🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

Calculate the size for an open world with no instancing?

Started by
21 comments, last by Alexey Makarov 7 years, 8 months ago

The best game I can make right now probably won't hold up for 60 hours of gameplay,

Nothing says a game has to have 60 hours of content. Sure, $1 per hour of content and a $60 price point for a new AAA game are pretty standard, thus the expectation of 60 hours+ gameplay. But that's not written in stone anywhere. And fewer and fewer titles these days deliver on that one hour of gameplay per dollar spent. Either they are small, and deliver less than that, or they are huge, and deliver hundreds or thousands of hours for $60.

and I can think of some games that have great gameplay, imho, that didn't hold up for 20 hours. Not because it was lackluster, but just simply time investment requires a certain amount of depth to plumb.

I don't follow... they were too shallow? IE great gameplay, but not enough of it? At least not enough to want to do it for more than 20 hours?

I understand. What I was attempting to refer to with my earlier comment is that you should be able to look at the gameplay you've created and have a strong idea whether it's a best fit for the hundreds of thousands of hours or the less than 60. A great example, for me, is the Arkham game series. I've enjoyed each game, but as the 100% completion has gotten bigger and bigger, finishing the games has gotten more and more tedious and less fun and engaging. The depth of the gameplay doesn't last long enough. And while mileage naturally varies on such things, I think there's a ballpark or sweet spot that can be aimed for.

Advertisement

A great example, for me, is the Arkham game series. I've enjoyed each game, but as the 100% completion has gotten bigger and bigger, finishing the games has gotten more and more tedious and less fun and engaging. The depth of the gameplay doesn't last long enough.

Ah, so its long, but lacks the depth to keep you from getting bored before you reach the end.

All games get old sooner or later. The less there is to them, the sooner it happens. Different levels of complexity call for different lengths of game - for storyline based games that have a specific end - unless the story itself is enough to keep the player engaged. For open ended games, you just play until you get tired of it, or retire that game and start a new game.

With storyline based games its extra tricky. You're mixing two types of entertainment in one product: storytelling, and game playing. Each will have its own "opinion" about how long the game should be. If the story demands a long game, the gameplay must have the depth for a game of such length. And visa versa. The story should be engaging enough to last until all game play has been exhausted / thoroughly explored. I think skyrim might be an example where the questlines don't quite stack up to the sheer volume of gameplay. OTOH, skyrim also has a distinct "more of the same" type design to it. Its really big claim to fame is that it has so MUCH more content than most games. I still find new content from time to time while playing it, and i probably have over 1000 hours in the game with all the characters i've tried. TES and the sims are the two games that influence Caveman, so when Skyrim came out, i had to check out the ENTIRE game. It took something like 8 characters to do it (one for each major questline), at a couple hundred hours gameplay each.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1989"

rocklandsoftware.net

PLAY CAVEMAN NOW!

http://rocklandsoftware.net/beta.php

one way (using instances) where other non-designated players are prevented from interfering and constantly making a hash of any planned (choreographed/designed/coordinated) sequence of interaction with npcs/terrain for the Mission the player has been told to do.

This is just making a single-player game inside an MMO lobby, it's not a real MMO (while almost all of modern "mmo" games doing this). I'm going to make a real MMO, where players could always interact between themselves.

And all described issues are not isseus, in fact. It's a part of MMO experience (with correct game design).

Its a matter of degree. You would allow prearranged 'party' (people you invite to take part) to play through the protected mission. Unfortunately there are MANY dimwits out their who gleefully will ruin the activities of every player they encounter and generally it is utterly simple for them to do it. (while you advance your character to Play, THEY figure out every shortcut/optomization to find ways to either kill you instantly (ganging up is so easy for this) or to disrupt any mission situation so that you will want to quit in disgust)

Dont count on Gamemaster intervention for any of your 'correct game design' to solve this as it is $$$ prohibitive. Even with automatic evidence recorders and complaint submission and banning, the labor expenses will largely invalidate such measures. Draconian Automatic mechanisms are required and unless being something as simple/absolute as blocking interaction or isolation THOSE themselves usually wind up being subverted for griefing activities )

forcing you into very simple 'mission' goals and actions

Still don't see any reason why it's forcing to a simple quests. The quests could be as complex as it's required for the game, just they should be designed for a multiplayer game, not for a single game.

Because your efforts to provide anything intricate or interesting will simply be attacked by asshole griefers (you try fighting a more than one-dimensional boss challenge (a close fight) when a (PvP enabled) griefer is ready to zap and kill you at the right moment. (and who will make it THEIR mission to ruin the situation/game for you). Thus all missions have to be utterly simple (braindead) and over quickly and unchallenging (and generic and numerous and unrewarding) so you can finish them before the assholes have a chance to interfere. They learned this about 20 years ago with the first MMORPGs

--------------------------------------------[size="1"]Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

@[member='wodinoneeye'], well, you're talking about limiting pvp-interaction, which is the key part of any MMO game (as it should be). I strictly against such mechanics because it's killing MMO games and converting it into a single (or simple multiplayer) games. What's the reason of making MMO game in that case?

For example, when talking about pvp-interaction (not just fights, but any interaction) I'm always referring to Lineage II, which didn't had any instances/limitations. Instead, it had in-game mechanics to regulate such things. And I'm sure this is the right method.

There was lot of pvp experience, some kind of politics (between clans/alliances), fights for areas/bosses and so on. There was lack of PvE (basically, only grinding) but it's a different part.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement