Lets talk about overworld maps.

[nomotog_v1legacy]

If you are not sure what I am talking about here is a picture.

Now when I was first starting out with RPGS, I hated these maps. They felt cheap and I thought they were a unrealistic way to show the larger world. Now, after spending so much time in real open worlds, I want to see them come back. They still might be cheap, but having a cheap way to make an open world is is a wonderful thing in this day of budget indy games. My big complaint now is I wish I was seeing more done with them. So many are just random encounter delivery systems, but having an overworld map lets you do a extreme things cheaply. Destroying and growing a forest can be done with the replacement of a hand full of tiles. Trying to get that kind of reactivity in a true open world would be basically impossible.

What do you guys think of overworld maps? Do you like them or hate them? Have you seen any really good or really bad uses of them?

 

[Fox12]

I miss over world maps. They captured a certain sense of scale and adventure that you don't really see anymore.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I miss over world maps. They captured a certain sense of scale and adventure that you don't really see anymore.

Yep, I loved the one in Dragon Age: Origins, really made that country feel so much bigger, and did it in such a simple way by having your wagons trace a little dot trail along an old-timey looking map. Wish they would have expanded it by adding more campsite maps, with different things to do depending on where you camped, and maybe more locations to explore.

Inquisition had big maps but they felt emptier because you could just fast travel most places

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I miss over world maps. They captured a certain sense of scale and adventure that you don't really see anymore.

Yep, I loved the one in Dragon Age: Origins, really made that country feel so much bigger, and did it in such a simple way by having your wagons trace a little dot trail along an old-timey looking map. Wish they would have expanded it by adding more campsite maps, with different things to do depending on where you camped, and maybe more locations to explore.

Inquisition had big maps but they felt emptier because you could just fast travel most places

I am trying and failing to remember if there was an overworld in Inquisition. I think it was mostly just big meandering zones filled with way too much to do. I did love the war table though. They should have done more with that.

 

[Glongpre]

I miss over world maps. They captured a certain sense of scale and adventure that you don't really see anymore.

Yeah, for sure. I loved the scale you perceived when you would run around in old school jrpgs, like Xenogears, FFs, Wildarms, etc.

It was something I missed in FFX, and just having a map you can click on isn't the same. It is better than not having a map, but feeling like you are journeying across a continent is cool. I wish Lost Odyssey had an interactive map, and not just a choose where you want to go list. I wanted more time to listen to the OST

 

[Tanis]

I liked them in that you could find 'hidden' areas in such cool ways.

But, at the same time, they can be kind stupid and annoying.

I do NOT miss high random encounter rates.

 

[Kyrian007]

Now there's an interesting idea. An optional overworld map system. An overworld map where you could at any time (and anywhere on the map) switch to the (real area) environment. Kind of like a more interactive fast travel system for a modern open world type game.

 

[Bad Jim]

So many are just random encounter delivery systems, but having an overworld map lets you do a extreme things cheaply. Destroying and growing a forest can be done with the replacement of a hand full of tiles. Trying to get that kind of reactivity in a true open world would be basically impossible.

I think you could destroy a forest quite easily in an open world game. Trees are added pseudorandomly by a thing called SpeedTree, and disabling it will remove the trees, or the tree models could be replaced by stumps. It's certainly nowhere near as hard as manually removing each tree in turn. And I think it is generally true that what is generic terrain on an overworld map is procedurally generated on an open world, so large scale alterations are actually quite easy.

 

[CritialGaming]

I think overworld maps in many RPG's were much a product of their time than anything else. I don't really miss them because they often had high encounter rates, and no real sense of direction to them, making it hard to figure out where you are supposed to go next. I can't tell you how much time I lost in early FF games because I had no fucking clue which town or dungeon I was supposed to tackle next.

However I do believe there are ways to do an overworld map correctly. Limiting it's use for one thing. Instead of giving you a world map early in the game, I believe that restricted sections of the map are a nice compromise to just getting thrown into a map right away. Final Fantasy 7 did this well by giving you a fairly large map once you left Midgar, but restricted it base on available travel methods. Every section you get to has some kind of travel limitation that naturally funnels the player to the right places at the right time, while still allowing you to visit optional areas, and secret things along the way.

Xenogears had a good map too, if I recall correctly but it had been far too long since I last played through that game.

These days though, the overworld map has been scraped for high detailed but small sections of map. Which I think is fine. Overworlds were cool back in the day, but they were ultimately just large, empty, random encounter filled, padding sections as you worked your way to the next town or dungeon. Now they have scraped them because they just end up as extra loading screens and nobody wants more loading screens.

 

[Pyrian]

These days though, the overworld map has been scraped for high detailed but small sections of map. Which I think is fine.

I don't like it. The push to remove overmaps meant that everything had to made small. It really messes with my sense of scale. "Welcome to the town of Girdershade, Population: 2."

 

[CritialGaming]

These days though, the overworld map has been scraped for high detailed but small sections of map. Which I think is fine.

I don't like it. The push to remove overmaps meant that everything had to made small. It really messes with my sense of scale. "Welcome to the town of Girdershade, Population: 2."

When handle incorrectly, yes. But any game aspects handled incorrect can greatly hamper perception of the game so that isn't saying much. But there has been a noticeable shift away from overworld's in many RPG's these days. I am Setsuna is the only game I can think of that had an overworld map in recent memory and that one was small and uninteresting so it didn't help the game at all.

But look at stuff like The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV, both massive RPG's with huge open world areas that simply didn't need an overworld. A huge game world, a huge map, means nothing if it isn't filled with anything. Look at the OG Final Fantasy, did the open world actually mean anything other than a means to get lost? Now I don't believe that game could have done any better with the technology at the time, but games aren't held back by tech anymore.

The vastness you fell now with overworld maps gone, is an illusion, nothing more. Games of almost every variety are far bigger than the OG games of overworld fame could ever dream of.

 

[Pyrian]

When handle incorrectly...

Nah, mate. The problem isn't that they're doing it wrong (of course sometimes they overdo it). The problem is that, if you're not going to use an overworld, making everything small and dense is the CORRECT thing to do. Real scale without an overworld would be dreadfully dull. Nobody wants to actually walk their character for a fortnight to travel between cities. Heck, nobody wants to walk across town at anything resembling real world scales.

But there has been a noticeable shift away from overworld's in many RPG's these days.

These days? Ultima went from overworld to continuous with Ultima VI, released in 1990. And the problems with that shift were already evident.

But look at stuff like The Witcher 3...

One of the largest, most content-rich games ever made. 52 square miles, or thereabouts? If it were square (it isn't) it'd be less than 8 miles across, an afternoon pleasure hike. Rhode Island, the smallest state in the U.S.A., is over 1200 square miles. Luxembourg is almost 1000 square miles.

A huge game world, a huge map, means nothing if it isn't filled with anything.

An overworld map is how you can have epic scale while getting around epic expanses.

The vastness you fell now with overworld maps gone, is an illusion, nothing more.

ALL games, and everything in them, are illusory. Criticizing the success of the illusion is fair game.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I think overworld maps in many RPG's were much a product of their time than anything else. I don't really miss them because they often had high encounter rates, and no real sense of direction to them, making it hard to figure out where you are supposed to go next. I can't tell you how much time I lost in early FF games because I had no fucking clue which town or dungeon I was supposed to tackle next.

However I do believe there are ways to do an overworld map correctly. Limiting it's use for one thing. Instead of giving you a world map early in the game, I believe that restricted sections of the map are a nice compromise to just getting thrown into a map right away. Final Fantasy 7 did this well by giving you a fairly large map once you left Midgar, but restricted it base on available travel methods. Every section you get to has some kind of travel limitation that naturally funnels the player to the right places at the right time, while still allowing you to visit optional areas, and secret things along the way.

Xenogears had a good map too, if I recall correctly but it had been far too long since I last played through that game.

These days though, the overworld map has been scraped for high detailed but small sections of map. Which I think is fine. Overworlds were cool back in the day, but they were ultimately just large, empty, random encounter filled, padding sections as you worked your way to the next town or dungeon. Now they have scraped them because they just end up as extra loading screens and nobody wants more loading screens.

FF overall was rather good with their overworld maps. The game that taught me to love the overworld was FF4. It has a really good progression where you unlock more of the world with new vehicles.

Though when it comes to getting lost and not knowing where to go. I don't think that is directly relayed to overworlds. You can get lost in any kind of openness and getting lost isn't really a bad thing. I think it was more annoying in the days of old because you didn't have the bulk of side content you do today. If you got lost, then you found nothing, or maybe some random encounters.*


*I wonder why random encounters are so bad. I don't think the issue is that they are random a lo of games are built on random content. Take a game like xcom and it is almost all random encounters.

 

[CritialGaming]

*I wonder why random encounters are so bad. I don't think the issue is that they are random a lo of games are built on random content. Take a game like xcom and it is almost all random encounters.

I dont have a problem with random encounters so long as the combat is fun. I know a lot of people hate that system though, and prefer games where the enemies appear on the map. There is some merit in being able to choose when you want to handle combat. I remember getting fucked in the last dungeon in FF3 because my party had been getting beat up over several floors of the dungeon, and I couldn't make it to safety because of the random encounters simply wiped me out.

Bravely Default has a good system that outright allows you to toggle them off completely, or even increase them, which i think was a good compromise. Although that system itself is abusible so i don't really know.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

*I wonder why random encounters are so bad. I don't think the issue is that they are random a lo of games are built on random content. Take a game like xcom and it is almost all random encounters.

I dont have a problem with random encounters so long as the combat is fun. I know a lot of people hate that system though, and prefer games where the enemies appear on the map. There is some merit in being able to choose when you want to handle combat. I remember getting fucked in the last dungeon in FF3 because my party had been getting beat up over several floors of the dungeon, and I couldn't make it to safety because of the random encounters simply wiped me out.

Bravely Default has a good system that outright allows you to toggle them off completely, or even increase them, which i think was a good compromise. Although that system itself is abusible so i don't really know.

I like the idea of putting random encounters on the map. It lets you do more with them*. You can have the monsters out on the overworld map doing things outside of combat with different mechantics. You could have giant ants wandering the overworld building new ant hills, or bandits that carry extra loot after they rob a wagon.

*Including avoiding or seeking them out. You can also rig the map so they are unavoidable when the game wants.

 

[Buttking]

snip

Yanno, just about everything people criticize retro RPGs for with their overworlds could just as easily apply to modern open-world games. Lots of empty space, broken up only by random encounters with generic enemies, between towns comprising a dozen buildings and a baker's dozen NPCs of consequence. The only differences the one-to-one scale makes are negative- the smaller map means less difference in terrain, and there's no dramatic fight woosh for map encounters. See Fallout 3 for exhibits A-Z.

Anyway, if anyone wants to see a modern overworld executed masterfully, look at the Mount and Blade series. There's a huge and varied world with a ton of fun cool shit you can do while traveling that wouldn't be nearly as good if it was all one-to-one.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I like overworld maps. They give you a sense of space in non-sandbox rgps. Shame that you encounter those so rarely these the days.

Now there's an interesting idea. An optional overworld map system. An overworld map where you could at any time (and anywhere on the map) switch to the (real area) environment. Kind of like a more interactive fast travel system for a modern open world type game.

The map in first two Fallouts worked kinda like that. It wasn't optional, but you could stop anywhere in the wasteland while traveling through overworld map and go into actual gameplay enviroment. Of course, if it wasn't a quadrant with point of interest or random encounter you entered basicly the same deserted place(with some npcs) but with randomly generated assets, adjusted to the geographical area you're supposed to be in(a shore, mountain range, ruins etc.).

 

[FalloutJack]

I have nothing against overworld maps. Some games work well that way.

 

[wings012]

I didn't hate what FFX did to the overworld. Flying your airship around is novel and all, but ultimately I wanna get to a place and do stuff with minimal faffing about.