Overworld Exploration Implementations - Your thoughts?

[lelandbdean]

Recently I've begun development on my first likely-to-be-completed project of significant scale, and I'm arguing with myself over the best style of overworld map exploration to implement. So far, I've looked at several options, and I figured the fine folks here would have some great insights to chime in with, so here I am.

Here are the implementation types I've thought about:

1) Zelda-esque: The world map is divided into relatively compact segments, usually such that each segment matches the game resolution, with rare, "special" segments which are larger and scroll, such as areas intended to feel awe-inspiring ("Holy shit, the Giant Temple of Awesome won't FIT on this GAMEBOY screen!").
This method has some benefits - most entities other than the player are confined to a single segment, keeping calculations to a minimum and ensuring that entities are easily manageable for both the programmer and the player. Also, the heavy segmentation helps keep the gameplay feeling purposeful for the player. Instead of wandering, they have specific tasks to focus on in each segment – kill the octoroks, break the cracked wall, open that door, solve that puzzle, talk to that girl, etc.
The good aspects of this implementation (especially the ease of hardware efficiency) have made it stand the tests of time. For example, even as Zelda games progressed to seamless overworlds, they remained carefully segmented. Wind Waker took this to the extreme, with most core gameplay corralled into island locations in a massive (and tedious, and irritating) ocean.
The largest drawback of this overworld style is the lack of freedom the player can experience if you fuck it up. If done wrong, this style of overworld will feel restrictive and cramped to the player, especially if you overdo the Metroidvania trend until players can't open fence gates without the Gloves of Mysterious Gate Opening. Another big drawback is that it becomes difficult to keep the gameplay fluid with frequent segment transitions. This problem is easiest to manage when your segments don't incur any load times, but even then the segment transitions have to be expertly built to feel natural and not like a video stopping to buffer every ten seconds. It's also difficult to make this work for combat-heavy gameplay, as nothing ruins an undead-slaying rampage like interruptions.

2) Skyrim/Minecraft-esque: Total seamlessness in the overworld. While the world style can be (more or less) identical to the previous style's, the presentation varies greatly. The often resolution-sized "chunks" of the game world now scroll seamlessly under the camera without transitions. Entities can move from chunk to chunk, which can mean smooth combat or, alternately, running from a frost troll for thirty miles until you find a cave or shack or some shit.
This world type, naturally, necessitates much more robust entity and script management and optimization, but allows the player much more perceived freedom. "I'm not in a series of boxes, you fiend! I can just run the fuck over here! Or over here! Fus Ro Da, bitch!" This method tends to produce much more expansive game worlds, though care must be taken not to produce a largely empty, if scenic, space for the player.
While this world type provides luxurious fluidity of gameplay and unbroken combat sequences, it presents its own difficulties. The player has to understand that this puzzle is only relevant to this area, and not that spot way over there. You better make sure the puzzles look different if they aren't part of the same objective! Oh, and the player will need a map, compass, etc., or he'll never know where the Hell he is. And he'll need a robust quest log, or he might lose track of what he should be doing to move forward. Etc. etc.

3) Many Oldschool RPGs-esque: The world map is scaled down, showing the player, mountains, towns, etc. at similar sizes. A popular trade route is one tile wide, as is a mountain pass or a river. Walk a few tiles to the next town, if you aren't ambushed and dragged into the completely disjointed battle arena with props vaguely based on the terrain around you (that isn't to say this can't be done well, just that it's a tricky balance).
With this type of implementation, the overworld is more or less a hub level with limited gameplay, connecting all the game's actual areas with an explanatory graphic. The only genuine difference between this world type and that of Super Mario World is that the player can freely explore in all directions (and find secrets!), instead of being restricted to waypoints along a rigid path. The player is free to explore the game world to his heart's desire, but the world is artificially shrunk, in essence, to make his exploration more manageable and short-timed.
This implementation affords a useful balance between player freedom and efficiency, keeping the world open but giving only important areas fine-grain details and keeping core gameplay confined (mostly) to them. The only real drawback to this implementation is that the game world may feel less expansive and rich (unless done really well) than a purely seamless world. Whether or not this type is a good idea is really a matter of preference and the desired gameplay style.

At the moment, I'm leaning toward methods 1 & 3, largely 3, but I'm wondering if you guys might have some insight on this as I'm sure there are key details I'm missing. So! After all the wall o' text funness is over:

What kind of overworld or world map do you like best?
What kind do you typically use, and why?
Do you know of any styles I've left out? Can you give some insight on those?
Do you notice any key details I've missed?
Etc...

I'm not looking so much for specific opinions as to what will suit my game (hence the lack of descriptive details regarding it), more just wanting to discuss the issue generically. Thanks for any thought/replies!

[dandymcgee]

Could you find pictures of each of the three types you've described. I haven't played some of these games in ages and only vaguely remember the overworld. Also, welcome to the forums!

[lelandbdean]

Sure! I should have thought to do that! Also, thanks! I've actually been a mooching lurker for a while.

Overworld Type 1 Examples (Smallish segments):


(Binding of Isaac)

(Legend of Zelda)

(Poke'mon)


Overworld Type 2 Examples (Seamless):


(Skyrim)
(A Chunk)(Some Chunks)
(Minecraft)


Overworld Type 3 Examples (Compressed):


(Dragon Warrior III)

(Final Fantasy)

Also, how do I embed an image as a thumbnail?

[dandymcgee]

Also, how do I embed an image as a thumbnail?

I don't believe you can, but if you figure out a way to do it I'd love to know.
Edit: I just added a new custom BBCode called "thumb". Use it like so: [ thumb ] url [ /thumb ].

Type 3 is the least attractive style of exploration to me, but is also the only one I think of when you use the word "overworld".

Skyrim has dungeons, so I guess you could call being above ground the "overworld" but it's definitely a more seamless experience. Minecraft is completely seamless as there are no loading screens when moving between any two areas.

Binding of Isaac, Zelda, and Pokemon also don't have loading screens, but there is an obvious segmentation about the levels.

It really depends on the style of your game. If you're making a first person RPG having such obvious segmentation as Pokemon and Zelda would really ruin the immersion for a lot of players. That said, there are definitely other games where this style works quite well and doesn't negatively affect the player at all.

[MarauderIIC]

It really depends on the style of your game.

This.

What kind of game are you making?

And you omitted the Super Mario World type of overworld, which is essentially just a map with levels that nothing happens on.

[lelandbdean]

The game I'm working on is somewhat of a zeldalike in terms of its plot progression and item mechanics, but is very heavy in lore and puts more emphasis on combat than most zeldalikes do. The player gets general direction hints for his big objectives, as in Zelda titles, but the player can explore if they want, and I may make it possible for key objectives to be completed out of order (always loved Zelda 1 for that, adds tons of replayability and challenge for hardcore gamers).

The gameplay is split into two primary areas: top-down, standard, RPG-style areas that you can explore and fight in, with specific objectives in mind; and fast-paced flythrough segments for aerial battles (bullet-Hell style). Whatever sort of overworld I choose needs to be able to transition well to both of these. I would prefer a world type that gives the player some exploratory ability, as the game keeps as important themes freedom, causality, and the power they have.

Not only that, but I want to reward players for forging their own paths. Explore the world, find cool stuff and learn more about your environment and challenges. Now you can more easily make progress on the big objectives. Follow the main questline around like a lost puppy, ignoring your opportunities to act independently, and you'll have more difficulty winning.

I omitted the Super Mario World type of overworld from the list primarily because it doesn't feel exploratory to the player, since you're restricted to a net of waypoints and any "travel" is just AI-controlled animation. Granted, you can uncover secrets and new areas, but all of the action (even the secret-finding) is completely relegated to the levels themselves, making the overworld feel somewhat empty to me.


So, essentially, I need an overworld type which either facilitates robust combat mechanics and exploration while preserving some framing and isolation for certain areas, or which more heavily segments the game world while not ruining the robust combat and freedom for individual areas. And it's an annoying balance to figure out. Honestly, I'll likely end up implementing something simple (like a hub level) so I can develop parts of the game already figured out and create the overworld later on in development, but I wanted to at least start trying to figure out what is best for it.

[dandymcgee]

Honestly, I'll likely end up implementing something simple (like a hub level) so I can develop parts of the game already figured out and create the overworld later on in development...

Ironically, I actually like this idea the best. A hub level would allow you hide secrets in it and allow the player to explore with the same freedoms they're familiar with from regular levels.

[lelandbdean]

Ironically, I actually like this idea the best. A hub level would allow you hide secrets in it and allow the player to explore with the same freedoms they're familiar with from regular levels.

Hm... Actually, you may be onto something! After reading this I tried to think of a way for a hub level to make sense in the game world. The plot involves a large network of churches and cathedrals, each of which could have a special stained glass window or hidden tunnel or something leading to a hub temple. It would actually fit the rest of the game quite well, and would have plenty of room for secrets and other goodies, as you said.

Not only that, but it would make a good base of operations for the player character as there's lots of travel and he's more or less homeless when the game begins...

Thanks for your input!

[dandymcgee]

Not only that, but it would make a good base of operations for the player character as there's lots of travel and he's more or less homeless when the game begins...

Indeed it would. To give you an example as I asked you to do for me, I'm thinking of the Sanctuary in Fable III (though not necessarily 3D, depending on the game obviously).

[MarauderIIC]

I think that Ocarina of Time's hub world got rather boring, so be careful. You probably don't want to put combat that gets in the way into your overworld.

[Falco Girgis]

This list is definitely not all-inclusive.

What about RPGs like Secret of Mana or Final Fantasy 12 where the overworld and towns are all continuous maps, but they are not completely adjacent to one another, and are linked through "exit" areas?

I tend to prefer this. Games with maps like Zelda and Poke'mon place quite a bit of restriction on the geometry of your maps. Since everything is adjacent to everything else, you can't waste space, and you have to make everything flow seamlessly...

If you have maps that are connected by "warps" or "exits," you don't necessarily have to have seamless transitions between maps, gradually changing geography, or a fixed geometry size for each area.

I think this gives quite a bit more flexibility to level designers, which allows them to create levels that are far more diverse and interesting to explore...

[DistortedLance]

If done well, Pokemon-style maps can definitely be appealing. It's certainly more difficult to pull off, although it would be an interesting challenge for level-designers to create a seamless map (and possibly more fun, although that depends on how much of a masochistic activity it turns out to be). I'm not sure why, but I absolutely adore those kinds of maps (I've probably played too much Pokemon, really. Bias is a curse). I wouldn't necessarily say it's more restrictive per se - just requiring more caution so you don't ruin the experience :D

The "compressed"-style overworld map is an entirely different story. It transitions the focus away from a seamless on-the-ground experience towards a broader, "omg look at what the world looks like while walking through it from above" perspective. I don't think it's pulled off quite right in many cases (Final Fantasy III, VI, I'm looking at you two...), since it often leaves a feeling of emptiness when you're traversing some randomly huge desert with only a minor event at one point in the game (unless that feeling is the goal, hehe). It's a great way to integrate alternative methods of transportation as a plus, though (and not quite as boring as Fly).

Open-world exploration is something I've never spent much time with. The Elder Scrolls games are fun, but it definitely seems more suited for the first-/third- person games I don't often play.

[Falco Girgis]

Is a "Poke'mon-style" map not just the 2D equivalent of an "Open World" map like Elder Scrolls?

[DistortedLance]

I thought the differences between the two were just due to the implications of being 2D/3D (you can see the horizon in 3D, there's a tendency to allow the player to move over mountains instead of caves inside the mountains, etc.).

[dandymcgee]

Is a "Poke'mon-style" map not just the 2D equivalent of an "Open World" map like Elder Scrolls?

It's confusing because I'm still not 100% sure if he's talking about this



or this



and with the other games as well. Hence why I asked for pictures. Does "overworld" mean the map or just anywhere that's above ground?