ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Do you know what never works?
"You have to save the world from the Dark Lord! But feel free to finish picking herbs from the corner of the map first, it's not like the Dark Lord is in a rush with his evil plan or anything."
Most recently prevalent in the two latest Elder Scrolls game, Oblivion and Skyrim, and in BioWare's Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Now, I don't disapprove of having a huge open world where you can do anything in, at your own pace, and generally be a master of your own destiny. That's fine - a good concept. What doesn't work is setting the game around a plot point that heavily implies or should have a time limit. I don't mean an actual, ticking timer, but if your journey is to prevent disaster and destruction at the hands of that something, it doesn't go with an open-world.
Deus Ex and Dragon Age: Origins had hub worlds connected to the next one, which you continue on through by following the plot - that's fine. It makes sense, much more sense. But if you want to set your game in an open-world with no restrictions on what you do and what time, have the plot not be about a looming threat and still allow the player to dick around for in-game months messing with the local population. And vice versa, if you want to have a constantly looming threat about to strike, like XCOM 2's Avatar Project (which actually handles this point very well, if not too urgently) for a more recent example, don't set your game in a completely open, timeless world.
Even as a constantly critical cynic who never really agrees with anything, I'm not going to nitpick and be strict about this requirement. It's a game, which means for the sake of fun sometimes you sacrifice the narrative. But it's failure to suspend disbelief if there's no immersion in acknowledging a threat, if the emphasis is put on it by the game but there's no consequence for ignoring it.
If you can't think of a unique premise, then go for the default one - the standard starter of having your protagonist on a quest to search for something. Let the trigger point for a looming threat be after the player chooses to go after it, and let the looming threat have a consequence.
Plus, Mass Effect 2 had this part where you had to go immediately on the final mission after an attack on your ship, or risk losing several crew members. See, it's not an arbitrary literal countdown timer, but it makes the feel of an actual timed risk exist. But before and after that, there's no significant threat counting down that you have to worry about. There's the Collectors, but like I said, and this is subjective, if the immersion is down right, then a couple of tiny plot holes here and there won't be even nearly as glaring and obvious.
In short, have your premise makes sense. Make it relevant, make it significant. Then your story, no matter what it's about, will grant the player a much better experience as a whole.
"You have to save the world from the Dark Lord! But feel free to finish picking herbs from the corner of the map first, it's not like the Dark Lord is in a rush with his evil plan or anything."
Most recently prevalent in the two latest Elder Scrolls game, Oblivion and Skyrim, and in BioWare's Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Now, I don't disapprove of having a huge open world where you can do anything in, at your own pace, and generally be a master of your own destiny. That's fine - a good concept. What doesn't work is setting the game around a plot point that heavily implies or should have a time limit. I don't mean an actual, ticking timer, but if your journey is to prevent disaster and destruction at the hands of that something, it doesn't go with an open-world.
Deus Ex and Dragon Age: Origins had hub worlds connected to the next one, which you continue on through by following the plot - that's fine. It makes sense, much more sense. But if you want to set your game in an open-world with no restrictions on what you do and what time, have the plot not be about a looming threat and still allow the player to dick around for in-game months messing with the local population. And vice versa, if you want to have a constantly looming threat about to strike, like XCOM 2's Avatar Project (which actually handles this point very well, if not too urgently) for a more recent example, don't set your game in a completely open, timeless world.
Even as a constantly critical cynic who never really agrees with anything, I'm not going to nitpick and be strict about this requirement. It's a game, which means for the sake of fun sometimes you sacrifice the narrative. But it's failure to suspend disbelief if there's no immersion in acknowledging a threat, if the emphasis is put on it by the game but there's no consequence for ignoring it.
If you can't think of a unique premise, then go for the default one - the standard starter of having your protagonist on a quest to search for something. Let the trigger point for a looming threat be after the player chooses to go after it, and let the looming threat have a consequence.
Plus, Mass Effect 2 had this part where you had to go immediately on the final mission after an attack on your ship, or risk losing several crew members. See, it's not an arbitrary literal countdown timer, but it makes the feel of an actual timed risk exist. But before and after that, there's no significant threat counting down that you have to worry about. There's the Collectors, but like I said, and this is subjective, if the immersion is down right, then a couple of tiny plot holes here and there won't be even nearly as glaring and obvious.
In short, have your premise makes sense. Make it relevant, make it significant. Then your story, no matter what it's about, will grant the player a much better experience as a whole.
