this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
374 points (97.9% liked)
Games
17088 readers
552 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The advantage of putting those supplies 50m away though is that it makes a better video game. Playing The Outer Worlds right after Starfield made me a-okay with every way they shrunk the Bethesda experience.
How are we defining "better"? For me it makes the experience worse because I lose all immersion. I'm trying to be immersed and my brain can let a lot slip (realism is not required!) but for me the limit is when it strains even basic credulity. Yes, 50m makes the quest less hassle, but if I don't care about the quest due to the scope of the world then there's a more fundamental issue.
In games where immersion isn't a factor (e.g. The Binding of Isaac) that stuff doesn't matter. In an explorable open world I content that it's rather crucial.
All the immersion Bethesda could muster couldn't make Starfield a better game than The Outer Worlds. The criticism was frequently that they made 1000 planets but that it would have been better if they'd focused on making 5 good ones, which is basically what Outer Worlds did. Putting the metaphorical supplies 50m away is what they found led to the best pacing, so suspend your disbelief a bit, and have a better time than if they'd put them further away. This isn't prescriptive, btw. If it's not your preference, it's not your preference, but I think most people would prefer the compromise to immersion when it makes the game more fun.
I take zero issue with this! I think you're misunderstanding my point.
I'm not talking about a metaphorical 50m, I'm talking in the game world 50m. It's not an analogy for game design, I mean in a very literal sense that the worlds are a bit too small for my tastes.
I'm not talking about density of content or the number of locations in a game. I am talking about the level of size scaling that has been applied. Too small and I cannot get immersed, too large and it makes for a tedious play experience (that's why I cited True Crime: Streets of LA, that uses 1:1 scaling for LA and as a result has a lousy overworld).
For my tastes the balance currently leans too heavily towards ludicrously small in many games. I quite liked the scale of the Watch_Dogs games, as a counter example.
Hell, it'd be cool if there was an engine that used something like content-aware scaling to adjust the distances to player preferences. Some people want a slog (that seems to be Death Stranding's deal) and others want Wannado City.
If this was advice I was able to act on then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If this was an option, I'd do it! Do you think I enjoy being frustrated at this?! No! I wish it didn't bother me! It's a nuisance and gets in the way of fun!
But the size of the world is a part of the game design. What's too big for The Outer Worlds might be just fine for Mad Max simply because one of those games lets you drive a car. The distance that those supplies can be away from where you start is dictated by what mechanics you have at your disposal to get there. It's metaphorical because we're talking about any time a game makes a decision like this with relation to how they scale their game world, not just that one time that you measured it out to be 50m.
I do think it's worth examining why this is harder for you to suspend disbelief than other things in video games. You suspend disbelief every time your character loses or gains hit points rather than suffering actual injuries that need time to heal. You suspend disbelief any time you play a game in a real world city that isn't represented in 1:1 scale (that's basically all of them) like The Division or Spider-Man. So to the same end, I'll take those supplies that are 50m away and it's somehow too far for the quest giver to go get them, because it's best for the design of the game, just like the scale of the world that they built.
That might be what you're choosing to talk about, but it is categorically not what I was talking about.
I know! I understand!
That's why I picked a specific example of where I feel the balance in some popular games is poorly implemented for my tastes. Some games manage this well, some do not, and I feel that this often errs on the side of "50m outside the settlement". Based on your comments, that doesn't bother you.
Great, I wish I was as lucky.
For me, an open world game that gets the scaling wrong is not very fun to explore. Whether that's too big or too small. It seems lots of gamers aren't fussed about this. Arguing with me that my preferences are wrong doesn't seem worthwhile. I understand the game design principles, that was never the issue.
I posted this because I think it's interesting to compare notes on the parameters of this element of game design. What sort of scaling is too big? Why? How many people should be visible in a settlement to feel right? That sort of thing.
I'm not sure what your point here is? That my brain is broken? As I said, if I was able to overlook it, I would. I'm pretty sure I also said that I wasn't looking for 1:1 as it actively hampers game design.
There's more options than 1:1 or Wannado.