Joel Burgess and Nathan Purpkeypile on Level Design at GDC

[Gaspard]

cities like Constantinople or Tenochtitlan had very high populations. And in the ancient world ... Rome or Athens and various Egyptian cities.

Dude, but those are mostly Mediterranean (and -ish) cities. Skyrim is more like Norway or Iceland. Think Scandinavia - nothing like the cities in the warmer climes. The Medieval cities around the Northern Sea and the Baltics were slightly bigger, but the mountain towns were villages compared to those - no way to get such an infrastructure going. There's a sort of informative discussion on the subject here

Also don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating for realism in games' art direction. It was more like.. the only excuse I could come up with for their decisions. But as we're talking about Bethesda, there's a chance it's a coincidence.

While an Assassin's Creed-like cramped city could be done for a specific post-apocalyptic location, New Vegas being a good example, Skyrim had a different sort of world. Funny mountain people live there - bloody barbarians!

 

[DustyTraveller]

Actually I would rather see them do maybe 2 or a maximum of 3 locations, but done well.
Not to mention, more is sometimes less. Its better to have just a few locations, but which make sense. You can still keep exploration.
<snip>
I think such an approach would fit much better to worlds Bethesda is creating, making them "smaller". Because in the end, their worlds even with all that content, felt to small and cramped. Well fast travel probably helped with that as well ... but still.

I appreciate that Bethesda tried to make vast games like Skyrim/Oblivion/Fallout 3+. They do feel cramped though. In Fo3 you had farmers living a 2 minute walk away from a gang of Super-mutant.
Sure, it would have been nicer if there was a lot more empty space between locations so the world scaling would be more believable but I don't want to spend hours watching my character running from one end of town to the other. Fetch quests would be like torture. If someone made a Fallout 3/NV mod that increases the world size by 4 or 8 times I'd download it in a heartbeat but it would be a nightmare to make it compatible with other mods.

There's already way too many game companies that are making games with smaller worlds or fewer locations so I hope that Bethesda doesn't go in that direction. Now that I think about it I think they already have started down that road.

 

[Gaspard]

Now that I think about it I think they already have started down that road.

What do you mean, exactly?

 

[DustyTraveller]

I seem to remember some fan discussions that Skyrim was a smaller game then Oblivion, which in turn was smaller then Morrowind. Not sure how accurate that was though.

 

[Gaspard]

I seem to remember some fan discussions that Skyrim was a smaller game then Oblivion, which in turn was smaller then Morrowind. Not sure how accurate that was though.

Oh. Uh. I don't think you've got much to be afraid of if the article in the original post is any indicator... I remember Skyrim being pretty damn vast.

I prefer New Vegas world for FO3 world already because there's less pointless walking/running around in the middle of nowhere. Yeah you could get more action on the world map by cranking up game difficulty, but then you just waste more time shooting at packs of dogs and giant ants... Cazadores in NV

 

[Crni Vuk]

and Morrowind was (a lot) smaller then Daggerfall, it also had more skills the player could learn and use.

Next Elder Scroll games might as well have just 2 skills or something like that.

Called something for dialogue and Whacking at stuff skills.

and to make things easier, the game will always tell you if this is an NPC where you can use the whack or talk skill.

 

[Gaspard]

the game will always tell you if this is an NPC where you can use the whack or talk skill.

On the one hand they used this aspect quite well in New Vegas - as the skill requirements made sense, I like very much the FO1&FO2 approach where you just get a message like: "Due to your inept handling the charge went off prematurely" BLAM! Crippled limbs, motherfucker!

It would be a rather odd if a trap goes off in your face and the game informs you that "it was because you need 75% in Explosives, not 41%, dumbass."

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Sure, it would have been nicer if there was a lot more empty space between locations so the world scaling would be more believable but I don't want to spend hours watching my character running from one end of town to the other. Fetch quests would be like torture.

Red Dead Redemption was a good game.

 

[Drifter420]

Why, dear lord, would anyone want to play a fantasy RPG in an Assassin's Creed type setting? It doesn't fit the genre.

The largest AC ever got was the general area between Boston and New York. How many fantasy quests can one have in an area of that size? To make a good fantasy game, it has to have a scope that includes major swaths of territory. 3 cities spread over a region the size of New England doesn't make for a very interesting fantasy experience.

Also, how does one traverse an AC-style city in a fantasy game? Because surely a 7-foot-tall Orc wearing heavy armor isn't going to be running up any walls any time soon. You mean I have to walk my character the 4 miles between locations? How boring would that be? (EDIT: However, setting an AC game in a fantasy setting is a really neat idea.)

Really though, I just wanted to say: Purpkeypile? What?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

The largest AC ever got was the general area between Boston and New York. How many fantasy quests can one have in an area of that size? To make a good fantasy game, it has to have a scope that includes major swaths of territory. 3 cities spread over a region the size of New England doesn't make for a very interesting fantasy experience.

Off the top of my head, Shadow Run calls bullshit. Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines also took place in three pretty small cities. Bigger isn't always better.

 

[Crni Vuk]

it all boils down to design choices. Its not about "size". Even though some people might see that. but what is size worth if it has not a purpose? I know quite a few games, like Drakensang which did this very well, even with small locations and maps, because they do a great job of giving you the feeling of size. Where you stand on top of some mountain or tower and watch the great scenery, hills, mountains and forrests in the background, handcrafted in the game. This alone gives a feeling of size. Neither Oblivion, Skyrim nor Fallout 3 did that. And even if those games have a lot of "room" or "space" to travel around, they never create a feeling of "size". Because everything is rendered, but you can not always see that far, sometimes stuff pops out from the distance, or disappears as soon you walk around. I think it is today interesting to see how games, which do everything in 3D somewhat suffer from what I see as "bad design", because they use 3D for things that could be done more convincing by the use of 2D techniques.

 

[Lexx]

Hmm I wouldn't fully agree on that. In my opinion, Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 fail in the creation of "size" due to their quest- and story-design. The games are sending you all the time from the left side of the world to the right side and revers. This gives a feeling of everything being close, as everyone knows each other and everyone walks to every location in a short amount of time.

Well of course, if you are standing on a mountain see half of the game world, it also doesn't really help in the creation of a feeling of "size"....

 

[Crni Vuk]

yes of course youre right! Quest design does play a role in to that as well. But what I mean is, well the presentation on a visual level. Now I am very much focused, yeah, biased on visuals. Because that is something I have to work every day with. Designs and all that.

And one of the things games use to catch attention is visuals and the presentation of those. It plays a very important role. I can only mention Drakensang here, because I think they did at least that part very well - now the game had other issues, but overall Drakensang 1 and 2 have been pretty nice role playing games, and they do a great job of giving you the feeling that youre playing inside a "big" world, the quests support this very nicely. But the way how the visuals are used within the limitations of the game, helps as well.

I am thinking about situations like those for example, which are much easier to realize when you KNOW that there are limitations and that you can show places which the player will never have to visit. Like big mountains/castles/cities in the distance. - Not to mention that those also leave room for imagination, something games today seem to lose in their design. In Both Skyrim pretty much all locations can be visited, and that can make you dull at some point. Same for New Vegas even. And I think it also has the issue that the designers "burn out" on ideas. Its simply impossible to make 100 interesting and stuning locations compared to like lets say only 20. There is only so much epicness you can throw in a place with 2 schacks. And it even leads to situations where potentialy awesome areas/quests are somewhat ruined by the fact that there is to much between it, like the Boomers living right next to Vegas ... the whole world was cramped. Sometimes less is more. And then you have all the other factions in there, Legion, NCR, Brotherhood and so on ... no 5 min. from each other as far as the distance goes.

What I mean:

you can hand place the scenery in to the game and thus gain a lot more controll about what the player should see and what he should not because now that you know, that not all the stuff has to be visited, you dont have to "render" everything infront of the player.

This here feels in my eyes a lot more believable and interesting compared to the way how Skyrim/Fallout 3/Vegas do their "scenery", because it feels much less artifical. For the fact that it actually is hand placed. There is a purpose to it. As strange as it sounds.

Imagine you get to a visually very stuning place like this
http://geoheritagescience.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/skyrim-mountains.jpg
Just to move one step ahead, to see a whole "mountain" pop out of the fog, because of engine limitations. Games like Skyrim forget that they are first and foremost "games". It has not to always look realistic or be realistic, even with the landscape. It has to how should I say? "Fitt" the game as whole. This "hyper realism" we see recently in many games is rather qustionable in my eyes. Because when those games do something that is breaking the 4th wall, throwing you out of the experience (like bad quest design for example ...) then it hurts the game as whole. I guess even a game like Monkey Island or Fallout 1 can do a great job of creating the feeling that youre exploring a huge world, because it feels coherent.

 

[Lexx]

I agree with what you say, except that FNV stuff is all hand placed as well. :p

And now I'll guess I should go and play Drakensang...

 

[Brother None]

And now I'll guess I should go and play Drakensang...

Do it. But not Drakensang: The Dark Eye, that one's got a really boring plot and is grindy as hell, play its prequel Drakensang: The River of Time instead.

 

[Lexx]

Hm River of Time is not on steam, is it? Guess I'll have to order it then, meh.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree with what you say, except that FNV stuff is all hand placed as well. :p

And now I'll guess I should go and play Drakensang...

well yeah, but it still a very limited world because everything is basically "next to each other". That even ruins in my eyes awesome locations like the boomers or the launching site with the ghouls.

 

[woo1108]

NV's placing design is very good. one thing I curious is raul. his own quest cannot be beaten unless having knowledge of his quest or rescuing him before get to novac.
except that, I think most places are well placed unlike fo3 which has terrible design for placing places.

 

[Crni Vuk]

except that NV and F3 suffer the same issue. I am NOT(!) talking about quest designs here, but the actually locations on the map, it just isnt convincing that places like the boomer-airfield is 5 min. from a central hub like Vegas, but no one cared for the last 50 or 60 years to get in there? Not to mention the many other locations around Vegas, which seems no one ever visited ... in a time where resources are very rare and valuable. There is just to much to visit in a place that is to small.

Both games, NV and F3 suffer from this. No matter how "well" the locaiton is designed.

 

[Ilosar]

except that NV and F3 suffer the same issue. I am NOT(!) talking about quest designs here, but the actually locations on the map, it just isnt convincing that places like the boomer-airfield is 5 min. from a central hub like Vegas, but no one cared for the last 50 or 60 years to get in there? Not to mention the many other locations around Vegas, which seems no one ever visited ... in a time where resources are very rare and valuable. There is just to much to visit in a place that is to small.

Both games, NV and F3 suffer from this. No matter how "well" the locaiton is designed.

True, New Vegas very much suffered from this as well. At least in the Boomer's case you can semi-justify it via the artillery barrages, and New Vegas felt big enough to be credible as a city, what with all the different districts (Freeside, Westside, North Vegas, Fiends territory, Sewers, Crimson Caravan, the Airport, the Strip). Too many loading screens, but hey console limitations.

And yes, Skyrim is smaller than Oblivion (but makes an illusion od being bigger because of mountains and such), which is smaller than Morrowind, which is much smaller than Daggerfall, which in turn is smaller than Arena.

My issue is not the scale really (save for cities), it's that it's too crowded. You can't stray one minute from the road without tripping on a generic cave or tower full of bandits or and/or assorted murderous critters. Like in Fallout 3 where you would always, always encounter raiders or super mutants or evil Talon mercs at every turn. It's a wonder civilization can exist at all. New Vegas was much less crowded, locations were more spaced out and felt hand-placed and relevant, rather than Bethesda's we-need-300-dungeons-so-slap-one-here-now philosophy.

I'm not asking they make cities AC-like, that would be silly, but they should be at least two-three times as big as they are. They already did it with Vivec (albeit the layout of that place was utterly atrocious, it was big enough) and the Imperial City to a lesser degree. Better 1-2 big cities than 5 small ones And if you're going to put 4 houses together and call it a ''city'', just delete it and stop insulting my intelligence. Or just be honest and call it a village.