So I was thinking that my game could have these free roam events during periods of the game where there’s not much going on in the story. I thought those sections can be for side characters where the MC can talk to them. Every free roam event will progress multiple side characters story in that specific free roam section. Thinking about it, isn’t that bad game design? Even though it’s optional to talk to the side characters? Would a player feel forced to talk to the side characters and some may want to just progress with the main story but don’t want to lose out on the side characters so again they may feel forced to do it. Looking for some opinions if that would annoy players.
Ren'Py Bad game design to have free roam where it’s only side characters
- Thread starter Mr. Mayhem
- Start date
- Jul 2, 2017
- 1,158
- 2,944
Let me do a negative take on it:
During periods where there's not much going on with the story, you're going to make players spend more time by making them click around in a free roam that definitely won't progress the story?
It would annoy the hell out of players.
Let me do a positive take on it:
People regularly surprise me, maybe they won't all hate it.
During periods where there's not much going on with the story, you're going to make players spend more time by making them click around in a free roam that definitely won't progress the story?
It would annoy the hell out of players.
Let me do a positive take on it:
People regularly surprise me, maybe they won't all hate it.
- Jun 14, 2018
- 1,571
- 2,196
Personally, I don't like completely free-roam open world games.
(There are some brilliant ones, but still...)
It feels like I spend half my time clicking on rooms/locations where nothing is happening.
So view this opinion though that perspective.
Where I think it can be made to work is where there are icons or some other visual cue as to which NPCs can be found in which locations. That way, I can at least avoid the empty locations. Better still, if I'm actively chasing a specific LI, I know where to go to find them.
Where things tend to break down is where you have events like "Visit Teri at the mall on Thursday evening". If you miss the event (either deliberately or on accident), then you have to wait a full week before it comes around again.
It is however the easiest solution to an "off-rails" story (especially optional side quests), and so I'm loathed to suggest adding in complexity (more programming) when so many other games just follow the path of least resistance too.
I can't say what other people like. All I can suggest is that you perhaps consider downloading say the top 10 most popular games here on F95 and see what mechanics they are using. If they do open-world, how are they handling the lack of content on a Tuesday morning? Are they using visual cues to aid the player? I'm not suggesting you'll automatically be able to recreate what is likely some very complex coding, but it might give you an idea of what is works for popular games (and by inference, what doesn't).
Edit:
For reference, of the top 75 games (weighted popularity), 15 are tagged as
Obviously, these games are good based on their own merits, unrelated to whether they are sandbox or not.
(There are some brilliant ones, but still...)
It feels like I spend half my time clicking on rooms/locations where nothing is happening.
So view this opinion though that perspective.
Where I think it can be made to work is where there are icons or some other visual cue as to which NPCs can be found in which locations. That way, I can at least avoid the empty locations. Better still, if I'm actively chasing a specific LI, I know where to go to find them.
Where things tend to break down is where you have events like "Visit Teri at the mall on Thursday evening". If you miss the event (either deliberately or on accident), then you have to wait a full week before it comes around again.
It is however the easiest solution to an "off-rails" story (especially optional side quests), and so I'm loathed to suggest adding in complexity (more programming) when so many other games just follow the path of least resistance too.
I can't say what other people like. All I can suggest is that you perhaps consider downloading say the top 10 most popular games here on F95 and see what mechanics they are using. If they do open-world, how are they handling the lack of content on a Tuesday morning? Are they using visual cues to aid the player? I'm not suggesting you'll automatically be able to recreate what is likely some very complex coding, but it might give you an idea of what is works for popular games (and by inference, what doesn't).
Edit:
For reference, of the top 75 games (weighted popularity), 15 are tagged as
sandbox.Obviously, these games are good based on their own merits, unrelated to whether they are sandbox or not.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
- Apr 15, 2019
- 97
- 202
Depends what the game is about. If it is management/rpg I enjoy sandbox because of the exploration aspect of it. But if it is a VN, I despise it with a passion because I just want to move on with the story. Even in games which I love like Pale Carnations or Being a DIK, it makes me reconsider doing new playthroughs because the freeroams feel like completing a list of chores. If there is important content needed to be shown, just show it.
Last edited:
Just treat it like a sidequest in a rpg.
Sidequests can also have intresting rewards and stuff.
This is more useful for RPGs and sandbox games that have some management aspects.
- Jul 4, 2017
- 110
- 367
Ask yourself this: Is the amount of time and effort a player has to put into your game equal to the payoff they'll get?
Be respectful of people's time. If someone spends two hours of their time on your game only to end up with a lukewarm handjob from an unimportant side character, that's not going to feel worth it. On the contrary, spending two hours of buildup to an amazing scene with a main character might well feel worth it.
Time and effort > Payoff -> Disappointed players
Time and effort =< Payoff -> Happy players
Be respectful of people's time. If someone spends two hours of their time on your game only to end up with a lukewarm handjob from an unimportant side character, that's not going to feel worth it. On the contrary, spending two hours of buildup to an amazing scene with a main character might well feel worth it.
Time and effort > Payoff -> Disappointed players
Time and effort =< Payoff -> Happy players
My biggest issue with sandbox in story games is, they are most often very VERY boring until later in development, as the stories fill out. At early stages, you might have either one story-line well developed, or 15 story-lines just getting started. And either way, you leave a lot of nothing around the little bit of something you do have. It's the main reason I won't play most sandbox games until they are a good ways along, because there is just so much NOTHING until it gets fleshed out. Don't get me wrong, sandbox can be fun, if done well, but, early on, even the ones that end up being great games when finished are usually far more boring than a straight VN at the same stage in the dev cycle.
I feel like this kind of stuff is a leftover from old-school text adventure games, when you were supposed to gather information from descriptions to know what to do next (verbs and nouns alike). It's certainly not the most popular design choice nowadays, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it "bad" considering it's still a staple of investigation-based games. Personally, I lean towards streamlined "go from point A to point B".
- Sep 2, 2018
- 345
- 462
The question is: Why do you think your game needs moments where "not much is going on in the story"?
Depends on how it's implemented. Games that have free roam usually are "just waiting for the player", instead of the player waiting for the game to allow progress. Some VN style games will usually use weekdays and time of day to allow events to happen, but that can be annoying as the player will reach a point where he'll have to choose between one or another, as both are happening at the same time in different locations. Annoying, but not a deal breaker for most people, I think.
If any of the events are the kind that you can "miss forever", then the game better have a bunch of those, and not take forever to progress in any one direction.
- Apr 6, 2021
- 76
- 240
It depends on what you mean by free roam, because it can mean very different things.
It also depends on the rest of the game: if the game is mainly a linear VN, it may be better to stay consistent and do the same for the part with the side characters, or just add a menu where the player can choose which characters to talk to, as some games do.
But developing relationships with certain characters outside the story can be a good idea in my opinion.
Something simple like Mass Effect for example: you have a set of characters, you can take some of them on missions and leave the others at the base. Most of them can be considered main characters, but I think the same reasoning can be applied.
When a mission ends, you can chill in your base and go talk to everyone (or no one). Each time you talk to a character, they'll tell you part of their story.
Then you go back to do a main mission, and when you come back and talk to him again, he continues his story and so on, until you know the character well enough for the relationship to progress.
I don't think it's a bad design.
Now if you don't want the player to feel forced, you can, for example:
- not make every interaction mandatory: a player doesn't have to talk to every character every time.
If he misses a few opportunities and goes back to talk to the character later, he'll "catch up" with that character's story.
And you can also show a warning (or something more subtle) at some point to let the player know that if they continue to ignore a particular character, their relationship with them will not progress anymore (if you need the relationship with this character to have progressed sufficiently in order add a scene in the main story, for example)
- You can also make these dialogues totally optional (and warn the player that they are): the player will still be able to progress the relationship with the character even if he doesn't talk to them. Talking to them might only give a small bonus to the player which facilitates the relationship, so if a player doesn't want to do that, they could simply skip these dialogues. It could be, for example, a direct benefit, such as a bonus scene with this character, or something more indirect, such as an element from the character's past, which the player has learned from these optional events and which he can then reuse later in the story to resolve a particular situation.
It also depends on the rest of the game: if the game is mainly a linear VN, it may be better to stay consistent and do the same for the part with the side characters, or just add a menu where the player can choose which characters to talk to, as some games do.
But developing relationships with certain characters outside the story can be a good idea in my opinion.
Something simple like Mass Effect for example: you have a set of characters, you can take some of them on missions and leave the others at the base. Most of them can be considered main characters, but I think the same reasoning can be applied.
When a mission ends, you can chill in your base and go talk to everyone (or no one). Each time you talk to a character, they'll tell you part of their story.
Then you go back to do a main mission, and when you come back and talk to him again, he continues his story and so on, until you know the character well enough for the relationship to progress.
I don't think it's a bad design.
Now if you don't want the player to feel forced, you can, for example:
- not make every interaction mandatory: a player doesn't have to talk to every character every time.
If he misses a few opportunities and goes back to talk to the character later, he'll "catch up" with that character's story.
And you can also show a warning (or something more subtle) at some point to let the player know that if they continue to ignore a particular character, their relationship with them will not progress anymore (if you need the relationship with this character to have progressed sufficiently in order add a scene in the main story, for example)
- You can also make these dialogues totally optional (and warn the player that they are): the player will still be able to progress the relationship with the character even if he doesn't talk to them. Talking to them might only give a small bonus to the player which facilitates the relationship, so if a player doesn't want to do that, they could simply skip these dialogues. It could be, for example, a direct benefit, such as a bonus scene with this character, or something more indirect, such as an element from the character's past, which the player has learned from these optional events and which he can then reuse later in the story to resolve a particular situation.
Last edited:
Problem with free roam it most people don't embrace it from the start. They had a vague idea like everyone else, but then completely underplay it or worse, being out-scoped by it.
Main point of free-roam/sandbox, it's to give an opportunity to bring friction to the player (and it's better said than done). Imho there is nothing worse than a pseudo-sandbox porn visual novel to put one point on corruption or love path. Why even bother? Embrace it or discard it as you don't need it.
Main point of free-roam/sandbox, it's to give an opportunity to bring friction to the player (and it's better said than done). Imho there is nothing worse than a pseudo-sandbox porn visual novel to put one point on corruption or love path. Why even bother? Embrace it or discard it as you don't need it.