encounters and events you can spot or get thrown into. Some games open up with a stellar prologue that is incredibly compelling and gets you excited for the game to 'unfold', so to speak, but when they do, you realise how empty it is. There's too many empty places in the world, and any unique landmarks that can be found (ruins, bridges, shrines etc) offer nothing but a sense of direction to anyone who happens to pass by. Quests, and more importantly, characters, can only be found in a small number of settlements, spread out all over the map. This makes travelling inevitable, and makes the player lose all sense of immersion when they wonder whether or not they passed this clearing a few minutes ago.

We know that in Sui Generis, the map will not be as large in size as it was in Skyrim, but rather a small map. This works well, considering there's not been an awful lot of information about different kinds of travel. Especially in a game without fast travel, you want certain areas to be relatively close for players to explore so the reward of reaching the area isn't nullified by the hours you spent sprinting through the woods. Not all landmarks in the world need to have a great significance to them in terms of story or player interaction. They could act as subconscious road signs when travelling, or for great landmarks in say something like a treasure hunt. I hope there are plenty of NPCs in an area to make a crowd that can be interacted with in some way.

Imagine you've heard farmers in the outskirts of a city talk about the execution of a well-known criminal that would take place that day. Interested in making this criminal join your ranks of mercenaries or cutthroats, you enter the city with a few trusty companions. As you approach the marketplace, you see a crowd gathered in front of a raised wooden platform. On the platform were a handful of guards, the commander of the city guard, an executioner standing next to a lever and a man, bound and strung to the gallows.

You do not hesitate, and blend in with the crowd while signaling one of your followers to take a position that might give you a tactical advantage in battle. As the commander rattles on and on about the crimes this man has commited, you signal the distant follower, who has been looking over his shoulder as he was sitting at a wooden table on the roof terrace of an inn. He stands up and takes his bow, notches an arrow, draws and looses. Gargling, the executioner collapses on the wooden platform, the wooden shaft of an arrow sticking out of the back of his neck.

In this moment of confusion, you and your remaining followers draw your weapons and approach the platform, pushing your way through the crowd. At this point, you have caught the attention of the commander and his guardsmen, who also draw their weapons and start surrounding you. They circle around you and your companions, as an arrow strikes every now and then, either injuring or killing the guards where they stand.

At this point, you would usually end up fighting the guards and commander, either losing and dying/being captured or defeating your adversaries and freeing the man, who then proceeds to join your cause. As the fight begins, the crowd disperses into the many alleyways of the town. More guards will get alarmed and join the fight on the other side, or, in some rare occasions, peasants will take your side. This all depends on your relation with the town, its people, your general reputation and honor and the choices you make yourself.

Peasants would be armed with forks, wooden clubs and staffs, and storm the guards, completely overpowering them. They would die or be knocked unconscious if defeated themselves, or flee when you are. If victorious, some would stay with you, giving you the option of recruiting them to your faction. The position of commander would be taken up by someone else if his predecessor dies, but if knocked out, the commander will hold a grudge against the player, which, if significant enough, may cause him to take up arms against them, sending patrols of guards after them in cities or even end up battling it out personally.


I had another idea, but I suppose I won't make this post even more elaborate-looking than it already is

 

[cosmo bozo]

"Hey, I'm the Archmage of the Mages' College in Winterhold, the Riften Thieves Guild Master, leader of the Dark Brotherhood Family in Skyrim, Harbinger of the Companions and the last of the Dragonborn."

What annoyed me was that, not only was it utterly daft that you could get to the top in every guild in a few days, but even when you were the boss, it was still you that they gave all the jobs to. Being the boss was no different to being a raw recruit.

 

[Zervostyrd]

@cosmo bozo; Yeah, I agree.. But on the other hand I wouldn't like to be too much out of the loop either. The best way to do this would be if one was given a few sets of options like,

"NewbZz you can't handle this job, I go myself! // signed; the ultimate arrogance" (you keep all the cash for the job)

"Send some recruits so that they may gather some experience" (and this would be like a 50-50 chance of succesfull mission + the recruits would get a bit experience. Small bonus if unsuccesfull, bigger if succesfull.)

"Send the elite" (75-90% chance of succes and they again earn some form of experience or gear)

"I'll lead the elite" or "I'll lead the recruits" (You go on the job with a phalanx of your most trusted troops or your recruits and when completing the mission, the troops get rewards as in above options)

 

[malfunction]

Skyrim is wonky as balls, and any semblance of dynamic content is linear, faked, or totally coincidental. Very rarely has anything happened in that game which I've found to be real "wow" moments. I think a huge failing of the game, besides just a lack of depth, is actually a byproduct of the "dynamicism" of the world: the monsters level with you. It basically means there's no real danger to going anywhere and provides a totally dull and monochromatic experience throughout the game. Couple this with the lack of meaning of any actions beyond pre-scripted quests, and you basically feel like a drifter through a world.

Mount and Blade, on the other hand, is a step in the right direction. Even the very simple slider based system of having an individual relation to every lord and a relation to every faction (from -100 to +100) gives a huge amount of depth to the system. There have been moments where I've made good friends with a lord, only to have our two factions go to war, and if met on the field of battle I can plead for him to leave without a fight. And likewise there have been moments where I get on the bad side of a feisty and temperamental lord who, even in a time of peace, will try to kill me on the spot.

Of course, the real key to M&B's depth is the fact that it's not just you playing a part in the system. In fact, every lord has a relation to every other lord, and every lord has an individual temperament and personality (renown, honor, controversy, whether they are kind, noble, cruel, opportunistic, etc). All of these factors determine a huge amount of how the game plays out. It decides what quests you get, whether you get a quest, how the internal politics of a faction play out, the wealth of a faction, how likely they are to go to war, how likely it is a dissent or revolt will occur, whether a lord will receive a fief, how large their armies will be etc etc.

But for me, even this isn't enough. I want more than a simple sliding scale of relation. I want every character to take note of every action I've performed to them. I want them to remember if I've helped or hurt their friends, if I've done something to their family, if my name means something in their village. And I want them to act on this. I want people to take interest in me and research my history, or to hunt me and take vengeance for past deeds. I want people to interrogate my friends, or to give supplies to my allies. It has to be more than a one sided interaction like in Mount & Blade, where your actions may affect what happens when you encounter somebody on the map or walk into a town, but not HOW people move around the map, or WHY somebody chooses to search an area.

As for SG, all I really want is for there to be "wow" moments. I don't really care how they do it, I just want there to be a varied experience which doesn't always rely on me making a serious effort to roleplay. I just want the world to give my actions meaning, rather than having to invent meaning myself.

 

[the0thMonkey]

Any post that starts with "Skyrim is wonky as balls" and praises Mount & Blade is OK by me

But seriously, I think your final paragraph was really well put. This is (or should be) the ultimate goal of a true roleplaying game.

In order to make this viable though, I think some corners have to be cut. Relations from -100 to +100 are nice, easy to implement, and definitely a step ahead of a lot of other games but they do not capture your actions and their impacts accurately enough. In other words, they are still too generic.

What you propose however, may not be attainable. In this case, representing the actions your character performed with respect to every NPC in the game is just the tip of the iceberg. Even assuming that this can be done, the real work is adding meaning to these actions. How do NPCs react to what you've done? With every new action you perform, the complexity of a realistic system increases vastly. If you now have to take this into account for relations between all NPCs (as M&B does) the complexity increases even more (and you may even run into limits in terms of computer time spent calculating this).

Therefore, I think we will have to settle with something in the middle, it would be more realistic and immersive than anything that came before, but it would not be the ultimate system.

With all that in mind, if this system *can* be created, I'm betting that Bare Mettle will be the ones to do it!

 

[Empire²]

I'm fairly sure a similar system is possible. Whether it can be placed in the game is something else, and I wouldn't expect it any time soon (At launch if we're extremely lucky).

It's all just a network of back-end statistics. Every character in the entire world would have to be tailored to be unique in a lot of different ways. Their reaction to intimidation, persuasion, charming, bribing and more would have to be randomly generated, and for notable NPCs in quests, done by hand.

There's a lot of different factors to keep in mind. The strength of your Thaumaturgic powers, your equipment, your amount of kills and victories in battle, past dialogue choices, past crimes and favours, relations to other NPCs, relations to Factions and more. And that is just for the interaction with the player. The system is definitely possible, but incredibly time-consuming.

If NPC A happens to know NPC B, they will react differently to you asking A where you may find B, because in the past, you may have either committed crimes in general, or specifically against NPC B. If your reputation is the one of a cold-blooded killer, an NPC will be more likely to ask you to rough up another NPC to sway them on a decision you won't have a further participation in. Sworn enemies will hire you to kill one another, while companions might decide to team up against you, should you try to intimidate one of them. This all depends on not only your choices as a player, but the characteristics of the NPCs in the world.

Imagine two rivals, both Lords with their own castle and household. Both of them wealthy and valiant warriors, but only Lord A is known for his honesty and noble deeds. Lord B is said to be selfish, arrogant and corrupt. Asking both lords about one another would result in different stories. Lord A will say their rivalry is just "the way of things", while Lord B will tell you it's all Lord A's fault. If your reputation is as shady as Lord B's, he might hire you to assassinate Lord A. Lord A, if the player chooses to talk to them, would humbly ask you to deliver a letter to Lord B, should your reputation be more noble. This can solve a dispute in many different ways, even ones not suggested by the NPCs. If you feel like it, you could deliver a fake message from Lord A to Lord B, causing their rivalry to turn into a small war. You could also choose to kill Lord B, after he hires you to kill Lord A. Or, if you are feeling even more rebellious, kill them both.

All these actions will have impacts on the world. Every single one of them will affect every NPC in the game differently, depending on their personalities. Different choices open up new possibilities, while cutting you off from others. And so, every action will have an impact on your image as well.