Will The Witcher 3 be a learned lesson or a glitch?

[spartandude]

Hey guys and dolls.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that in terms of open world design, The Witcher 3 blows the vast majority of it's competition out of the water. While it does have all the same boring stuff we've come to expect in most open worlds. It does still have a lot of very good side quests which often have the level of detail most game reserve for main quests. But it's towns and, of course, Novigrad feel like places people live in rather than a hub where you get missions. Now whether this is down to clever presentation or amazing design is up to you. All this together made a world that was fun to explore even though it was at the end of the a typical medieval europe fantasy setting.

And since this game came out most other open world games have received a fair bit of criticism. Fallout 4 is a game that while it received much praise. It was however, compared to it's predecessors, subject to a lot of criticism. I feel that it would have gotten much less negativity had it been released a year earlier. Dragonage Inquisition has also been looked back on negatively. And then of course Andromeda which also felt as though it's design was dated (even before the va and animation issues).

And then comes the question. Given how in love this industry is with open worlds. Do you think publishers/ developers (no real difference in AAA market) will try to emulate the Witcher 3's design or will it be seen as too much effort and expense and just fall back on what they're still doing?

 

[Xprimentyl]

I don?t think any developer sets out to do anything less with their open worlds than what The Witcher 3 did. I?d like to think, in my naive little heart, that they intend for all these open worlds to be the living, breathing and interesting worlds they portend to simulate, the problem is just execution (i.e.: deadlines, money, staff, any number of constraints ad infinitum.) Yeah, I don?t think any dev played TW3 and was like ?Oooooh, so that?s how you make an open world entertaining.? So it?s not that TW3 has lessons to teach so much as they did the work better than most. They?ve certainly raised the bar, but it?s going to take more than the rest of the industry flipping a proverbial switch before we can expect that gold standard to become simply the standard, imho.

 

[CritialGaming]

TW3 is the new bar set for any company trying to make an open world. It has created a whole new level in quality and detail that is far above that of any AAA game before it. Any developer and publisher would love to reach for that bar and surpass the glory that is The Witcher 3.

Sadly in this day and age, everyone gets a participation trophy for trying. And that's good enough for most other big-name publishers.

 

[meiam]

I hope not, as someone who was very meh on TW3 I feel like the lesson coming out of it is: "nobody care about shallow gameplay and linear quest, all they care about is "maturity" (i.e. boobs and gore)". I'm being a bit negative, the writing was very nice, but gameplay wise... so boring, repetitive and shallow.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The main thing responsible for Witcher 3 being "better" than other open world RPGs was writing quality, which of course also has a great impact on quest design. As far as open world design goes, I felt the game fell into the same basic Ubisoft traps with your map being littered with icons (mainly question marks) that were rather boring and repetitive to do (like monster nests or sunken treasure). The gameplay was pretty bad as well; the combat sucked and even just running around sucked too. The problem with Witcher 3 being good for mainly writing and quest design aspects is that other devs just can't copy that and implement it, you need good writers/designers and there's no simple and easy way to accomplished that.

I think Horizon Zero Dawn is the much better example that other devs should focus on utilizing as a template. Horizon was developed in a very reserved fashion and it wasn't about giving players hundreds of points of interest on the map, it took the 'less is more' approach. Even the collectibles are greatly toned down, Uncharted 4 has more collectibles than Horizon for example. Instead of 25+ towers in a FarCry game, there's 5 or 6 in Horizon. Instead of hundreds of quests, there's less than 50 quests in Horizon combined (main, side, and errands). The world isn't big just to be big, it's rather small but full of detail and variety. I liked exploring far more in Horizon than Witcher 3 because there was something visually different around the next corner. Lastly, Guerilla Games made sure to hone their core gameplay and make it really good vs just putting in a combat system that's "good for an RPG" and leaving it at that. Horizon is definitely something every dev can look to and make a better game themselves. The less quests you design, the better your designed quests will be because you're spending more time on each and every quest. Will the quests be as good or better than Witcher 3? Maybe, maybe not, but they will be better than if you doubled/tripled/quadrupled the number of your quests.

TL;DR
-Horizon is the better template for devs to copy because Horizon was developed with a quality over quantity mindset, which any dev can use that approach. Whereas Witcher 3 was good because of writing quality, and that isn't something you can just flip the switch on and do unless you have actual good writers, which is in very short supply in the video game industry.

 

[CritialGaming]

TL;DR
-Horizon is the better template for devs to copy because Horizon was developed with a quality over quantity mindset, which any dev can use that approach. Whereas Witcher 3 was good because of writing quality, and that isn't something you can just flip the switch on and do unless you have actual good writers, which is in very short supply in the video game industry.

I'm gonna have to severely disagree with you here. Horizon is a great game, and frankly it is probably going to be my game of the year unless something really blows my biscuits in the next couple of months. But as good as it was, the side content in HZD was fairly lame imo. And I don't think the side quests had anything even close to the witcher's level of quality. The writing wasn't nearly as good, the quests themselves weren't all that memorable (part of which is because of the writing).

Now I will agree with you that one of the best things HZD did with it's world was to not over saturate it with icons and random shit to do. Which might have to do with they just didn't have the set up to do that. But what it allowed was for players to experience a world without getting bored by it. However, the icons that WERE there, mostly ended up being "find the thing", and nothing more.

The actions and random marks in TW3 were also the same, but they pulled from a bigger pool of actions. Save the guy, clear the camp, hunt the treasure, track the monster, blow up the nest, clear the cave, etc etc.

I think there is a happy middle ground that could be reached. If you don't have the writing team to create a huge amazing world, make a smaller amazing world. HZD wasn't really a big map, and as a result, more of the map had meaning, more of the map made sense. TW3 had a huge map, but it also had the backing behind it to make sure that the big map always had interesting uses of it's space.

The problem is, companies like Ubisoft have created this open-world formula, and as a result nothing about their games feels unique. It's always like you follow the same beats, and they over stuff the maps with collect-a-thon nonsense. And the collecting bullshit is the biggest thing that open world games need to get away from. Collect-a-thons and towers, both need to fucking go. Sure an open world game can absolutely have a collection aspect to it, so long as it is limited and not over blown.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

TL;DR
-Horizon is the better template for devs to copy because Horizon was developed with a quality over quantity mindset, which any dev can use that approach. Whereas Witcher 3 was good because of writing quality, and that isn't something you can just flip the switch on and do unless you have actual good writers, which is in very short supply in the video game industry.

I'm gonna have to severely disagree with you here. Horizon is a great game, and frankly it is probably going to be my game of the year unless something really blows my biscuits in the next couple of months. But as good as it was, the side content in HZD was fairly lame imo. And I don't think the side quests had anything even close to the witcher's level of quality. The writing wasn't nearly as good, the quests themselves weren't all that memorable (part of which is because of the writing).

Now I will agree with you that one of the best things HZD did with it's world was to not over saturate it with icons and random shit to do. Which might have to do with they just didn't have the set up to do that. But what it allowed was for players to experience a world without getting bored by it. However, the icons that WERE there, mostly ended up being "find the thing", and nothing more.

The actions and random marks in TW3 were also the same, but they pulled from a bigger pool of actions. Save the guy, clear the camp, hunt the treasure, track the monster, blow up the nest, clear the cave, etc etc.

I think there is a happy middle ground that could be reached. If you don't have the writing team to create a huge amazing world, make a smaller amazing world. HZD wasn't really a big map, and as a result, more of the map had meaning, more of the map made sense. TW3 had a huge map, but it also had the backing behind it to make sure that the big map always had interesting uses of it's space.

The problem is, companies like Ubisoft have created this open-world formula, and as a result nothing about their games feels unique. It's always like you follow the same beats, and they over stuff the maps with collect-a-thon nonsense. And the collecting bullshit is the biggest thing that open world games need to get away from. Collect-a-thons and towers, both need to fucking go. Sure an open world game can absolutely have a collection aspect to it, so long as it is limited and not over blown.

I wasn't claiming Horizon's writing, quests, or side quests/side content were better than Witcher 3. I was saying that Horizon's 40+ quests were better than they would've been if Guerilla Games had made 100+ quests like say Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim, or Kingdoms of Amalur. That's something every dev can do, make fewer quests and spend more time on each one, which will yield better quests. What every dev can't do is tell their writers to write better and have it magically happen. I had more fun actually doing the side stuff in Horizon because the gameplay was GOOD whereas in Witcher 3 all the side stuff like monster nests or sunken treasures (oh god that swimming) all sucked because the core gameplay sucked regardless that there was more variety. Gameplay is one thing to copy from Horizon (not the literal killing of robo-dinos); Guerilla spent lots of time getting their combat to be actually good vs just about every action RPG settling with "good for an RPG" combat, which just doesn't cut it and it never did IMO (whether it be the bad turned-based combat of "classic" JRPGs or swing a sword until it dies of Elder Scrolls).

 

[Zhukov]

I'm not sure how much can be done with the lesson of "You get more work for less if you're paying your employees Poland-level wages".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Given how in love this industry is with open worlds. Do you think publishers/ developers (no real difference in AAA market) will try to emulate the Witcher 3's design or will it be seen as too much effort and expense and just fall back on what they're still doing?

I hope not, as someone who was very meh on TW3 I feel like the lesson coming out of it is: "nobody care about shallow gameplay and linear quest, all they care about is "maturity" (i.e. boobs and gore)". I'm being a bit negative, the writing was very nice, but gameplay wise... so boring, repetitive and shallow.

I think these two comments sort of juxtapose against each other to highlight what I've been saying about TW3 for over a year now in terms of its open world:
The open world of TW3 is pretty empty and mostly devoid of meaningful activities. The open world is essentially a Ubi-style collect-a-thon of markers you visit and the occasional short sidequest (ie. kill the ghouls in the barn or find the treasure) with loads of hostile AI in between. As a Game World it is not as good as GTA V or Just Cause 3 and you can make a case for SR4, Far Cry 4 and even Ghost Recon: Wildlands (and probably loads of others that I am forgetting) as having a more dynamic, gameplay friendly open world.

As a consistent, believable and immersive open world however, TW3 knocks it straight out of the park. TW3 has little to do in the open world, but a lot to see. Wherever you go, you will feel as if you really are in this North Eastern Europe inspired fantasy world. From grimy villages to corpse and debris strewn battlefields to the cramped alleys of Novigrad or the mountains of Skellige, the world is beautifully crafted, always feels coherent and oozes untold stories. Wherever you go you will find small things that tell you stories, like strung up deserters, ambushed and deserted wagons etc.. TW3 nails its' environmental design and storytelling, over and over.

TW3 should not be hailed as "the best open world" because it falls flat in many, many respects as a game. However, every game designer that wants to do an open world should definitely look at what CDPR did to make its' world immersive and engaging, because that's what TW3 does well and it does it so well that many of us (me included for my first 100 hours) didn't realize that we essentially walked an empty world, because there was just so many small details to see and the game world felt internally consistent throughout.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The open world of TW3 is pretty empty and mostly devoid of meaningful activities. The open world is essentially a Ubi-style collect-a-thon of markers you visit and the occasional short sidequest (ie. kill the ghouls in the barn or find the treasure) with loads of hostile AI in between. As a Game World it is not as good as GTA V or Just Cause 3 and you can make a case for SR4, Far Cry 4 and even Ghost Recon: Wildlands (and probably loads of others that I am forgetting) as having a more dynamic, gameplay friendly open world.

As a consistent, believable and immersive open world however, TW3 knocks it straight out of the park.

Doesn't that make the statement that it's pretty empty and mostly devoid of meaningful activities nul and void?

The biggest hurdle (and triumph) for any gameworld is to not make it feel like a GAMEworld. Technically The Witcher 3 doesn't do anything different from other open-world games, but than it was never the technicallities that were the problem with the genre. The thread that ties the world together and makes it live and breath, makes it organic, is what most others failed the capture, but what the The Witcher 3 achieved. This in itself makes it one of if not the best open-world game today.

As detailed of an open-world game as GTA5 was the world felt overall very static, especially if I was walking around on foot. There was no intimacy to the NPCs or a connection to the environment. Even the residences felt little more than save points.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Doesn't that make the statement that it's pretty empty and mostly devoid of meaningful activities nul and void?

Not necessarily. While I might be the kind of person that loves to get really immersed in a game world and feel as if I am really acting in another world, I also know that there are many who are not. Ultimately, some people want a GAME world and some want a game WORLD, and both are totally legitimate desires. TW3 is the contemporary masterpiece of the latter while GTA5 and JC3 are great examples of the former.

To suggest that TW3 is the epitome of all open world design seems like a dubious prospect to me however, just because its' design is very heavily slanted towards ambiance and immersion while lacking mightily in actual player activities. There's plenty of accolades you can put at the feet of TW3s open world, but it behooves us all to admit that it also has some very nasty limitations and shortcomings and that those will absolutely ruin the experience for some people.

 

[CaitSeith]

Neither. Witcher 3 is good, but not as profitable as a mediocre game with microtransactions. The publishers make more money out of the MC than the game sales.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

As long as they don't go with the complete bore that is Geralt. I'm having a hard time replaying that game due to the monotone vehicle I have to experience the world through.
It was tolerable the first time due to the initial wonder and respect towards the developers for their evident improvements over the previous games, but now his every spoken word grates against my very soul. Why does every female character seem to be attracted to him?
You can have a dry, sardonic performance without resorting to catatonic monotone...such as Michael Winncot voicing Death in Darksiders 2. Though that got almost arousing at times. They should hire him to do Geralt, at least the incoming horny ladies would feel a bit less patronising and more easy to justify.

 

[Casual Shinji]

There's plenty of accolades you can put at the feet of TW3s open world, but it behooves us all to admit that it also has some very nasty limitations and shortcomings and that those will absolutely ruin the experience for some people.

Like what though?

I mean, I have some issues with the game here and there, but in terms of its open-world I can't look at its contemporaries and say 'Oh yeah, those did that aspect way better'. Because it basically does the same thing every Ubisoft and GTA game does, except it gives eveything its own personal little framing.

I would like to know what those shortcomings actually are.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I would like to know what those shortcomings actually are.

Being a little short on time, here's a brief list:
* Very few random encounters or happenings. GTA does this much better, where you can see people get robbed, encounter drunk drivers etc.
* Little chance for "off the script"-gameplay. GTA, SR, JC and Wildlands all allow you to instigate gameplay in the open world by attacking enemies and ramping up the action. You can also steal cars, cause mischief and generally mess around with the systems. In TW3 the world is generally static and apart from running into wolves or the occasional monster (or finding a quest), you can't do much apart from travel in the open world.
* Few gameplay possibilities besides going to markers. GTA, SR, JC, FC and most other sandbox games allow you the opportunity to instigate gameplay in the open world. Maybe you steal a cab and do cab missions, maybe you just explode an entire village for reasons or whatever.

This doesn't matter much to me, personally, but I have had a few friends who felt that the open world was just too barren and didn't provide enough gameplay for them, so they just sped run through the main quest of TW3. The sandbox elements of TW3 are really barren. I get why they are so, but it still impacts negatively on the open world for a lot of people.

 

[spartandude]

As far as open world, there is a difference between "sandbox" and mere "open world". The Witcher would not really excel as the former due to what Gethsemani described above. I personally consider both games narratively to be a "one and done" affair, but where GTA sets itself apart is that all the random self-authored sandbox stuff is actually where my true fun with the game begins.

 

[CritialGaming]

I would like to know what those shortcomings actually are.

Being a little short on time, here's a brief list:
* Very few random encounters or happenings. GTA does this much better, where you can see people get robbed, encounter drunk drivers etc.
* Little chance for "off the script"-gameplay. GTA, SR, JC and Wildlands all allow you to instigate gameplay in the open world by attacking enemies and ramping up the action. You can also steal cars, cause mischief and generally mess around with the systems. In TW3 the world is generally static and apart from running into wolves or the occasional monster (or finding a quest), you can't do much apart from travel in the open world.
* Few gameplay possibilities besides going to markers. GTA, SR, JC, FC and most other sandbox games allow you the opportunity to instigate gameplay in the open world. Maybe you steal a cab and do cab missions, maybe you just explode an entire village for reasons or whatever.

This doesn't matter much to me, personally, but I have had a few friends who felt that the open world was just too barren and didn't provide enough gameplay for them, so they just sped run through the main quest of TW3. The sandbox elements of TW3 are really barren. I get why they are so, but it still impacts negatively on the open world for a lot of people.

I think you are blurring the line between an open-world RPG and a sandbox game. There is a reason why you can fuck about in games like Ghost REcon, GTA, and Just Cause, because those worlds are designed to be fucked around in. However in TW3 the world isn't there to be pissed about in, it's there to feel like a real living place and it does that very very well. People get robbed by bandits in the streets, monsters attack random passerbys in the woods, guards will attack you if you screw with people near them, so there are ways in which you can fuck with the world and those random life events do happen. However the game itself isn't really designed for you to do that, so a lot of players miss it because they merely focus on going from one thing to another.

Frankly I don't think the worlds of GTA-like games are very interesting. You can travel about a city-sized map yet your actions mean nothing in the long term scope of the world. People don't know who you are, or what you are. Your actions during missions don't have any effect on the game world outside of radio news broadcasts, nothing you do ever has any lasting effect. You can go on a rampage and slaughter every police officer in the city, but once you escape or are caught, everything resets back to normal as if nothing ever happened. Because they are sandboxes and that's what makes them different animals entirely and hard to directly compare with each other.

And you are right. TW3 doesn't really allow for "off-script" moments, however you can be surprised by scripted events because they happen when you don't expect them too. There are several quests that you can complete quickly and easily early in the game, that often cause something to happen hours and hours later. Either new quests that pop up, a surprise interaction with a previous NPC, or even a simple additional interaction in a quest that allows you do take on another quest differently. For example, one of the random ?'s on the map, led me to save a dwarf from bandits. A few hours later I was taking part of another quest where I had to "rob" a storehouse, which meant I could lure the guard away, kill the guard, sneak into the storehouse from somewhere else, OR because the guard happened to be the dwarf I saved hours prior, the dwarf simply sighed and let me into the building so long as I promised not to steal "everything". Because he owed me, and that shit is awesome. It isn't just the writing that made TW3 fantastic, it's the way the world constantly interacts and connects around itself. Doing things that seem pointless or checklisty, often times end up popping up later on to have a change on the experience.

People also keep complaining about the combat in TW3 which really doesn't make any sense to me. You can build Geralt to do any sort of crazy things, from wild potion mastery, to a powerful mage, to just a simple swordsman. The choice in combat is yours, and if you think the game is just mashing quick attack until you win, then you didn't play on a real difficulty which is fine because that's the choice you made. But if you play on super easy and complain the game is super easy, then I dunno what to tell you.

Compare the combat in TW3 to any other open world game. What about the combat in Wildlands? You shoot dudes, loudly or quietly, and that's basically it. Is that combat somehow deep? GTA is the same thing. There is no dynamic combat here. Is there a different way to shoot bad guys? I guess you could use different guns, but in the end it all leads to you putting tiny pieces of metal into bad guy brains.

To me it boils down to setting honestly. I never see people comparing TW3 combat to any similar games, because sword fighting is basically sword fighting, and it is hard to argue that Geralt doesn't have to be more dynamic in fighting the monsters he has to fight versus the Assassin in Creed easily stomping through guards who fight like it's their first day on the job.

If you want to compare TW3 combat to GTA you simply can't because the games are completely different styles. Melee versus ranged is not a fair comparison. Now if someone wants to show me a game with better sword play, more variety in combat, more diverse monsters/bosses, in which you have to plan and tackle each fight differently, then go ahead. But you aren't going to find a game like that.

I'm not saying you are wrong for not liking TW3 combat. That's fine. But you are wrong to call it swallow.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Being a little short on time, here's a brief list:
* Very few random encounters or happenings. GTA does this much better, where you can see people get robbed, encounter drunk drivers etc.

Are those that memorable though? I remember the first time playing Red Dead Redemption and being pleasantly surprised by a coach getting robbed while riding my horsey, but eventually they started to feel just as scripted as everything else. Same with GTA5 -- Most of the random encounters in that game are either 'Here's a money transport for you to rob' or 'Someone's car got jacked; go after 'm'. The seams of that mechanic become visible very quickly.

* Little chance for "off the script"-gameplay. GTA, SR, JC and Wildlands all allow you to instigate gameplay in the open world by attacking enemies and ramping up the action. You can also steal cars, cause mischief and generally mess around with the systems. In TW3 the world is generally static and apart from running into wolves or the occasional monster (or finding a quest), you can't do much apart from travel in the open world.

While initially I can have a little fun going on a rampage I can't say it leaves me particularly satisfied. In the end it's just me spending a few hours trying to survive while blowing stuff up.

* Few gameplay possibilities besides going to markers. GTA, SR, JC, FC and most other sandbox games allow you the opportunity to instigate gameplay in the open world. Maybe you steal a cab and do cab missions, maybe you just explode an entire village for reasons or whatever.

Just as above this generally just devolves into going on a rampage, unless there's people out there that genuinely enjoy doing cab missions.

Stuff like this doesn't add much to an open-world besides mindless action-filler. It's not like you can actually toy around with the world, screw around with the NPCs. It's either you punching them, shooting them, or running them over. The most interesting thing you could do in GTA5 was jumping against NPCs and ragdolling over them.

I guess I'd rather just do all that stuff in the context of a story.