Do quest markers, radars, and fast travel inherently ruin open world RPGs...

Do quest markers, radars, and fast travel inherently ruin open world RPGs? Or are they acceptable as they're designed for extremely casual audiences far more interested in narrative and story than gameplay driven experiences?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FzOCkXsyIqo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Daggerfall and every fallout game had fast travel so no, fast travel just makes the hiking less annoying.

Such things should be made toggle-able so both sides of the arguement can be content.

Daggerfall and Fallout are garbage m8

To be honest, Skyrim's world kind of sucked to explore

>quest markers
Yes. You have a quest log, it will say "dark forest" then go to the fucking dark forest, no need to set a fucking quest marker
>radars
Basic radar without quest markers is fine, like a mini-map
>fast travel
No, it would be a massive slog without it

Literally this, you don't even need to write directions like in Morrowind. Just have major and minor "known" locations marked on the local and world maps, and have quest journals say "Find x in y town and kill him", so obviously you would find y town on the map, then walk over to "x's house" or ask around for where x is. Also if the quest giver knows where a place is, he can give you a map of the area or mark it on your map. This way you can toggle on plot markers for people who don't know shit, and still have meaningful gameplay for people who decide to turn them off. Win-win scenario for both parties.

they did not have fast travel. fast travel destroys a crucial part of open world gaming, deciding where to go

That's something BoTW did, quest markers were always at the quest giver, not where you had to go, so you would need to read where to go, then make your way there. Felt much better than following a quest marker

inherently no but there are ways to do it wrong. If you have a big map it can get really tiring going from point A to point B. No one wants to travel 15+ minutes to pick up an item just go another 15+ minutes somewhere else just to realize they forgot something and have to go back or if a quest sends them back. If you've done the trek once you most likely aren't missing anything except a shitty random encounter. You should always need to visit a place before you can fast travel to it though. Quest markers are hit and miss. I shouldn't know the exact location of an item I'm hunting down but if I'm told, "hey we need you find this item east of this ruined castle" I don't see why I couldn't have a circle next to said castle giving me an idea where I'm going.

I think Skyrim is a really poor example of the whole quest marker and fast travel argument. You need to go to places first to unlock the fast travel and the HUD is so unobtrusive and coloured so plainly that I don't think it breaks immersion like other games. Oblivion is worse in regard to both of these, as well as a lot of open world games that came out around the time of Skyrim

The majority of RPG's use fast travel because hiking isn't fun. Daggerfall and Fallout both use fast travel

Let me guess, the only RPG you've played is Morrowind?

they're good. open world rpgs are always not very good, so walking anywhere is irritating. theoretically if you had like an open world and you could wander into a town and go to the pub and be like 'where's the forest' and a guy was like 'i will sho u da way, for 40 gil' or if someone would tell you or anything it'd be great. but people in all open worlds are just decoration. what is a world with no people in it? skippable

Fast travel done right

There should be a cost to fast travel, always. That cost should stop being a issue by mid game.

Quest markers tend to vary by designer. I like vague quest markers the best. Like I know my quest involves a city, a house, or a generic forest and I should explore it. However for that to be the case the designer has to make it that I am not pixel hunting for the badly designed 2 inch sphere on the bottom shelf in the second to last room in the cave.

...

in game directions are always terrible, a marker clearly leaves a label of where to go

>morrowind: ahhhh...go south until the river cries, fly north south until the crow lands
>you were supposed to just go west the whole time

yeah ill just take a marker

yes to more options.
Higher difficulties: no radar, no regen for magic/health/stamina, no map markers, no fast travel
Lowest difficulties: full on hand holding, " I'm here for the story" folks.

Mods: You're a futa barbarian with slutty followers fucking/getting fucked by anything that moves. Even the dragons

Was Dragons Dogma quest system superior to skyrim?

Mid to late game I think fast travel is necessary. The reality is that most of the time you'll be retreading and retreading the shit you've already explored.

The ideal solution would be having more god-damn open world RPGs so both sides of the argument can get what they want, without their respective game being watered down to 'appeal to a wider audience' or cluttered with crap no-one cares about to 'attract more hardcore fans'.

Open world inherently ruins open world rpg's

If a game wants to implement fast travel it should do it by making it something you unlock in the game, and it shouldn't take you to every single marker on your map, just major settlements.

The horse and carriages in Skyrim and the silt striders in Morrowind were the right idea in my opinion. It's decently enough fast travel for me.

All 3 are fucking fine just by the nature of the genre. Open worlds are a fucking pain in the ass to traverse, so they're necessary for making sure things make sense. It also helps to have good game design so you don't need to literally rely on them, but a lot of devs can't be bothered

>questmarkers
To a degree, yes. Quest markers take away the challenge involved in finding one's way to the objective, ie. "dumbing-down" the experience. For instance, exploration in Skyrim wasn't quite as fun as previous games since NPCs rarely give directions and instead used floating markers. Though much of this has to do with the introduction of the radiant system.

>radars
At best, radars/mini-maps clutter-up the UI. At worst, when combined with questmarkers, they take away the fun from exploration by removing a degree of challenge.

>fast travel
Fast travel is fine since travelling along the same routes becomes boring after a while. Skyrim did it right by making locations open to FT only upon discovery.

>He doesn't know that fast travel is an optional feature.

Seems a bit of an extreme view, but okay... Firstly, can you name me an RPG that isn't open world and secondly, why do you think being open world ruins them?

Agreed, but then, I like my RPGs to be at least medium-hardcore. I can see why someone might want the opposite, especially if there's a lot of backtracking to godforsaken ass-ends of the map.

>He doesn't know that fast travel is an optional feature.
See the problem is that if the game is designed with the idea that 'fast travel is always an option' then that will start to seep into the game's world design. You'll be expected to use fast travel and so the game will be designed around the idea that the player is going to zip everywhere and then those of us who choose not to use it are going to be left with a neutered experience, as less thought was put into making the game fun for those that don't use fast travel.

>serpent head escort mission
what happens if I skip the escort mission?

>See the problem is that if the game is designed with the idea that 'fast travel is always an option' then that will start to seep into the game's world design.
Do you have evidence to support this claim that Bethesda designed Skyrim around FT?

it was pretty awful, it's so easy to skip quests you have no idea about and the escort quests on the boards feel random as fuck as to when they show up if ever

How fucking annoying would FO4 be without fast travel? You have a base at one side of the map and diamond city on the other what do you do now? Just spend and hour running back and forth for a few things? I think you would have to sacrifice a large portion of a games map to justify no fast tarvel and that's not a good trade off. And for you fags that say
>hurr i dun leik fast travel in muh vidyer
Just don't use it, and i swear to god don't even bother replying with
>b-but games are designed around it, it ruins the whole game
Good games have had fast travel in it since the dawn of time IE the car in FO2

youtube.com/watch?v=FzOCkXsyIqo
great video on this.
This guy's channel is great.

Quest markers are not really always necessary but I'm okay with them.

Radars are fine.

Fast Travel upon discovery/activation is great.

I don't think any of those elements make the game casual, what makes it casual is the brainded enemies/bosses.

Look how empty and pointless the world is. Ditto Fallout 4. You literally picked one of the worst possible examples there m8

>Do you have evidence to support this claim that Bethesda designed Skyrim around FT?
Since you did say "evidence" and not "proof": the shitload of radiant quests and even normal quests that send you to the asshole of the world just to fetch an item.

Not even a "hey dude, there's this very important faction in X city that we need to befriend". Just random "lost my helmet in El Segundo".

I hate fast travel the most in open world games. Most of the time you can turn off all the other shit like minimaps and waypoints, but not fast travel because the games are designed around it.
Some fast travel systems work if they work in the context of the game and are not free to use. For example in RDR if my memory serves me right you could hire a stagecoach to take you to different villages and that was fine.
In BotW you use your magical ipad to warp between shrines for free and it nearly ruined the game for me. Letting you warp to the towers would have been acceptable but also letting you warp to the shrines was too much.

This.

I think those things do ruin a game, but I think games have been designed heavily around those things, so taking them out after the fact doesn't make them any better.

>How fucking annoying would FO4 be without fast travel?
As a self imposed challenge my first and only playthrough of FO4 was a no fast travel run until extremely late game (quest already done, over level 100 IIRC, doing DLC stuff) It wasn't bad and you could find a lot of neat stuff by traveling on foot, especially if you didn't always take the same route.

Skyrim simply does not work without quest markers, because theres no journal. It would be great if you could turn off the quest arrows and then read notes for directions, but all you get in Skyrim is "TALK TO JOE" and thats fucking it. Wheres Joe? its written nowhere, so just follow the marker.

>youtube.com/watch?v=FzOCkXsyIqo
interesting video, thanks user

There is a slight journal feature going on with your quest info but it's just really underdeveloped. They even bothered to explain the results of previously finished stuff. It's just not crosslinked to days and a lot of the descriptions are terribly lacking (e.g., Quest: Dawnguard - "Speak with the leader of the Dawnguard")

I did pretty much half fast tarvel and half no fast treavel. i would fast travel if i only needed a few supplies or need to drop off scrap and didn't fast travel when i was heading to a new destination or exploring. I still don't see how it's a detriment to game design. It just makes the game less tedious when it doesn't need to be tedious.

what are some mods that improve crossbows?

>Look how empty and pointless the world is.
Subjective opinion which lacks evidence and holds no weight

And furthermore, you're quite wrong as there are various encounters and unmarked locations which one would miss when using FT.

>the shitload of radiant quests and even normal quests that send you to the asshole of the world just to fetch an item.
You need to have already discovered a location before you can FT to it.

I'm still waiting on evidence/proof/FactWhichValidatesATheoreticalStatement that supports what wrote. Otherwise, you all are needlessly whining over an optional (and convenient) feature.

When it comes down to it, games like these just need to have fun movement options. The bad design lies in the fact that you hold W and fucking wait. There's a lot of cool things Bethesda could do, considering the fact that there used to be jump and levitation spells, but they're too lazy and unimaginative to do it.

no, nothing can save dd deplorable quests

Say what you want about FO4 but the world wasn't empty and pointless. Scrap gave you a reason to delve into caves and there's usually good stuff in them like unique weapons to use or sell, a quest or healing items, supplies that you will need if you're not a casual and play on very hard/survival.

>You need to have already discovered a location before you can FT to it.
Yes, but here's the problem: Skyrim doesn't have "one quest per location".

Once you've already traveled to a location, now what? Next time a quest in Riften sends you to Markath, there's no reason not to use fast travel, except "muh immersion". And immersion is very important to some of us, but Bethesda really fucked up the players who didn't want to fast travel everywhere.

That's your evidence. Notice how Morrowind didn't have the player go on numerous fetch quests all over the map. They were usually self-contained to towns, cities, or regions. And the difference between Skyrim's "go fetch this at this city far away from here" and Morrowind's is that, without quest markers, even the most banal fetch quest was different than the rest.

Crossbows are already very good in the base game, besides only coming in 2 ish varieties

Quest markers and simplifying exploration does ruin them, but fuck backtracking entirely and fuck you if you disagree, travel methods is one of the best inclusions in vidya if its well implemented

Guess so. I dislike the slow reload. I would like to alter them so that the damage is reduced, and the reload is shortened a bit.

>Quest markers
Yes. Completely remove any kind of thinking or listening process involved in quest dialogue.

>Radars
Kind of takes away a layer of tactical awareness a player would other wise need

>Fast travel
Is fine. Optional feature you can chose to use or not use.

The Raven Rock quests just have you going back and forth between two points. Bethesda's fetch quests have always been shit.

Alright, you want to know what I find while not fast-travelling in Fallout 4?

A fat fuckload of nothing. Some pointless combat encounters and some pointless dungeons with some random loot and faceless raiders. It's the same fucking story in Skyrim and in both cases, those dungeons are largely linear and/or go in a big look that plops me back out at the entrance once I'm done.

It's BORING. Literally nothing in those games gives me any fucking incentive to explore besides a handful of collectibles. There's no story, no involvement, no real MEANING to any of it! All the interaction, all the questlines, EVERYTHING happens at a scant handful of hubs that send you to the far-flung corners of the earth and then you come back, either along what is most likely the same route you used to walk out there, or fast travel!

In older games it was more forgivable as Fallout 1 and 2, or Arcanum or whatever weren't truly open-world and used a separate map screen to get you from location to location and you didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, but now when everything is a vast inter-connected world, it just comes across as bland trudge if you DON'T use the fast travel system. The choice you supposedly have is a false one!

Oh and what said too.

I just want a Skyrim size game where there is NO form of fast travel, no quest markers, and no gps map. Only a normal map with towns and landmarks, and you have to use your brain to find stuff based on directions given.

Raven rock actually has usable okay stuff with regards to 'journal' vs quest markers or lack thereof
Being a smaller landmass you can kind of figure out where things are more easily. Ashfallow Citadel doesn't get pointed out too well unfortunately but the rest is fairly straightforward

I hate the casualization of games as much as anyone but I honestly don't get the hate for fast travel. It does not ruin the immersion at all; when you fast travel it's pretty clear that the character is just walking to the destination. Unless the world is so dangerous that merely stepping outside can get you killed, I don't see anything immersion breaking about fast travel, in the same way that riding a taxi in GTA and skipping the ride doesnt break my immersion. It's logical and you can fill in the blanks.

I'm with on this. Fallout 4's world has a lot to find. The fact that you didn't find anything says more about you than the game. And I say this as someone that isn't even a fan of FO4 or Bethesda, I'm all about FNV.

So you played the game on easy and there really wasn't any reason to explore. GOTCHA
>inb4 i played on the hardest difficulty and i never needing anything murrr durrr git gud

im currently playing skyrim, why is everyone so buttmad about the quest marks? they only apear if you are like 10m away from the target

Derp I meant to point at

I didn't know Skyrim had it too

Actually I think Morrowind could have desperately used fast travel

During house hlaalu, how often did you have to go back to crassius to report a mission? Way too often and walking to vivec and into the hlaalu canton and up the plaza EVERY TIME was so fucking tedious. Give me fast travel over that shit anyday.

>Such things should be made toggle-able so both sides of the arguement can be content.

THe problem is that the games are still designed with them in mind. Even if you turn off quest markers it's obvious they were intended to be played WITH quest markers because the game does not give you directions in a natural or intuitive fashion.

>It's BORING. Literally nothing in those games gives me any fucking incentive to explore besides a handful of collectibles. There's no story, no involvement, no real MEANING to any of it! All the interaction, all the questlines, EVERYTHING happens at a scant handful of hubs that send you to the far-flung corners of the earth and then you come back, either along what is most likely the same route you used to walk out there, or fast travel!
I want to put special attention to this because it is the single, biggest issue with open world games.

Once you've been through an area, it's dead. Forever. Nothing new ever happens. It is the case in Morrowind. It is the case in New Vegas. It is the case in Fallout 3, Skyrim, and I'm guessing it is also the same in Oblivion and Fallout 4.

It was the case in Gothic, with a major exception: because of the nature of the game's open world, where leveling was controlled by non-respawning enemies (which respawned as you advanced a chapter), there was a reason to run around everywhere, killing shit and getting stronger.

Modern open world games are shit, as none has tried to solve the major flaw in their design, non-present in linear games (or games like FO1, FO2, Arcanum, as user described): once you've been through an area, what reason do you even have to return?

I'd rather make a game where the open world is the size of New Vegas', but where advancing through the main quest has different characters, quests and enemies pop up in the world, giving me a reason to return to Goodsprings, for instance.

Morrowind did have fast travel in the way of Silt Striders and boats, and believable fast travel in the form of teleportation.

Annoying? Yes, but it could hardly be avoided.

If bethesda has any shred of decency left they will do this (through options)

I loved Skyrim, it was my first rpg (because i had never cared about them before) but i imagine if you are playing for the sake of immersion youd like to interpretate where to go from directions and paper maps and stuff

What i hate more us when fast travel is an option. Its not like you have to fast travel but faggots still love to complain

Can you honestly tell me that FO4 did dungeon and world design better than other Fallout games? Can you honestly tell me you don't have even one idea about how you could have done it SO much better?

Can you honestly tell me that the world they have made for you to explore, makes sense and feels immersive and not like just a collection of carnival rides slapped together to provide vapid entertainment in a video game?

Because if you can tell me all that and be honest about it, I have to ask... What does the paint on your walls taste like?

Exactly. Once you clear an area, especially if you tell someone about it or it get reported on or is in a well-travelled area, it should evolve and change. Maybe new bandits set up shop in that prime location; or settlers move in; or maybe the local guards take it over and claim credit for it; maybe the mines get opened up again now you've cleared the monsters out. Just do SOMETHING to make it feel like it's worth going back there, even just once more.

Because, again, if fast travel is known to be there, the developers will design assuming all the players are going to use it. If you're gonna include fast travel, then at LEAST make it something like a taxi or point-to-point teleporter pads or something; something that doesn't mean the world between the 'interesting bits' is just left barren. If you don't, then you get a world like Fallout 4 or Skyrim: wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle.

>I loved skyrim, it was my first rpg
Pottery, the game was made for you.

Depends on how they're done.
>quest markers
Quest markers should be able to be turned off without harming the experience. Give me directions in addition to the quest marker so I can use whichever I prefer. Don't just say "go to Assfucking cave" without any kind of indication as to where assfucking cave is.
>Radar
Radar depends, like a minimap with maybe markers for enemies that you've seen is fine.
>Fast travel
Again it depends. Traveling by carriage in Skyrim, or Boat in Morrowind is fine. But being able to travel anywhere at no cost is kind of lame.

>dd quests
>Escort this guy/girl over there
>Kill x number of y
No.

They won't let you in to Gran Soren.

>Can you honestly tell me that FO4 did dungeon and world design better than other Fallout games? Can you honestly tell me you don't have even one idea about how you could have done it SO much better?
No, and I said nothing of dungeons nor did I compare Fallout 4's world to any other Fallout.
>Can you honestly tell me that the world they have made for you to explore
They have, and this was my point. If you don't always use fast travel there are plenty of tiny unmarked quests and areas that don't have quests at all and serve no other purpose that to tell an interesting story. I found many things by simply walking around blindly and thinking "hey that building in the distance looks interesting, I'll go over there" I don't like Bethesda at all, but I'll give credit where it is due.

I've played other rpgs like morrowind, oblivion and bg2 since then, and i liked them too, dont be a dumbass complaining about others taste

Yeah but it just makes sense someone who has never played an rpg before loved skyrim compared to someone who has been playing rpgs exclusively for 15 years. It's a shit game in the genre and you would know that if it wasn't your literally first rpg.

Horizon is perfectly playable with no HUD at all, everything is a toggle option.

Yeah, I have played Fallout 4 as well thank you very much; I know what the world is like.

And I also know that 90% of those 'interesting buildings over there' are just yet another nest of generic raiders with nothing special about them, only there to fill time and give me a box of randomised loot at the end. And those unmarked quests? Dull as dust, second only to the GODFORSAKEN radiant quest system that needs to die!

What is with Bethesda refusing to let their games just end these days?! By trying to make them endless, they make them BLAND. Is it because some idiots whinged about Fallout 3? That's only because the ending we did get made no god-damn sense and was unsatisfying as fuck; not because endings themselves are bad!

>quest markers
Just give me the general area or some directions and let me figure it out for myself.
>radars
Not opposed to radars for close threats that my character is aware of, as with what I said about quest markers some ambiguity would be welcome though.
>fast travel
I'm not opposed to limited fast travel, e.g. maybe only fast travel from specific points, or maybe only fast travel to one safe location.