World size, density, and traversal have to be balanced.
I tend to play without fast travel, and skyrim meets these three pretty well, using the carts and horse for faster travel.
GTA can be bigger, with cars and planes for long distances.
Large worlds are great, if they are packed w content, open barren landscapes are terrible.
Ghost recon wildlands for me is the sweet spot for a big, interesting world with good traversal options.
I’ve been playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance for the last few weeks and have found the balance to be pretty spot on. At first the world seems massive, and you have to travel around on foot, then eventually you get a horse and can also auto travel between locations. I think they really nailed the balance in that game.
I’d be really interested to see an action RPG type game that just embraces the real-life scale of the world and lets you screw about with the rate of time passing like in Kerbal Space Program when you’re walking a long way. You’d have to limit the scale of the story to make it manageable to develop, but I think there’s the potential for something cool in there. Maybe there are only two or three villages in one valley, but they’re all full villages and they’re actually several kilometres apart. Make sure that whatever goals you have are time-gated in some way so that you actually have to weigh up whether you can afford to walk to the other village, because even though you fast-forward it so that it only takes a minute of real-life time to walk there it’s actually most of the day in-game.
Daggerfall was like this, if I’m not mistaken (I got into TES with Morrowind, and I’ve never found the time to play the older games).
The map was about the size of Great Britain, and mostly empty, even if it had about fifteen thousand locations spread about it.
Not quite KSP whole planet scale, but uh, Kenshi.
Its a pretty damn big world, pretty sure it is significantly larger than Skyrim.
You’ve got world speed controls, rpg style mechanics and progression, and you can have multiple members of your party, and you can build your entire own town if you want to.
The game is filled with many roving factions, who all have a sort of reputation dynamic with all other factions, as well as yourself/party.
The game is full of many different story lines, many of them conflict with each other and cannot all be done, there is no such thing as a plot armored, impossible to kill npc, and there are tons of unique, npcs you can meet and have many kinds of interactions with.
If you want to take on a huge faction, you can, but you’re probably going to need to literally raise your own army to do so.
Main downside is the control scheme is fairly awkward / old school… its basically like an mmo from the early 00’s, but single player; click to tell your peeps where to go sort of thing, awkward camera controls by modern standards for an ARPG.
You don’t directly control the combat of your character like in Skyrim, the game basically rng rolls based on you and your opponents stats to determine who uses what kind of attack or block or dodge… but you can set different combat stances, basicsally.
… So its not an ARPG in the sense of Skyrim or AssCreed or Dark Souls… but it is an ARPG in a more loose sense, that its an RPG mechanics style game and world, without rigid turn based combat, which all revolves around action.
But the scale you are looking for is there. If you don’t set the time to fast forward, it can easily take 15 minutes to an hour or more to walk between settlements or major landmarks, depending on what part of the map you’re in.
Nothing is really obvious from the onset of the game in terms if what you are supposed to do, beyond not get murdered, eat, drink and sleep to stay alive.
It’s very much a sandbox approach, but theres tons and tons of stuff to do if you are capable of directing yourself.
Also, lots of mods that add more content, immersion, and deepen or alter gameplay mechanics.
Kenshi 2 is in the works with upgraded engine and graphics… ETA totally unknown.
I tried to play that game and totally failed to grasp the controls. The idea of is is appealing. I might have to give it another go.
That sounds fascinating! I’m pretty tolerant of jank in games if they’re doing something engaging, and while I do enjoy the combat systems of the Souls games I am totally okay with a more abstracted system. Hell I love Paradox’s grand strategy games, and this sounds a lot like how battles work in those — the meaningful decision is in which fights you pick and how you prepare for them rather than your actions within the fight itself.
I found it to be so immersive, that the large map size was a bonus to me. I wanted to see it all, and by god I did. I have done every single thing on that game.
I found it even more immersive by camping when it got dark out, cooking to eat, and then going to bed. When I woke in the daylight, I would sit there and have Arthur drink a cup of joe, break down the camp, and continue on with my journey to wherever.
Now I want to play it all over again for a fifth time. >:(
I’ve not enjoyed single player, Arthur is only allowed to be a cunt for story reasons, the moment I’m doing it I get penalised. It’s not bad but it’s… Eh. At least it was only $30 on sale.
Agreed. And while there are some days where my “I just want to walk as far as I can” instinct has me wishing for bigger game worlds, at the same time it can be a bad experience when the game tells you that you have to go somewhere and it’s either a slog to get there or you fast travel and skip the world entirely.
I put in about 6-8 hours and never came back. Not that it was bad or anything, but I just don’t have that kind of time and it wasn’t particularly compelling. I might try it again some day, but I didn’t really understand the hype. You deliver boxes for likes and try to not fall over while walking forever in a kinda scary sci-fi post apocalypse world. What am I missing? I heard great things about it making the journey less of a slog, but if anything, it made traveling feel like more of a slog. I just had to not fall over. It’s not like I was finding that much cool stuff along the way, just occasionally a slightly useful bridge made by some other player.
8 times bigger than Witcher 3 filled wilth Witcher 3 quality content would be a godsend. 8 times bigger than Witcher 3 filled with procedural generation and AI slop… not so much.
I will argue that Witcher 3 did not have enough content for it’s own world. Don’t get me wrong, the content was great, but there’s large swathes of emptiness inbetween. The devs tried to fill it with map markers that got repetitive very quickly (hello, random floating barrels).
IMO, downscaling the world to 75% size and reducing the amount of non-quest content would have made the game better.
The whole reason I burned out on W3 was trying to be completionist and doing all the map markers before moving to the next area.
Honestly I think these games need more points of interest that are not marked on the map whatsoever, and don’t matter towards 100% completion.
I eventually went through the Witcher 3 post game and got every single marker but it was basically background work while I listened to audiobooks, I didn’t come across anything interesting for hours. However I do acknowledge that those markers aren’t necessary meant to be sought out, but stumbled upon.
If we’re copying Witcher 3 levels of content anywhere, can we leave behind like 95% of the ocean based points of interest? That was the absolute lowest point of the game for me by a mile.
Slightly OT, but I want to give a shout out to Witcher 3 as my favorite fantasy RPG.
Early on in the game I kind of struggled with it. I found the UI and especially combat, to be ‘clunky’.
After I mastered the combat UI enough to survive, I started to wander and explore. In this wandering I found some old cave filled with some decent (but not overpowered) gear. As far as I know, there was no quest that would have sent me to this cave. Also, if I hadn’t been pointed in the exact direction I was going, I never would have seen the cave entrance. These little details made the world feel ‘real’ and lived in.
Later in the game, when I was much more experienced, I was following a faint path, in the snow, over a mountain and I see another cave entrance. I go inside the cave and I hear voices. I sneak closer and I hear a fart, Then I hear a voice complaining about the smell of a rotten onion. (it was 2 trolls cooking something). This was totally unexpected and I literally LOL’d. Once again, this little bit made the world feel more real.
In summation, I don’t need games to be ‘bigger’. They just need to be ‘good’.
I do think a huge world with an engaging and dense design can still be made worse with size. In some games like Skyrim, Breath of the Wild or GTA 5, you could probably drop me anywhere and I’d know where I was, half due to good and differing region design and half because the map isn’t that big.
Back in 2015 I’d dream of a GTA 5 expansion that adds San Francisco and Las Vegas to the map, turning the north and east of the map in to a 500 yard straight of water, but in reality, two more large cities and their surroundings suburbs and wilderness would have never kept it’s memorability like the first region.
I would never finish a game 8 times longer than Witcher 3+exansions. I started once, got burned out and had to restart a year later to get to the end. Enjoyed it a lot but yeah. I don’t need like 1600 hours of anything.
OSRS has obliterated my sense of what constitutes a grind. I’ve communities for other games tearing their hair out over a 1/300 drop.
I feel like how big I want the game to be is a weird quantum unstable value. When I’m interested in the game I want it to keep going. But at some point I lose interest, and I want it to wrap up. But usually I don’t want to skip content that’s at least okay, especially if it affects endings and other choices.
Like I enjoyed Veilguard, but there were bits near the end where I was losing focus and kind of wanted it to pick up the pace. There have been other games where I finished all the side quests but was like “that’s it? I want more”
Not sure how to square this circle. I don’t think procedural generated or AI content is quite up to the task yet.
I do think we’ll see a game that has AI content in the critical path in the next couple years though. You’ll go to camp and talk to Shadowheart, and it’ll try to just make up new dialogue. I don’t know if it’ll be good. There will probably be at some weird ass hallucinations that’ll become memes.
Same happened to me with Zelda: ToTK. I did everything I came across, collected a lot of things I found, did a lot of questing, got so good in combat I could defeat everything without getting hit, but then I was like “it’s time to stop now” and I defeated the final boss and put the game down. It was amazing.
I do think Botw and Totk would have benefited from having the map 50% smaller to condense the content. The underworld in Totk basically ended up just being collecting DLC armor from the previous game.
I feel like how big I want the game to be is a weird quantum unstable value. When I’m interested in the game I want it to keep going. But at some point I lose interest, and I want it to wrap up. But usually I don’t want to skip content that’s at least okay, especially if it affects endings and other choices.
I’m kind of at this spot right now with Pathfinder: Kingmaker. If I had realised it was a 200h+ game I might not have undertaken it. I’ve had a good time with it all things considered, but at this point I really kind of want to move on to the next game in my backlog.
If it’s good it’s good. I bought the witcher 3 DLC and would have bought more. I stopped playing Assassins Creed altogether. People just want good, crafted content.
What game developers should do is add more “jump back in” modes. I get busy with work so I might leave for a few months midway through a long game and forget some plot and controls.
I’d love the option in a tutorial that for “I’ve played plenty of this kind of game - tell me what’s specifically different in this game”.
