gamingeek said:Reading that filthy whore mouthed blog of the manly man with an axe, SteelAttack. I was reminded of how big Oblivion's game world was, with all its procedural generation.
It was nice to look at, but impractical and often not fun to traverse in real time. Most people used the fast travel option, essentially picking locations from a 2D map screen.
Yes.
gamingeek said:I had similar problems with Fallout 3, despite not being as big as Oblivion, some treks between towns were often void of gameplay and just boring to walk about.
Yes.
gamingeek said:I know that in Mass Effect, the main space station was too large for me and could have been cut down by half or at least be better signposted or have a better map to use. I felt like a tourist dropped in a foreign country, trying to desperately memorise locations before I got lost.
No. The Citadel is practically one big straight path, with just a couple alleys here and there. There's no way to get lost in there.
But, at least in my case, the bigger, the better.
I guess it depends on the game. I've played a lot of MMORPGs so I'm accustomed to finding myself in giant cities and getting lost in them, as well as having to travel across huge grasslands that seem to serve no other purpose than to keep you from getting from city to city too quickly. I guess so long as there's something to break up the space I can always find it tolerable. Part of my mindset though is I enjoy actually learning the geography and the lay of the land. Whether it's knowing about some obscure landmarks or some short cuts through allies, I dig that. However if it's just nothing but open space then I say that's lazy developing.
With a gameworld as big as Oblivion's, I've taken the approach of using fast travel when crossing long distances, but whenever I need to do sidequests involving the outskirts of cities, I always do them by normal travel. That allows you to discover ruins, shrines and caves.
It's not the size, it's what's in it. Oblivion and games like it fail because everything repeats and everything is insignificant (every cave is like every other cave, no unique loot or interesting things to see, every ruin is like every other ruin, every fight is as any other fight thanks to level scaling and loot scaling, etc). That some games with smaller worlds are more interesting doesn't mean smaller worlds in general are, it's just that they actually made the effort to make it interesting, and the smaller size is likely a direct result of that, as budgets aren't infinite.
 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds while the pessimist fears this is true. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Yeah, I've not had too many big gaming worlds. GTA4 was annoying large, but that had more to do with their shitty game design of making you drive all over the place (yeah sometimes you get to use Taxi's but that is even worse -- that's them admitting they f'd up).
So far Oblivion is fine walking around, it's pretty at least. But yeah, boring in places.
aspro saiYeah, I've not had too many big gaming worlds. GTA4 was annoying large, but that had more to do with their shitty game design of making you drive all over the place (yeah sometimes you get to use Taxi's but that is even worse -- that's them admitting they f'd up).
So far Oblivion is fine walking around, it's pretty at least. But yeah, boring in places.
The problem with the taxis in GTA4 was that when you failed a mission they often put you back in the game miles away from the objective, so you had to taxi your way there again and face two loads.
With my very brief experience with World of Warcraft, massive game worlds can be really immersive if the developers designed a world that's worth traveling through. Blizzard did a pretty phenomenal job with WoW, creating a world that's living and breathing but also with so much variety that it never feels old. At one moment you're in the snow, the next you're in a beatiful forest, and then you're at a desert, etc. It's never the same things twice and it's really fun to just explore the world. I didn't even want to use a traveling system because I just wanted to walk around the world to sight see everything.
Final Fantasy XII was also similar, which is why it really is a offline MMO in many ways. I still think FFXII has the best design in a FF game because the world is so immersive. I actually feel like I'm there. Story and characters are a low point though.
As for Oblivion and Fallout 3, I can see how the similar backgrounds could be a turn off. Which is also why I was interested in Red Dead over GTA4 because of its western setting and beautiful outdoor environments while GTA4 was just all buildings. Fallout 3's DLCs do shake up the environments a bit, but I just wish that the developers put more variety in the original game rather than making us purchase DLCs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Playing: Golden Sun Dark Dawn, God of War Ghost of Sparta, and DKC Returns
"Final Fantasy XII was also similar, which is why it really is a offline MMO in many ways. I still think FFXII has the best design in a FF game because the world is so immersive. I actually feel like I'm there."
But yeah, what Agnates said, though exactly what Agnates said. I didn't really have that problem in Morrowind, though (and let's be honest, this thread is really about why Morrowind>Oblivion). Most of the areas felt very unique and created a great atmosphere.
gamingeek said:aspro saiYeah, I've not had too many big gaming worlds. GTA4 was annoying large, but that had more to do with their shitty game design of making you drive all over the place (yeah sometimes you get to use Taxi's but that is even worse -- that's them admitting they f'd up).
So far Oblivion is fine walking around, it's pretty at least. But yeah, boring in places.
The problem with the taxis in GTA4 was that when you failed a mission they often put you back in the game miles away from the objective, so you had to taxi your way there again and face two loads.
Yeah. Not a perfect game by any stretch. I'm glad it's behind me.
Now that I am teleporting in Oblivion the distances have become a non-issue. I am sure I'm not enjoying the game as intended (seem slike a bit of a waste not to get out more).
Another game that had a lot of space, but it worked out, was in Half-Life 2. On my first playthrough, when you are driving your buggy up the coast of fake-England, there was a part where I though I could not drive any further. So I got out and walked. And walked. And walked. But it was such a detailed and interesting place I completely enjoyed it (this is the long stretch of coast before you get to the Bridge "level". On my next playthrough I was able to drive up the whole way and missed out on my long walk, and kind of felt short-changed.
I occasionally think of that stretch of coast as if it were a real place I had been.
aspro said:
Yeah. Not a perfect game by any stretch. I'm glad it's behind me.Now that I am teleporting in Oblivion the distances have become a non-issue. I am sure I'm not enjoying the game as intended (seem slike a bit of a waste not to get out more).
Another game that had a lot of space, but it worked out, was in Half-Life 2. On my first playthrough, when you are driving your buggy up the coast of fake-England, there was a part where I though I could not drive any further. So I got out and walked. And walked. And walked. But it was such a detailed and interesting place I completely enjoyed it (this is the long stretch of coast before you get to the Bridge "level". On my next playthrough I was able to drive up the whole way and missed out on my long walk, and kind of felt short-changed.
I occasionally think of that stretch of coast as if it were a real place I had been.
Ugh, I hated the driving parts of HL2, especially the water bike thing.
gamingeek said:Ugh, I hated the driving parts of HL2, especially the water bike thing.
Those parts were great, IMO.
The only part in HL2 that I didn't care for was where you had to cross the desert part on foot without touching the sand or you'll die, forcing you to use the gravity gun to move around metal pannels and other crap to stand on. That part was pretty tedious.
Route Kanal was bleh. Highway 17 was great. I couldn't exactly point out why I feel that way, but I do.
For Me, no such thing, as long as there's something to do.
For example: The size of the map in Fuel was great, but the game wasn't fun. I haven't been bored while exploring in Fallout or Oblivion (unless the POS crashed), and only used fast travel if I was in danger and didn't want to die.
Listen to Iced Earth and play Doom
SteelAttack said:Route Kanal was bleh. Highway 17 was great. I couldn't exactly point out why I feel that way, but I do.
I'm going to say it's due to clinical insanity. 
(Actually, it was probably one of the less boring parts.)
Ravenprose said:gamingeek said:Ugh, I hated the driving parts of HL2, especially the water bike thing.
Those parts were great, IMO.
The only part in HL2 that I didn't care for was where you had to cross the desert part on foot without touching the sand or you'll die, forcing you to use the gravity gun to move around metal pannels and other crap to stand on. That part was pretty tedious.
I liked that bit, it was a bit like a puzzle game. The best of the game was Ravenholm but I got that level free as a demo from OXM and played it like 7 times before getting the game.
My ass cheeks still clench tight when I remember the bridge on Highway 17.
SteelAttack said:My ass cheeks still clench tight when I remember the bridge on Highway 17.
Yeah, I'd say I hated that level because platforming in an FPS is bullshit. How the fuck can I make precise jumps if I can't even see my feet! but actually it was a fun level.
To the others, I had no problem with the water and cart levels. I liked crusing around in my boat, stopping by the various warehouses to take out enemies. Maybe you guys were going to fast?
aspro said:SteelAttack said:My ass cheeks still clench tight when I remember the bridge on Highway 17.
Yeah, I'd say I hated that level because platforming in an FPS is bullshit. How the fuck can I make precise jumps if I can't even see my feet! but actually it was a fun level.
Hey, it works in Metroid Prime.
gamingeek said:Hey, it works in Metroid Prime.
Not for me it didn't.
Reading that filthy whore mouthed blog of the manly man with an axe, SteelAttack. I was reminded of how big Oblivion's game world was, with all its procedural generation.
It was nice to look at, but impractical and often not fun to traverse in real time. Most people used the fast travel option, essentially picking locations from a 2D map screen.
I had similar problems with Fallout 3, despite not being as big as Oblivion, some treks between towns were often void of gameplay and just boring to walk about.
So how big is too big? When does it become annoying to you? And what examples do you have?
I know that in Mass Effect, the main space station was too large for me and could have been cut down by half or at least be better signposted or have a better map to use. I felt like a tourist dropped in a foreign country, trying to desperately memorise locations before I got lost.