Prikaz jedne poruke
Stara 27.12.2013, 14:28   #629
Feferedon
Veteran
 
Član od: 19.12.2012.
Poruke: 623
Zahvalnice: 317
Zahvaljeno 531 puta na 223 poruka
Određen forumom Re: The Witcher 3

Spoiler za 2:
TVG: OK. The next thing I'd like to ask about is how the open-worldness goes with the choice and consequence that are part of various quests. Do the side quests intertwine, so that choices made in one are reflected in the other, or are somehow reflected in the world? Or do you try to limit it to a single quest, or a quest chain, in order to maintain control?

JS: Then perhaps I'll answer from my story writing perspective. We don't use a single solution throughout the whole game, time after time, but we try to show the consequences in various ways, to surprise the player, amaze him, an so on. Sometimes decision is limited to the sidequest and has any bearing only within the sidequest, and sometimes it will heavily impact the story or the whole world. But there is no easy way to distinguish between the two and to define the consequences right from the start of the quest. We want it to be like in real life, somewhat unpredictable, so that you have to think twice before you act, as you never fully know what will happen. And of course we show the consequences a bit differently than in the earlier games that were more contained, and where we could separate their specific parts. Here we have different tools, but we have many of them. I believe those who remember TW1 and TW2, who liked the system where choices had strong impact won't be disappointed, and I don't think the open world will prove an obstacle to present the consequences.

PS: Quest-wise the choices can open a unique path, something that normally the player wouldn't discover, and something we managed to introduce, something we're rather proud of, is that player can to a certain degree modify the main questline by doing sidequests. It all depends on the player. This is the open world mechanic we try to emphasize, as it really shows that player's actions are influencing what is happening, and that he will feel that while the events of the main quest are the most important, its specific fragments can result from sidequests, and there's really a whole bunch of instances where this happens, where something we did in a sidequest changes the main storyline. The consequences have various impact, sometimes they are really big things, sometimes they provide a whole different branch, but usually they are small things, for instance the way a character reacts. Here our writers have vast room to maneuver, and they use it intensively, add new dialogue elements, where a character mentions something we did, or knows of something that happened. Apart from that, because the world is open and the player has a specific task to accomplish, his knowledge differs on various stages on the game. All those elements we have to take under consideration, as the player can do most bizarre things, and we want to allow it - it's the main point of the whole thing, that I've done something and I see that it does have an effect.

TVG: How did you approach the problem of the order in which players proceed? Are you prepared for a number of different scenarios, or do you try to limit the player through the story, so that he can't do any and every quest in a random moment? Because how would the consequences play out otherwise?

PS: For that you need a cunning design, so to speak. It comes with time, usually with a number of iterations, unfortunately. On one hand we try to show the player, whenever we can, that his actions result in certain consequences, but it all has to be in reasonable boundaries. We can't totally exhaust our production or force our character designers to do something they are unable to do in allotted time. We have our budget and a finite number of people, so as designers - both story designers and quest designers - we have to plan cautiously: add things where they are necessary or subtract where players would most likely never see them, or would not appreciate them. It's doable, most of the time.

JS: I can also add that even though it is an open world, we also have the story that has its beginning and its end. The player has a very large degree of freedom in how he wants to lead the story, what he wants to start with, and how he wants to end it, but it's not like he can go to the end immediately and finish the game in 10 minutes. We try to find golden mean between player's freedom and maintaining narrative discipline. And also, because there often arise suspicions that since it will open world, players will have smaller number of choices, that there will be less non-linearity than in previous games, I wanted to emphasize that I believe there will be more of both. Player has much freedom in how he pieces the story together, so the non-linearity is greater than in the previous games, as it's not the question of which decisions were made by the player, but also when. So for us, the writers, as well as for players it's a lot of fun. It adds another layer to the story.
Feferedon je offline   Odgovor sa citatom ove poruke
Sledećih 2 korisnika se zahvaljuje korisniku Feferedon na korisnoj poruci:
Krilce (27.12.2013), pentraksil (27.12.2013)