Game Discussions Bethesda Softworks Starfield Space RPG

[Darkfyre99]

what means they give to Open World

I don't know about others, what I've always understood the definition of "open world" to be is that there won't be any "railroading" of players' agency, hard or soft. That players are free to do their own thing, and not be forced to follow a particular plot, or have regions artificially gated behind certain prerequisites. This is different from a world simply being seamless. A game with a seamless world, that nether-the-less forces you to follow the developer's plot for the game, isn't really an "open world" in my book.

For example, Fallout 4 isn't what I would call an entirely open-world game. You're forced to have a spouse of the opposite gender, and a kid, and there are points in the game that you have to follow the game's incredibly obvious plot... eventually. As much as I like the game, that bit of railroading I find a wee bit annoying.

 

[Cosmo]

In regards to planet exploration in SF: Mowglia explained the same disappointment as me:

"the potential issue is a fairly limited landing zone around the ship, alongside individual map chunks being generated on the fly, and not topologically contiguous to the previous chunk (i.e. effectively random). It's difficult to get any straight information and clarification at this point, but if true, then why would this be a problem? What, precisely, am I concerned about?"

"Well, the crux of it is very simple. See that mountain in the distance? No, you can't go there. And you can't go there because it doesn't even exist; it's just wallpaper. In fact the place you are standing on doesn't even exist unless you choose to explicitly save it; that's just wallpaper too."
......
"When exploring to build a base then we'd have to constantly gauge where we were in relation to these invisible walls, and this isn't really a good thing in a game that's supposed to be about exploration. Because then you're not thinking about exploration when you're exploring, you're thinking specifically about confinement, and being contained."

"If the worst outcome does turn out to be the case, then it's not a fatal blow. There will still be ways to work within the limitations to effectively achieve what we need. But we might be told "No" at certain points, and maybe many times before we get there. The rest of the game, by all accounts, still looks very promising indeed."

"That potential lack of continuity is the single biggest issue. Loading areas is fine, I've got no problem with that. But having randomised non-persistent terrain that doesn't integrate with adjacent tiles means the whole thing is effectively just wallpaper and eye-candy outside certain specific zones (like cities)."

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

In regards to planet exploration in SF: Mowglia explained the same disappointment as me:

"the potential issue is a fairly limited landing zone around the ship, alongside individual map chunks being generated on the fly, and not topologically contiguous to the previous chunk (i.e. effectively random). It's difficult to get any straight information and clarification at this point, but if true, then why would this be a problem? What, precisely, am I concerned about?"

"Well, the crux of it is very simple. See that mountain in the distance? No, you can't go there. And you can't go there because it doesn't even exist; it's just wallpaper. In fact the place you are standing on doesn't even exist unless you choose to explicitly save it; that's just wallpaper too."
......
"When exploring to build a base then we'd have to constantly gauge where we were in relation to these invisible walls, and this isn't really a good thing in a game that's supposed to be about exploration. Because then you're not thinking about exploration when you're exploring, you're thinking specifically about confinement, and being contained."

"If the worst outcome does turn out to be the case, then it's not a fatal blow. There will still be ways to work within the limitations to effectively achieve what we need. But we might be told "No" at certain points, and maybe many times before we get there. The rest of the game, by all accounts, still looks very promising indeed."

It's like I feared. The procgen doesn't generate a coherent world. That means likely what you see from orbit wont be what you get when landing. If you can't see anything specific anyway we can hope the generator marks "interesting" PoIs.

 

[Dooguk]

I don't know about others, what I've always understood the definition of "open world" to be is that there won't be any "railroading" of players' agency, hard or soft. That players are free to do their own thing, and not be forced to follow a particular plot, or have regions artificially gated behind certain prerequisites. This is different from a world simply being seamless. A game with a seamless world, that nether-the-less forces you to follow the developer's plot for the game, isn't really an "open world" in my book.

For example, Fallout 4 isn't what I would call an entirely open-world game. You're forced to have a spouse of the opposite gender, and a kid, and there are points in the game that you have to follow the game's incredibly obvious plot... eventually. As much as I like the game, that bit of railroading I find a wee bit annoying.

So what do you consider the difference is between a sandbox game and an open world game, and can you give examples?
I'm not trying to trip you up, I'll tell you what I think later.

 

[Darkfyre99]

So what do you consider the difference is between a sandbox game and an open world game, and can you give examples?
I'm not trying to trip you up, I'll tell you what I think later.

I consider a sandbox game to be a subclass of open-world game, where you're expected to build most of your own toys, rather than have them provided for you.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

So what do you consider the difference is between a sandbox game and an open world game, and can you give examples?
I'm not trying to trip you up, I'll tell you what I think later.

Sandbox is open world with no story. Valheim is a sandbox. The only guidance is unlocks - that's gear induced gating through the world.
Open World, imo, has some crafted design behind it for me. My expectation is that we get random planets for show with somewhat working random generation but the meat will be the story-bound places with detail and story and little bits to discover. Open world is Arthur riding through the 5 states in RDR2. It's worlds that are more crafted with random and story-bound content to happen. The two kinds are joined - a world needs things to happen. I don't think the proc-genned stuff in SF has enough to "happen" - I expect a vast desert of "not much" but definitely better than what you get in ED.
I had always hoped there would be a hand-crafted Moon in ED. Something made with creativity instead of algo.

 

[Dooguk]

I consider a sandbox game to be a subclass of open-world game, where you're expected to build most of your own toys, rather than have them provided for you.

So Minecraft would be an example of a sandbox game then? Now I would call a game like Day-Z an open world game. A large world to explore but there is no story.
I guess an RPG is in it's own genre. Open world but with a story to follow.
Edit: No I think I'm wrong

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

So Minecraft would be an example of a sandbox game then? Now I would call a game like Day-Z an open world game. A large world to explore but there is no story.
I guess an RPG is in it's own genre. Open world but with a story to follow.
Edit: No I think I'm wrong

The open world offers a coherent experience on its map. You can have an open world for simulators. The best ones are those that recreate real places - they potentially authentic. Day-Z is an Open World - just a different genre.

 

[Darkfyre99]

So Minecraft would be an example of a sandbox game then?

That is correct.

Now I would call a game like Day-Z an open world game. A large world to explore but there is no story.

I've never played the game, but it sounds like a sandbox to me.

I guess an RPG is in it's own genre. Open world but with a story to follow.

There are open-world RPGs, and there are story-based RPGs.

For example, if you ignore the main plot of Fallout 4, it would be what I consider to be an open-world. There are a number of quests, and quest chains, that you are free to follow or ignore to your heart's content, but that decision is up to you. There are no "but thou must!" moments that take away a player's agency, their ability to make their own decisions, either in-character for the character they created, or out-of-character for meta-gaming reasons.

Mass Effect, OTOH, is very-much story-based RPG. It doesn't have a linear plot, but you're very much aware that you're on the rails.

 

[Dooguk]

Story-driven open world roleplaying game, is the best I can come up with (assuming of course you have to do the story)

 

[Northpin]

"That potential lack of continuity is the single biggest issue. Loading areas is fine, I've got no problem with that. But having randomised non-persistent terrain that doesn't integrate with adjacent tiles means the whole thing is effectively just wallpaper and eye-candy outside certain specific zones (like cities)."

yeap, basically this

 

[Dooguk]

In regards to planet exploration in SF: Mowglia explained the same disappointment as me:

"the potential issue is a fairly limited landing zone around the ship, alongside individual map chunks being generated on the fly, and not topologically contiguous to the previous chunk (i.e. effectively random). It's difficult to get any straight information and clarification at this point, but if true, then why would this be a problem? What, precisely, am I concerned about?"

"Well, the crux of it is very simple. See that mountain in the distance? No, you can't go there. And you can't go there because it doesn't even exist; it's just wallpaper. In fact the place you are standing on doesn't even exist unless you choose to explicitly save it; that's just wallpaper too."
......
"When exploring to build a base then we'd have to constantly gauge where we were in relation to these invisible walls, and this isn't really a good thing in a game that's supposed to be about exploration. Because then you're not thinking about exploration when you're exploring, you're thinking specifically about confinement, and being contained."

"If the worst outcome does turn out to be the case, then it's not a fatal blow. There will still be ways to work within the limitations to effectively achieve what we need. But we might be told "No" at certain points, and maybe many times before we get there. The rest of the game, by all accounts, still looks very promising indeed."

"That potential lack of continuity is the single biggest issue. Loading areas is fine, I've got no problem with that. But having randomised non-persistent terrain that doesn't integrate with adjacent tiles means the whole thing is effectively just wallpaper and eye-candy outside certain specific zones (like cities)."

Why did you omit the part leading up to this...

I don't know if this is true or not, but the potential issue is a fairly limited landing zone around the ship, alongside individual map chunks being generated on the fly, and not topologically contiguous to the previous chunk (i.e. effectively random).

It's difficult to get any straight information and clarification at this point, but if true, then why would this be a problem? What, precisely, am I concerned about?...

He doesn't know if this is true or not so why make out this is fact?

 

[[VR] Merkir]

Why did you omit the part leading up to this...

He doesn't know if this is true or not so why make out this is fact?

Thank you for pointing this out before I had to. The FUD in this thread is quite amusing.

 

[Dooguk]

The other thing that has been pointed out is that the terrain geometry in game seems to stay the same between playthroughs. Check it out here...
43:00 ish if the link doesn't work...

 

[Northpin]

Thank you for pointing this out before I had to. The FUD in this thread is quite amusing.

FUD? no
What's quite amusing is dropping some (valid) criticism on SF (specifically overhyping features like full planet exploration, when you have finite and walled tiles of ground areas) and watch people react

The other thing that has been pointed out is that the terrain geometry in game seems to stay the same between playthroughs. Check it out here...

You are aware that's a marketing/advertising video 2 months old already and a lot of things that are hyped in this material will have to stand the scrutiny - and no, i cannot spot that thing you mention in the video, and no, nowhere is mentioned that if you want to explore 2 adjacent zones you have to land twice because you will hit a jpeg wall
But i guess we will see

 

[Dooguk]

FUD? no
What's quite amusing is dropping some (valid) criticism on SF (specifically overhyping features like full planet exploration, when you have finite and walled tiles of ground areas) and watch people react



You are aware that's a marketing/advertising video 2 months old already and a lot of things that are hyped in this material will have to stand the scrutiny - and no, i cannot spot that thing you mention in the video, and no, nowhere is mentioned that if you want to explore 2 adjacent zones you have to land twice because you will hit a jpeg wall
But i guess we will see

You cannot see that the terrain is the same in the background for both shots?

 

[Northpin]

You cannot see that the terrain is the same in the background for both shots?

and what makes you think those "both" shots are different or same playthroughs? - it's a constructed video for advertising/hyping.

 

[Dooguk]

and what makes you think those "both" shots are different or same playthroughs? - it's a constructed video for advertising/hyping.

Let's face it, it's not the game for you is it?

 

[wrmiller]

Well, FDev opened that particular can of worms themselves when they bolted a medicore FPS shooter to their game about spaceships. Elite and Starfield are certainly not the same "genre", but even steam lists Elite under "similar to games you play" when I click on Starfield. Considering that Elite consists of two, largely separate, games now (Odyssey and "Space" Elite), I think it's fair to compare the Odyssey FPS to other First-Person games with similar topics/mechanics (e.g. you can compare the "crafting" system in Odyssey to the, imo superior, crafting system in Cyberpunk or Fallout 4). That's also the part of Elite that Starfield is going to cover.

If all you do is space trucking, than Elite might still be a better choice than Starfield. Although I would probably rate the space economies of X4 (singleplaye) and, with some severe PvP caveats, EVE Online (multiplayer) vastly superior to Elite and much more fun.
Now that I write this and think about it, I believe that Elite was probably a very good game when it was released, but it hasn't aged that well. Elite tried to cover a lot of ground and game loops at the same time (Blaze your own trial), but for each individual game loop there's now a dedicated game that does it better than Elite. The Odyssey/Horizons split has certainly aggravated that issue even more. Depending how much you prefer a certain activity over the "entire package", there are now better options than Elite available. When I compare Starfield to Odyssey, I certainly know which experience I prefer.

I have no use for odyssey, never did. I wanted the makers of Elite to start fleshing out all the 'stubs' they put in the game I started playing in '16. But they never did. So I find that I am much happier with X4 for my space sim game at this point, and I have FPS type games that are much better than odyssey for when I want that type of gameplay. X4 as a space flying sim is (IMO) much better than the emasculated/castrated limitations forced on the player by elite.

I have no pre-conceived notions about Starfield, and will take the game mostly as presented, along with a mod or two here and there. With any luck, it will be better than the games I currently play.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The soundtrack of Surviving Mars is extensive and quite good quality for a game of this caliber. Today I discover I almost exclusively listened to Quantum Sonic radio station.
"Rockets" is probably my most favourite song (and they ARE actually songs, with singing)
The game might have been a big letdown in the map department but it made good with it's soundtrack collection.

Maybe SF's strength is neither the procgenned episodes.