Player controllers usually follow the line of getting more intricate and diversified, trying to adapt themselves to some preset conventions that players, as a community, have developed through the time: dozens of buttons, joysticks, peripherals and combinations that can make any newcomer to feel less than dizzy. But when the new era of social gaming, and with a huge emphasize on handheld titles, the use of controls have been simplified to the use of a simple finger.
Variety is the spice of life, and so is, partially, of game characters. When it comes to games with a diverse and astonishing amount of characters to choose thousands of feelings comes, with the same diversity, to player’s minds: whether it should be amazing for its unique offer or overwhelming, so many things to do or just the same mechanic with a different skin. Let’s check it out!
Game ideas came to our minds more easily than we can expect, but rather than leaving them unnatended, there’s an option to exploit this skills on time attack challenges. That’s what happened today: after some research and work, my entry was chosen on Game Career Guide Game design Challenge.
The challenge: make a game dependent on the player’s ability to build the map in which he stays. The synopsis suggested the feature that dungeon crawlers made famous to be applied, but getting further in context and adding a bit (if not a bunch) of innovation. I’m glad i saw pretty god designs among others, seems there’s a growing community that gets richer in knowledge about terminology which seemed to be only manageable to a few erudites. Schools and self-taught ones are doing it well.
I always attempt to conceptualize (if thats a clever word) the main player’s screen, in this case something borrowed from here and there (I used to be an artist, until I took and arrow in the knee…)
Anyway, my entry called I Remember was based on the main schematic of an adventure game. The player managed the memory of the main character, who was telling somebody the facts that happened some time ago. The main goal was to bring coherency to the whole story by reading the character’s dialogue, which was able of being doubted by other non player characters capable of asking hazardous questions. Something with a variety of outcomes and based on the reward of reaching every end and creating different layouts. It’s worth reading, so check the the link below to see the project and all the entries as well.
For further information, don’t hesitate on reading the whole feature, alongside the other entries here.
Provided an Open world Design is somehow driven by certain constraints that keeps the player engaged as well as in the mood for not losing his attention on the main events prepared on the game, seems quite unfair that the rest of polished, toughly developed rest of the scenario could be so much left alone at expense of such fixed guidelines.
And there’s where some titles can afford a little effort by shaping a few things in order to tackle those players who weren’t able to resign and let his hand guided by a pre-established set of actions.Further than the simple fact of following orders powered by indirect control, the willing of the player for reaching far away from the pre-established scheme is sometimes rewarded, creating a positive outcome for those forbearing adventurers who wished for more than the average rushing ones.
We’ve talked about how much the notion of Open World differs sometimes from what really is. Huge spaces filled with void assets that makes freedom a secondary player rather than the main element in the game, with no relevant rules on where, what or why the player should be choosing from or by the contrary, to many pre-established things that dictates the player’s ambition of liberty and choices.
Games, on its background, use a set of techniques, without breaking the technical restrictions of a game, in order to generate the illusion of freedom on the player, and make the experience equally profitable for both sides.
The perfect balance between choices and engagement is the problem to solve: how to draw the playes attention, how to guide them when the environment seems to abandon them, how to maintain the hunger for adventure if nothing seems relevant and how to make a lonesome space attractive and worth playing; this features will profitably balance players to decide to spend their so important life time populating a wild world to tame. Techniques out! :
Driven by the next-generation prophecies, the so called open World breed of games have been populating the gaming scene since its very early stages and from unfulfilled prototypes, up to ambitious titles with tons of things to care about. Lonesome players with thousand yards to explore and interact with, and lots of things to do on something sometimes marketed like if somebody was about to sell a place to the heaven itself. Open World is not a genre, but a conception and a double edged adjective that sweetens titles, but sideways can turn them into a complex system or a simplistic playground with nothing more but bleakness. Games now, capable of holding humongous amounts of data, seem to whisper to developers that it’s possible and viable, to try to push the technology forward and swap the core of linearity for a whole new place where the limit is set by an incredibly large place.
Nothing as easy as seeking the current blockbuster themes to guess that Open worlds are being added more frequently inside a wide variety of genres, from RPGs to arcade driving simulators. Not a virus, but a tendency…perhaps.
Open world stands for a virtual space commonly used in certain games. It’s referred to those scenarios where the player, from its beginning, is capable to escape from the linearity and take a trip outside the boundaries stablished on the straightforwarded titles. But the term Open World is used so many times, that seems quite unclear that everything could fit inside this description. From first to last, games claim to the users how they can rely so much in the vast immensity of their space, how they can enjoy the ecosystem that surrounds the complexity of those inmense constructions. Minds were thinking about MMORPGS as soon as the word was written in the first line, but also standard role playing games, action titles, sport and race games (perhaps every single genre!) has its titles with the banner of “No frontiers” on its back cover,trying to tell the players that his value of replayabity and engagement is masterfully managed by this component of no-frontier design. But far from that , open world stands for something more relvant that just the space notion, it calls for freedom. Whether the map has just 4 places to go or if it has 46, they’re still open world games as long as they claim to the users the freedom of choice and roam, the capability of reaching multiple objectives in different ways, to escape linearity and pre-established on-rails event and to offer an medium in which such things have a meaningful outcome.
Open world games will be as long as they claim to the users the freedom of choice and roam, the capability of reaching multiple objectives in different ways, to escape linearity and pre-established on-rails events and to offer an medium in which such things have a meaningful outcome
Now Open World is a dish dressed with a few popular words: freedom, variety of actions, multiple activities, unlimited fun (as it sounds), exploration, tons of elements, mega (add everything you want here, starting from destruction to pony races) and some other cholesterol-entertaining ingredients. Nothing far from it, these vast extensions of meshes, bits, bytes, behaviors and events are anything but void containers where the player can do nothing but feel lost. An open world is a dangerous place, sometimes driven by ostentous desires, others by the requirements of a script, technology or fantasy that was impossible to avoid because of its incredible and immersive feeling; others because it was the genre who asked for it; and others, simply for no compelling reason at all.
Ultima 1 is considered as the first Open World game: a mix between a free-to-roam map and multiple dungeons to explore that equalled to freedom of choice.
So the further the notion has got, the more mistaken the things surrounding have been. Engagement is the core of a game in order to make it interesting, to deliver an experience that is capable of absorbing the players mind for 5 minutes up to a whole life. If open worlds are designed just for its unstoppable marketing need of yelling everywhere that it’s an ambitious project of recreating Manhattan in its early 50s, or to reproduce the old Babylon from the door frames to the behavior of the merchants, it’s just an useless bunch of code and art with a proper intention to amaze, but not engage. The epic/fantastic claims of such void worlds end up being repetitive, dull and nonsense: there is a lack of consistency between the rules, the players, the dynamics, mechanics and lore because of the imbalance between architectural art, (as well as the testosterone-powered need of further, longer and higher) and gameplay.
To tame such a wild thing an open world is, a proper design is required to make the experience corresponding to a game that is engaging. Just as the design of a shopping mall tends to evade the consumer from staring up to 20 minutes to numbers on a parking lot, rather than exploring all the shops guided by the different posters spread along the building, a well game design uses its own tools from keeping the player on a pre-established road, even though it seems there are tons of ways to interact with the world, but with a null feedback as reward. The strategy is the use of indirect control as Jesse Schell defines in The Art of game Design: A book of lenses, a way to shape the freedom it may suppose the game, to turn it into a feeling of freedom in order to manage correctly such an important thing the player’s experience is.
There is a lack of consistency between rules, players, dynamics, mechanics and lore because of the imbalance between need to achieve architectural-ostentious desires and engaging gameplay.
Of course nothing stops you from going outside your home starting village, quitting from killing gigantic flies in order to gather 20 wings for an unpleasant quest giver, who will give you a rotten stick for hitting dire wolves. You can decide to take a trip to the closest city or common rendezvous point, and to discover there that, as the movies, you’re nothing but a tourist who barely knows how to ask for directions: unprepared, naked, and alone. But it’s there and you can, at least, check outside how the things are evolving, to discover how open is the virtual space on which you are playing, but don’t forget that designers thought about the same, and they’ll make sure to mute your Phileas Fog ambitions by a huge increase of difficulty, enemies that recons you even you’re not seeing them, unavailable actions to take, players that speak in other ingame languages and something deeper, more abstract, but tangible inside games: void (or fog, or end of the tile set, or “everything has an end”, or “it was 20gb of content, wait for an expansion”). There are plenty of ways to make players think they’re inside a perfect world where everything fits his designs, but in the backend such games are managing the player’s road, guessing the next movements and offering the correct choices rather than leaving the player to roam freely elsewhere. This constraining set of rules are the ones that will make the world a place where the player feels comfortable with, rather than abandoned or over-protected, and will be decisive to the longevity of the title, making its core somenthing to tak about, to be experienced and most important, to be taught. But inside this storm, many titles have found its way to fight alongside this curse, and to drive the player towards an enjoyable experience, the techniques are a few and to make it more entertaining, there is a part 2 of this theme explaining the most common and efficient ways to tame such inmensive creations Open Worlds are.