Openworld RPGs with end of the world scenarios.

[Salsajoe]

Ever noticed how openworld RPGs tend to go for the end of the world narratives, such as ESV: Skyrim and Witcher 3 (only fantasy RPGs I have played in a while).

In essence a compelling trick to getting any character, however you chose to play it, into the main questline. I just feel like it mostly creates that bugger of an overused term, ludonarrative dissonance, where the world is ending and all you want to do is do side quests or play Gwent in a local tavern.

I could not for life of me stop thinking about that blasted ashenhaired woman with a scar on her cheek during my neverending sidequesting in the Witcher.

Have you felt the same? And have you praised other RPGs for not doing an armageddon scenario? (I can barely even think of a good alternative)

edit: typo
edit edit: Maybe end of the world scenario was a poor choice of words, what I meant was: something really bad is a bout to happen, be it end of the world, end of a region, some really urgent stuff is about to go wrong if you do not do this particular thing.

 

[Chessrook44]

Well, there IS Fallout, which is AFTER the End of the World... instead it's more "End of the local region's stability. Maybe."

 

[Gamerpalooza]

Well it's an easy way to have conflict from area to area. Personally it seems to become the standard that it just looks like the easiest but and laziest way to approach open world.

Would having a city that can defend itself really be that harmful to design? A city that isn't affected by the tragedies of the apocalypse? Does every area need to be in the brink of total collapse?

 

[DoPo]

Ever noticed how openworld RPGs tend to go for the end of the world narratives, such as ESV: Skyrim and Witcher 3 (only fantasy RPGs I have played in a while).

I thought about this. Thought about this some more. Then I realised - isn't that most RPGs in general? Dragon Age: Origins isn't open world but it's similarly driven by an apocalyptic scenario - you are apparently the only thing that stands between the world and a dragon awakening (which is a Very Bad Thing for the world). Going for something older, in Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura the bad guy wants to kill everybody in the world. In Arx Fatalis the main villain is the god of destruction who intends to visit (and destroy) the world. In Knights of the Old Republic there is a massive war (although not necessarily "destruction of everything", still considered bad). Vampire the Masquerade - Bloodlines also has you chasing an apocalypse artefact[footnote]

Spoiler

which you shouldn't open.

[/footnote].

While it's not all RPGs that do it - Deus Ex (though there are massive conspiracies, there) comes to mind, the "massive catastrophe" seems like a trapping of the genre. I think it's also part of the medium - there are plenty of other games that have massive destruction that only YOU can prevent. A lot do it, yet, I believe RPGs do that more.

 

[aozgolo]

This isn't a symptom of open worlds, just of narrative story-telling in general. The easiest way to get someone invested in a conflict is make the stakes higher. This occurs across all bodies of media, especially in Fantasy. Some extremely popular series like The Wheel of Time deal with the "End of the World". Now it might be fair to think that a greater percent of open world games have this narrative (I won't argue this as I haven't played them all) but it's just as prevalent in linear games as well. This is common trope for every RPG.

 

[Tanis]

It creates a sense of urgency that 'hey, random bad stuff is just kind of going on' doesn't really bring.

I mean, when you have 'omg end times we all gonna git fukd' vs 'kind of bad stuff plz get to it'...it really makes the player more quicker...

At least, that's the thinking.

 

[The Madman]

I generally prefer when rpg don't resort to the whole 'end of the world' scenario, I much prefer smaller and more personal stories where the main goal is less saving the world and more saving the people you like and mayhap yourself as well. Bluntly put at this point after having been playing video games for so long I've saved this world and a number of others so many times now I find the whole thing pretty... pedestrian.

Incidentally I quite liked how Witcher 3 balanced that. Was there an end of the world threat? Sure, but it wasn't actually your mission, it was Ciri's. Your story is all about finding and helping Ciri, the whole saving of worlds thing is tangential through her.

My recent favourite rpgs, Witcher 3 aside, have been the Shadowrun games by Harebrained Studios for just this reason. They're not open-world rpg, but I do like how the story are more character and mission driven as opposed to some great world ending terror. Plus their Cyberpunk, which makes everything better.

 

[aozgolo]

I generally prefer when rpg don't resort to the whole 'end of the world' scenario, I much prefer smaller and more personal stories where the main goal is less saving the world and more saving the people you like and mayhap yourself as well. Bluntly put at this point after having been playing video games for so long I've saved this world and a number of others so many times now I find the whole thing pretty... pedestrian.

Incidentally I quite liked how Witcher 3 balanced that. Was there an end of the world threat? Sure, but it wasn't actually your mission, it was Ciri's. Your story is all about finding and helping Ciri, the whole saving of worlds thing is tangential through her.

My recent favourite rpgs, Witcher 3 aside, have been the Shadowrun games by Harebrained Studios for just this reason. They're not open-world rpg, but I do like how the story are more character and mission driven as opposed to some great world ending terror. Plus their Cyberpunk, which makes everything better.

While I do enjoy RPGs with end of the world stories, I think really the story execution is what makes it good, not whether or not the stakes are so high. I also enjoy as you said the more personal and narrative experience. The nice thing about The Witcher 3 for me is that despite it having this "save the world" motif going, Geralt's personal journey shined through more than anything with his simple three step objective: "Get Money, Get Bitches, Find Ciri" and the survival of the world while he certainly is going to have an opinion on it, isn't so much something he signed up for as he just happened to be roped in.

Likewise one of my favorite Final Fantasy games is the one that tended to buck the save-the-world plot: Final Fantasy XII. I think it had some elements of "If you don't stop the bad guys, the world will suffer" but this was more hinted at towards the end, and hardly the overarching plot. It was really a much smaller contained political plot that really drove the story home about a Queen in Exile and her entourage each with their own personal agendas trying to stop an overreaching Empire, not one bent on destruction or world domination, or evil to it's core, though with some very questionable leaders, I found the departure very satisfying and enjoyable.

The Baldur's Gate games also stick in my mind as a nice compromise, while you are dealing with a story about resurrected gods, nefarious plots, and imminent chaos, the stories were very personal and localized. In BG1 if you fail... a war might break out. In BG2 if you fail... An Elf city gets destroyed by Drow? The whole plot while very much all-consuming to your mind while playing the games is a rather minor one in the grand scheme of the world in which it takes place. Faerun is vast and all manner of epic quests, tales, and stories exist within it to the point that a victory for the villains of either game would still pale in comparison to some others. The stories are great of course because they focus so purposefully on how it affects the main character, and the stakes for the world are left more as background info rather than motivation.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Wow, you chose two games that aren't even about the end of the world. Dragons in Skyrim are just a threat to Skyrim. Aside from the fact that in games about the end of the world the player is supposed to be the one to save it, The Witcher 3 is fundamentally a personal story about Geralt and his quest to find Ciri and defeat the Wild Hunt. The white frost isn't an imminent threat. Defeating it is of more importance to the Aen Elle elves. What Ciri chooses to do is more of a "with great power comes great responsibility" moment and a "nip that shit in the bud before it's too late" moment.

You want to talk about the purely end of the world scenarios, look at Bioware RPG's. I probably enjoyed Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 so much (Origins is still better but 2 is better than 3) because they were the least of all about the end of the world. I prefer smaller, more personal stories.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...don't most RPGs go for end-of-the-world scenarios anyway? Shit, even Pokemon has dipped it's toes into that plot-line a couple times, it's a pretty common storyline that makes for some easy high-stakes.

Definitely does cause the problem where the evil Emperor's flying death fortress is hanging over the starting city and the plot characters are all going 'THIS IS IT, THE FINAL, ULTIMATE END' and then you fuck off to go complete all the mini-games and side-quests that opened up, but honestly that feels like more of a problem with the format than the 'end of the world' story. It's very tricky balancing the main plot story and having it come off as high-risk, yet not locking players out of all the extra shit you've rolled into the game. REALLY causes problems if the end-story to stop the world is like, level 50ish, but all the bonus content gets your party members to level 90ish with weapons like GODSLAYER ULTIMATE or FINAL UNCUT MASAMUNE MK.XIIVII.

I dunno. Shit's hard to balance, and depending on the situations of the final mission it can get ludicrous for leaving it to go side-questing. I feel Fallout: New Vegas did it well (not end-of-the-world but still), where the final mission was a battle, with whatever side you were on starting the battle only when you told them to since you were a key player to their plans. That way you fucking around picking up bottlecaps or exploring a 1950s Science Mountain (made with SCIENCE!) comes off more as giving your allies more time to prepare than leaving the Ultimate World Ending Threat hanging so you can level grind.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Wow, you chose two games that aren't even about the end of the world. Dragons in Skyrim are just a threat to Skyrim.

To be fair, they were lead by the World Eater, the dragon-god destined to eat the world at the end of time, who was a little ahead of schedule. The big problem is that he was also really ineffectual as a villain, since his grand plan was reviving a bunch of dead dragons for... some reason, then when you finally get around to fighting him he runs away. Hard to take him as the 'World Eater' when all he does is fly around and shout fire at you before bugging out.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Wow, you chose two games that aren't even about the end of the world. Dragons in Skyrim are just a threat to Skyrim.

To be fair, they were lead by the World Eater, the dragon-god destined to eat the world at the end of time, who was a little ahead of schedule. The big problem is that he was also really ineffectual as a villain, since his grand plan was reviving a bunch of dead dragons for... some reason, then when you finally get around to fighting him he runs away. Hard to take him as the 'World Eater' when all he does is fly around and shout fire at you before bugging out.

The game never even had that vibe that doomsday scenario games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age etc. tend to have. Like everything is at stake. That's never been TES. In fact the writing and the impact of the story is more of an afterthought.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Wow, you chose two games that aren't even about the end of the world. Dragons in Skyrim are just a threat to Skyrim.

To be fair, they were lead by the World Eater, the dragon-god destined to eat the world at the end of time, who was a little ahead of schedule. The big problem is that he was also really ineffectual as a villain, since his grand plan was reviving a bunch of dead dragons for... some reason, then when you finally get around to fighting him he runs away. Hard to take him as the 'World Eater' when all he does is fly around and shout fire at you before bugging out.

The game never even had that vibe that doomsday scenario games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age etc. tend to have. Like everything is at stake. That's never been TES. In fact the writing and the impact of the story is more of an afterthought.

As said, SUPER ineffectual villain. All the lore hypes up and talks about how Alduin is this terrifying monster, first-born of Akatosh that will destroy the entire world when the end times come. He's literally the Apocalypse.

Just... didn't quite manage to really translate that properly into the game given how they handled story quests and the very mechanics of the gameplay itself. ME and DA did much better, since they established their villains as credible threats in the stories and then had them ACT like credible threats. In Skyrim, all the dragons do is fly around, fuck up a single tower then get killed by the Dragonborn, with most NPCs just acting like they're a nuisance rather than a world-ending problem. In ME and DA, the Reapers and Darkspawn are treated as credible threats by many NPCs (and those that don't are treated to looks of 'what the fuck is wrong with you'), are incredibly difficult to stop and have serious impact on the worlds they exist in over the course of their games. They're far more 'doomsday' monsters, while the Dragons are just... very Domestic.

It's actually one of the reasons I prefer the Fallout games to TES - Bethesda does much better when the focus is 'the closest 50 miles to my house' then when they're trying to say 'And now you're fighting a GOD! Who is also a DRAGON! And he eats PLANETS! Like the one you're on!'. A squadron of Enclave soldiers invading a settlement has much more impact to me than a Dragon flying over head with some vague allusions that it's a 'sign of the end times' or whatever the Greybeards kept trying to tell me.

BUT, still a game about the End of the World, it's just... they fucked up on the dismount. And the execution. And... well, a lot of things, really. Maybe if they made their god-villain more... godlike next time, instead of just a reskinned standard enemy? As said, REALLY hard to take Alduin the World Eater as an actual Eater of Worlds given I two-shot him with a bow.