I have a situation to deal with. How much freedom do you give a player to roam in. For a game idea I have I want the player to have a wide are to roam, they can either be in FP or in a vehicle so where do you draw the limits? The area would be New York so do I have one specific area or the whole of New York...remember that I want them to have freedom to roam. I would like the player to be able to enter any building. "Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day!"

Being a strong advocate of permitting players to do almost anything in a game, as well as being a fan of free-roam games (Ultima, anyone?), I would say allow the player to freely roam most of the game''s world, and only reserve certain areas if there is a logical reason to do so.

How cool would it be in a game if you could explore the area that later is home to the final climactic event? It''s rarely done in games (if at all, really) and would be a huge step with regard to "Up With Realism".


MatrixCubed

I''ve been trying to figure out how to do really huge game maps myself. A couple of things you might want to think about:

1) What''s your interactivity to territory ratio? IOW, how interactive is your world? If you travel for miles just looking at scenery I think that will be interesting for awhile, but ultimately empty.

2) Why do you need that much territory? I''m working on a space game with tons of planets, and I can''t get the same feel of true space exploration without lots of planets to land on. Think about the same thing for your buildings and streets. What does that much space give you? Area to fight? Interesting stuff to explore?

I ask the last one because it may feel cool to create a huge play area, but if it''s not reasoned out then you may end up with a vacant, unsatisfying world, and waste effort that could have gone to making your game more cool in other areas.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

1) Interactivity:Territory ratio
I''m not sure at this point. I will design the various towns, inhabitations, and so on, once I have worked out the main concept for the game. I do want to offer players a very large area for exploration. I know that one of the pitfalls of large online games is the fact that the interactivity of the world is limited by the number of players in the game. Create a very large world with varied areas, and players will spread out into these different areas, and leave the world essentially barren. Preparing for this by offering different areas is a tough problem to crack but I think it is possible with a little careful planning.

2) Why do you need that much territory?
Look at the current trend of games. You might have 60 playable hours in the average game. I want to be able to move things around a lot in a game, and offer players varied areas, to keep things fresh and new for a very long time. With different underground areas for adventuring, as well as new vistas, islands, and so on, available all the time, I feel it''s very important to have vast areas. But again, it needs to be tempered with how much is available to players all at once. Maybe 50% of it will be unwholesome adventuring space, or won''t be fit for permanent residency, in which case it goes into the "pretty wilderness" category.

Look at any current online game (to which my above comments are directed); the main point of attraction for any wilderness area is how many monsters are there for characters to kill in combat. I think by adding something more on the level of intrigue and mystery might conquer that silly notion that online RPGs are only for leveling your 3L33+ characterz.



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

Don''t confuse interactivity, which can be a horizontal measure, with depth, which is more of a vertical measure.

We essentially have three components: the playing field, the interactive elements, and depth.

The playing field can be large and will provide a setting for seperate ''mini'' playing fields. The vast space between ''mini'' playing fields can increase the feeling of reward for gaining acccess to new ''mini'' playing fields.

The interactive elements define the number of options available to a player, and can increase the difficulty of puzzles and the feeling of freedom.

Depth, however is the most elusive. Depth has to do with the evolving state of the world and its story. Depth has to do with how deep the reasoning ability is of the world''s agents. Depth has to do with how far reaching the chain of events branches out from the actions of the player and the world''s agents.

Depth is where true extended gameplay will result. This is because as the world evolves, the player continually finds himself in a unique and novel situation.

To enter a small town as a stranger, and observe the ongoing daily drama of life as it unfolds, and then become a part of that evolving story as it develops in all its twists and tragedies is where truly satisfying and immersive gameplay may result.

Depth, in my opinion, the opposite of superficialness, is the most important yet most elusive component to a game.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

Don''t confuse interactivity, which can be a horizontal measure, with depth, which is more of a vertical measure.

Ya see, this is why I come to this board. Enlightenment!

You''re right. Fifty bazillion things to twiddle does not make the game hugely replayable.

quote:
The playing field can be large and will provide a setting for seperate ''mini'' playing fields. The vast space between ''mini'' playing fields can increase the feeling of reward for gaining acccess to new ''mini'' playing fields.

Although, this makes me a bit nervous. The vast space implies time to travel. Simply traveling, as any space trading game fantatic such as my self can tell you, is boring. (Hence the "time-acceleration" or "hyperjump" features)

So I''d vote in favor of the majority of time being active.

quote:
The interactive elements define the number of options available to a player, and can increase the difficulty of puzzles and the feeling of freedom.

Nice. Nod.

quote:
Depth, however is the most elusive. Depth has to do with the evolving state of the world and its story. Depth has to do with how deep the reasoning ability is of the world''s agents. Depth has to do with how far reaching the chain of events branches out from the actions of the player and the world''s agents.

I think this is perfectly right. It''s the cascade of consequences that creates true depth. Having a bazillion things to twiddle isn''t all that interesting. It''s when they start interacting that it gets interesting.

It''s a very recursive process, which makes it so elusive. It''s difficult to anticipate from the top level (like following a complicated, tangled tree of interactions).

Now you''ve got me thinking!


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Just remember that the ability to roam and explore is the most basic whay to have replay value...

So all ways make the free roaming exploratin rewarded though lengthy it ads to the game and adds to the world for setting...

and if you can have a whay of making the findings of there exploration change say rand() then it adds annother level to the game entirely...
Remember with replay value, good games become great!
and change the players thoughts from "blabla: that was a good game" to "blabla: that IS a good game "

who would play half life if it was just like a room to room
you need secret passeges and hidden coridors!


Keep conjuring the undead, my friends...

Too bad we can''t all go around making games as great as Daggerfall...

Morrowind... *drool*

- DarkMage139
++++++++++++++++
"Shut up and give me the freakin code" -unknown
"Ask and you will be shot" -snes16bit
"Not again!" -SHilbert (upon being assimilated)
"Nazrix is cool." - Nazrix
"You''ve only seen the beginning" -The Dark Lord of RPGs
"I''m gonna go get high on Squaresoft games" - ILoveNataliePortman

You see with my situation I need to have the whole of new york down as the playing area. Yes, New York is big and it is going to be detailed. Playing grand theft auto was quite fun but you were limited to where you could go.

The concept for my game is that you can run on foot or travel in your car so as you speed down the highway you can exit and go into the suburbs and explore the buildings and landmarks.

This all seems very complexed but I know it can be done. I agree that just going down a long road that ultimately comes to a dead end can be frustrating, but what if that road lead on to a highway which then took you across the state boarder into the next state. Instead of completing one map then going on to the next you would just make the next level transfer from the first without stopping the game itself.



"Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day!"