I have seen the future.

Hey, there's a difference between "can fast travel via the map" and "must fast travel via the map". Just having it as standard in every game doesn't mean it's the only way to get around in every game.

From:

nsanity-au.livejournal.com

Daggerfall then...

From:

publius1.livejournal.com

I think he qualified that with "enjoyable"...

From:

Just having it doesn't mean you need to use it. I will happily run around exploring the postapocalyptic Mojave desert for hours more than I should[1], reading the graffiti and listening to the radio and giggling over the in-jokes and being really creeped out by some of the vaults.

But if I want to quick-travel, dammit, I would like to be able to do so from indoors.
---
[1] I killed Caesar! I killed Caesar on hardcore mode without console-modding! And I am not a combat monkey, and I do not go to games looking to shoot things. I am just very very delighted that I got to stop the bad man. Even if I stayed up until 2 a.m. on a worknight to do it. Space Nazi deserved to die.

From:

laplor.livejournal.com

It drives me crazy trying to remember my way back out of some of the vaults and buildings so that I can fast-travel. Argh!

And congrats! I will only play hardcore (not a combat monkey either), but I've spent weeks in that desert without getting close to Caesar. I frankly don't even care if I ever finish the game.

From:

Gah, yes. Especially when it's a place where the different levels aren't actually *different* in the sense of having a fade between them, which means the map is showing you two or three floors at once all stacked on top of each other. >.<

And thank you. :D I was planning on ignoring him a little longer, and then I actually visited the Fort and talked to a few people there, particularly one of the slaves, and it's just...

Utter space Nazi. It took Boone, ED-E, and a Jet addiction, but I got him.

Ahem. Yes.

I don't want to finish the game, exactly, and I still have three DLCs I want to explore, but at the same time I want to see the finale. The Mojave is an awesome setting, and I have worked to make certain things happen, you know?

From:

I've been through the area, twice. There is nothing there that I have not seen, twice.

Why the FUCK should I spend two more minutes of my time seeing it again, especially when to get to the quest point to collect my rewards is going to require a third pass since I have to go from the entrance to the quest-giver's location, again?

If there's something new and weird there, it can be presented as an interruption to my fast-travel, or a reason to not fast-travel.

If there's nothing new and weird there, I HAVE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT, and requiring me to traverse it again is only wasting my time.

From:

Also: There are a ton of things in Dragon Age that *don't* show up on the map - and yet, if I know I need to go to a specific place? That specific place shows on the map. If someone asks me to deliver a package to a dude who lives in Ogrimmar, Ogrimmar shows up on the map.

That's just basic shit. That's "don't make the player take notes on paper when the game can take notes *for you*."

And if I *want* to go looking for stuff not on the map, I can do that. Nothing *stops* me from going wandering and checking out all the corners and shit or rewandering through the pretty area with the lava flows and the waterfalls or whatever - what I object to is the need to spend aggregate hours of my life re-watching past scenery go by to get to stuff that is new, in my extruded entertainment product.

I don't watch TV with commercials.

I skip credits sequences and "previously on".

I hit "stop" when the show ends, even if there's "here's some previews of what's on next!" playing.

Why should putting up with technically-inadequate 1950s bullshit in my *video games* when I don't put up with it on TV?

From:

the-trav.livejournal.com

hey, I'm not a dragon age fan, I didn't play it terribly long, maybe it would be better with lots of skippable travel.

I just wanted to briefly mention that it's not a feature that every game should have, and better design would in many cases be a solution I'm happier with.

From:

It's not a feature that would be used in every game, but including it doesn't make any game worse, you know? And does provide an option which is never less convenient.

I mean, I love world-building and good examples thereof, but if I suddenly realize that I left That Item (which, due to good game design, was pretty clearly flagged as Possibly Important Later) halfway across the map because I stashed a lot of things that weren't immediately useful when I was low-level and needed the carry space, there is no benefit to my not being able to fast-travel to the item and back ASAP. There's already an option to hit the map rather than spend a quarter-hour walking, why not make it as convenient an option to access as possible?

From:

the-trav.livejournal.com

Including it changes the way in which the game will be designed, and the way in which the game is played.

If stashing stuff and quick traveling to the stash is possible then why put a restriction on carry space to begin with?

I'm also not a fan of "Here's an arbitrary quest item that you must carry around that is going to be important later" it smacks of linear design and "find the red key for the red door" game play, which I find incredibly dull.

I'm not an expert game designer, nor does my subjective preference necessarily reflect the views of many people, I just don't like fast travel :P

From:

If stashing stuff and quick traveling to the stash is possible then why put a restriction on carry space to begin with?

This is, for the record, why I simply tell Fallout that I can carry an infinite amount of stuff.

Even then, I still make stashes. Know why? Because I find it annoying to scroll through nine screens of stuff to find the thing I want, but sometimes it's really useful to have, say, a stack of all the canned food you've found so far.

The important part, gameplay-wise, is that *if nothing is going to happen while I do something it is a waste of my time to make me do it more than once*.

It's like saying "later that evening" instead of sitting around - or not requiring the player to wait two years for Ezio to get from 1500 to 1502.

From:

fearmeforiampink

It's sentiments like that which caused the death of fine simulation games like Desert Bus!

From:

nsanity-au.livejournal.com

If the journey is interesting and rewarding, i'm cool without fast travel.

If the journey is simply filling time in my /played count, its not so interesting.

From:

There are frequently overheard conversations with npc's (flavour) or occasionally quests which can spring on you on your journey. Compelling rewards for walking that little bit.

From:

When you don't have the option to do anything but walk, it's not a reward. Rewards are what you get for choosing an option.

Edited Date: 2011-09-20 11:13 pm (UTC)

From:

Compensation then. I think that the trade off of spending a little more time walking in exchange for a potential reward" is worthwhile.

From:

And I think that, being an independant adult who happens to have bought the game in question for my enjoyment and am managing a life with time constraints, aesthetic preferences, and particular tastes in story that the game designers are ignorant of, I would like to be able to make that decision for myself.

This is two steps up from saying "But it's good that the pages of the novel[1] come in one at a time and you can't flip forward to see how long the chapter is or jump quickly back to check a data point! I think that the trade off of spending a little more time reading each page in exchange for the full immersive experience is worthwhile!" Bully for you, but I would like to be able to know if I can finish a chapter before I need to sleep without reading every page in it, or go back to check a name without reading through every page between where I am and where it was last mentioned.
---
[1] Or gaming rulebook, for another example.

From:

I agree with your statement that players should be able to manage their own experience. I personally find the requirement to repeat certain sections slightly tiresome, but I appreciate some of the less obvious benefits of that waste of time. Chiefly the reinforcement of setting, but also the variation of intensity of experience. The lulls which arise from walking over safe terrain does allow me to take a breather between confrontations and I enjoy that break.

Once again, nothing but my personal opinion and perspective here.

From:

H'okay. Trying to explain.

It's not the outlook which enjoys downtime and poking around which is being problematic (as you may have noted, here, it's possible for people who enjoy fast-travelling to sometimes also like that, and in fact to prefer it).

It's the way you respond to someone saying "I would like the option to do otherwise" with "But this is good, look how awesome it is!" Not even "That option doesn't interest me because X." It's dismissive. Possibly moreso from you because I've seen you be really prone to doing that IRL, possibly not, but either way.

It's the kind of thing which, TBH, fills me with the desire to look at you all wide-eyed and say "Really? I know I have only been playing computer RPGs for thirteen years[1], but I had never noticed that there is background detail! Obviously this hidden gem of a fact is relevant to my expressed desire to not go places in the game if I don't want to."
---
[1] That "only" is not sarcastic.

From:

Understood. Thank you for pointing out that particular bad habit of mine, which is the first step for me to fix it. I apologize for sounding dismissive as it certainly wasn't my intent. My thought processes tend to be as follows.
1) Listen to someone make a statement I agree with.
2) Try to determine why rational and competent game designers (aka. Bioware) would not act in that way.
3) Share what I have noticed so that people have all of the data in front of them when making decisions.

I also spend my time echoing that exact same complaint for other games that are much worse then Dragon Age 2. Gods, the amount of time it takes to move around in Guild Wars is obscene.

Anywho, thanks!

From:

Understand the POV; do it myself, with one possibly important difference:

From what you describe, you're assuming that
(1) the game designers and producers were rational and competent, but
(2) the person expressing the opinion needed your input to be sure that they had all the data--although actually, I would not call your maybe-because-this rationale data; it's more of a hypothesis--implying they aren't capable of, good at, or willing to think about something relevant to their statement.

You see why this might be a bit of a problem?

And moving on to the bit about something being relevant to their statement: if someone is expressing a point of view about what they do or don't like in their entertainment, why it is available is not likely to change their preferences. Might make them more willing to accept that they can't have it, or more frustrated, or more hopeful that they will get it soon, but

"I have decided I definitely want this."
"You didn't get it because of a reason that is possibly X."
"Oh, well, that is an important data point that changes whether or not I want it."

is not a conversation that tends to flow well or occur often.

Edited Date: 2011-09-22 04:40 pm (UTC)

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

The lulls which arise from walking over safe terrain does allow me to take a breather between confrontations and I enjoy that break.

You should try the MMO Fallen Earth. Could use more polish, but one of its big draws is that it's world map is of a post-virus-apocalypse Arizona and New Mexico, and by design overland travel from place to place is pretty much required - fast travel between major cities is pretty new, and very limited.

From:

Dammit, that sounds like potentially a really really cool setting. I don't suppose there's any way to play it solo?

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

It's actually very individual oriented - there are other people, but you rarely bump into them unless you're in a city, which is a function of both the whole world being so spread out, and also that it's not a major MMO so there aren't THAT many players on at one time.

It's going free to play at some point in the near future, but in the meantime there's a free trial: http://www.gamersfirst.com/fallenearth/?q=trial

From:

Those are not "compelling rewards", those are "bare minimum to make me not quit the game" - and if I wanted THEM, I could trigger 'em. In the mean time, I want to go places and do things. Making me walk past shit I've already seen so that nothing can happen? Fuck that, that's bad design.

From:

There are an number of quests that trigger based on other conditions. The first time you walk into the Viscount's halls there may be nothing, but the evil corrupting book might be there on the third time.

An important note is that you can move between zones of the city automatically. They _partially_ accommodate you and you only have to walk a certain distance before you can teleport to anywhere in the game world.

Like I said, the overheard conversation reflecting on the fact that your actions had an effect on the world? Damn _good_ design IMO.

From:

The first time you walk into the Viscount's halls there may be nothing, but the evil corrupting book might be there on the third time.

So, "lousy game design", right.

you only have to walk a certain distance before you can teleport to anywhere in the game world.

Which is to say, I'm forced to retravel pre-cleared bits where nothing happens, because of bad game design. Right.

the overheard conversation reflecting on the fact that your actions had an effect on the world? Damn _good_ design IMO.

No, having those thing happen *in the background* would be good game design. Having to waste time so that you can possibly hear the same news you heard the last five times the game forced you to waste time in this place? Bad design.

From:

*shrug* Fair enough. I personally think it's a reasonable tradeoff, but that is my personal opinion.

From:

Whether the trade-off is reasonable is not under discussion; that varies by game and by player preference.

What's under discussion is the lack of an option to chose a different trade-off.

From:

dscotton.livejournal.com

I'd prefer games where you don't have to backtrack so that this feature isn't needed. But in games where you DO have to backtrack, I'm in favor of anything that makes it less of a waste of time.

From:

There are often good story reasons to return to the same city or visit the same NPC as you've done before. There are SOMETIMES good gameplay reasons to have things in a location change while you're not there without your knowledge - but once you've walked into a location to change something, leaving again should not require navigating back out if nothing is going to happen on the way out. That's just dumb.

From:

cosmiccat.livejournal.com

So, other than the stinging insult of having to occasionally walk across a room, how're you enjoying DA2?

From:

It's not a "stinging insult", it's more "dammit, there's a well-established better way to do this!". It makes me sad.

Enjoying it: Pretty well, so far. The interface took me a little to get used to, and movement and combat are faster than most similar games (a good thing, since there's so much POINTLESS WALKING ARGH) so that was a little jarring, but I'm realy liking the characters and the stories so far.

Not going to play it again for a few days, though - someone who shall remain nameless bought me Fallout: Lonesome Road at midnight last night and it's kinda going to eat my life for a while.

From:

Hopefully in a pleasant way. I got it, but I'm holding off on installing it until I poke around a bit more. Arcade and ED-E, Mr. House's backstory, fun stuff like that.

From:

Bah, install away. It will add new optional content, and also available stuff for the stuff-doing.

From:

pappy-legba.livejournal.com

It 'destroys immersion' -the same complaint used against quicksaves. I imagine primadonna game designers would use the same logic to remove the pause option if they could get away with it.

From: