#What kind of open world is this supposed to be?

29 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

sinful raven
#

I was expecting to see more direction to clarify what the game is supposed to be, but so far, it looks like the game is a whole bunch of tech, with the hope that the direction will be found at some point.
What is the mental model here? What is this game supposed to be close to?

I watched Matt's video where he compares it to Sid Meier's Pirates! But Pirates! follows the Elite model of dead space separating action centers. Your goal at any point in time is to plan the next trip from action center to action center, and to get some loot on the way. All the while, the clock is running out (you grow old). There is a direction and a time limit pushing you to maximize your gains and beat your previous "score". Additionally your crew gets upset if you travel for too long, making it so you have to split your gold and spend time again before you can start your next trip. In other words, it's a very carefully crafted 'open world' game, with incentives at every layer to get you moving and doing stuff.

Now, I'm no expect on open world games, and there are a whole bunch of them whose dynamics I don't really understand, like No Man's Sky and even Terraria. A lot of these games seem to be on the verge of game editors, where you just build whatever you want, experience some funny stuff like AI colliding into walls, collect some stuff to build the next thing. There's not much "purpose" there -- it's just about seeing stuff and building some stuff, like a seemingly endless box of lego with secret pieces you can keep discovering. Is that the vibe the game is going for?

leaden salmon
#

That is a fair question to ask. While Terraria's goal is kind of like Minecraft, reach the end game, beat bosses and build it is still pretty "loose".

No Man sky is the worst in that department but I think it is getting better these years

formal pivot
#

I think it's most similar to Minecraft, with a major "end" goal of defeating some big bad after sufficient preparation. Depending on how intricate the systems are, it could also be played like Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing, or GTA Online.

#

How it differs from SOR1 is from the longevity of a run. You can't kill too many people, cause that will raise the level of police. You can't sell too much of one item, cause that will crash its price. You can't build up reputation with every faction, cause you will have made too many enemies. A lot of that is speculation; I have no idea if any of those ideas will actually be implemented and even if they are, someone will find a way to bypass it.

#

The gist of it is SOR2 is an open world where you can tackle a problem in a number of ways, and all the potential consequences that entails.

subtle finch
#

The comparison to Pirates was less about the mechanics of that game and more about the general sense of it being something you can pick up and play and have fun right away and not anticipate your game needing to be a super long-term investment.

This is structured more as a survival-crafting title in that you're gradually gaining something or other and working toward defeating bosses. Just swap out whatever those gains are with something more Streets of Rogue-ish and swap out the bosses with Mayors who aren't necessarily trying to kill (depending on how you want to do things).

#

That's the gist of it, but I see it as also being the sort of thing that can have multiple game types and win states. I'm focusing on this core progression type first, though.

sinful raven
#

Ah ok so there are multiple bosses. And how does doing quests help you towards defeating bosses?
Off the top of my head, bosses (mayors) could be absurdly powerful initially, and as you accomplish quests, you weaken them in some way (less support, maybe fewer buffs, your own gang will back you up etc.) You could sabotage their gangs in various ways, food supplies, kill off their hitmen with a car chase...
Mayors could be structured as multi-level bosses, with their gang members protecting them first, but if you sabotage them, you can win them over.
Just spitballing here. Is this what you're going for, or something different? Because in SOR terms you don't need anything to beat the mayors per se, so I'm wondering what you meant by that.

#

On the survival-crafting side... the thing is, I'm not seeing anything that threatens your survival...? Like, in Terraria, you're constantly assaulted by those slimes and at night the zombies. You need to build some minimal shelter. Once you're protected, you can stay at that level forever, but if you want to make any progress, you have to start digging to get the better stuff. I assume this is modeled after Minecraft.
In Don't Starve, you're constantly trying to survive against the elements and need to push further to build better stuff that will enable you to stay alive.

For example, if you added a need for food and sleep, that would already create needs that must be satisfied. I don't love those mechanics in many games, but here they would create a reason for you to work and build stuff. Sleep means you can't just rob people at night -- you yourself will get debuffed and weaker (unless you choose to become a night owl). There's an issue with the fact that SOR is very silliness-heavy, and adding these more 'serious' things doesn't fit with the silliness that was used to justify the mechanics of the first game.

Jobs could be obtained via relationships with people, which would prevent you just running away to another town whenever you want. Build up relationships and trust to get the better paying jobs. Those better jobs also need you to dress better, which costs money.

I don't know how this meshes with the multiple character thing though. That already requires a lot of silliness and a minimalistic narrative to make it work.

leaden salmon
#

I agree with the point that "nothing forces you to build anything."

The main challenge (although it's not necessarily a problem, and I'll elaborate on that) is that if building a house or owning property becomes a requirement, it could slow down the game's core focus of "play and have fun right away". However, if there’s no meaningful reason to build, many players might find it pointless after a while. Building can definitely be enjoyable on its own, but without purpose, it’s unlikely to keep most players engaged.

In the game's current state, I don’t see this as a major issue. Players who don’t want to build aren’t forced to, and those who do can enjoy it for role-playing, special furniture (like a workbench or stove), or potential future gameplay features (such as the hinted "company style" gameplay, like running a casino).

There are also mentions of "location bonuses", that might help too.

candid crane
#

Having win states being different for different classes is the key imo. You don't want to achieve the same things as a farmer and as a soldier.

leaden salmon
#

Hmm that's a good point, and while the ultimate goal will probably always be to become the president; how you achieve it might need some intermediate, class specific quests like what you are saying

hard ether
#

IMO it would be nice if it had the same deal that Shadows of Doubt has: you can get everything you need in the city, but you can have everything in one place at your base

fringe zodiac
#

Think GTA2 mixed with Hitman, with survival aspects and gorillas

hard ether
#

Can't forget the gorillas

covert seal
#

Maybe with mutators it can feel more like Pirates! Mutator that removes phone boxes so it remove teleporting so you need to travel, a mutator for survival mechanics like need for food and sleep so you need to prepare for a road, mutator for dangerous wildereness so simple "driving to next town" would become a dangerous expedition that you should prepare for, everything can be made from those mutators

dry karma
#

Currently it reminds me of life of a peasant (Loap from WC3 days) where there isn't really a goal, you just can interact with stuff in interesting ways based on your class. Up to you to decide. I just think the main way to foster that kind of gameplay is to make the cities tighter. The space between nodes is a bit large so you spend less time gaming and more time living the Seaworld Parking Lot life. The gulf between points of interest also hamstrings the possibility of citizens reacting to each other in fun ways. But I am glad we can give input this early in the process

red lion
#

this i will say could help with the "driving to next town" bit

#

in terms of difficulty

candid crane
sinful raven
#

I think more easily accessible vehicles would make traveling between cities for missions more enjoyable. The danger is that vehicles can trivialize many missions, but maybe it means that missions need to be adapted for vehicles.

sinful raven
# fringe zodiac Think GTA2 mixed with Hitman, with survival aspects and gorillas

Note that GTA's model is that you focus on one mission at a time. This allows the world to be both restricted and changed during that mission to make interesting (albeit scripted) things happen. It counters the general openness of the world and allows for more unique setups (like being chased by specific cars, having unique mini-games etc).

#

It also makes it so you're in a sudden high stakes mode despite being set in an open world. If you don't meet the conditions of the mission, you lose, and you get to start it from scratch. I think there's some merit to that.

red lion
sinful raven
#

Death road to canada is supposed to be a descent into impossible odds. Fuel is hard to come by and cars also break down. Zombie end-of-the-world games are the extreme end of survival games.

leaden salmon
#

I'm adding the games that are mentions here to my backlog, sounds like fun

covert seal