[Agent Blue]

Tuco Benedicto said:

You, and others with you, keep insisting on this point: "There is not direct causation, so MAYBE this time it will not happen".
Well, maybe not, but it usually does, and even if this would not be the case, Instant Fast Travel *still* wouldn't improve the game one single bit over a properly designed, balanced and carefully placed network of fast travel keypoints. ›››

That bit of yours about "you, and others with you," is just plain silly.

You do realize I've been advocating a "carefully placed network of fast travel keypoints" for the past, gee, 20 posts of mine, don't you? You're preaching to the converted. Where we part ways is that I don't believe Armageddon will necessarily be coming inside the Trojan horse of instant fast travel.


For all intents and purposes, they can design the world as though fast travel never occurred to them and then, at the last minute, enable it.

Bam!

Done.

[Agent Blue]

cmdr_flashheart said:

I never understand why people like to use the correlation-causation axiom outside of statistics. You're saying correlation does not imply causation, but what if it does in this case? We can't definitively prove anything either way, so how is this a good point at all.

All we know for certain is that the mechanics of insta fast travel involve two-clicks to travel from A - B. We also know the game is going to have horses and other modes of transportation, and not let you fast travel to undiscovered locations.

Just based on those facts alone, we know that insta fast travel will reduce horses, boats, and other modes of transportation, to gimmicks by some point. Why would anyone elect to waste time on the roads if they can get to the story and quests in a much more convenient way.

Even if someone likes exploration and free range monster hunting, what's preventing them from doing those things with portal fast travel.

And speaking of exploration, what prevents the player from ruining game pacing and narrative by over using exploration and fast travel. This game is already set on a big stage, if the storytelling matters at all, then there need to loosely structured confines which let the player keep track of it. I guess either with insta fast travel or portal fast travel, the player will be confined to region before moving on, but only with insta fast travel does the player the capability to zoom around a region.

Also, if the developers are going to add content in the game that affects road travel (quests, clues, ambushes etc.), does this mean that if anyone wants to play this 100+ hour game on a land 20-30% bigger than Skyrim properly, then they never use fast travel at all? Even the avid players of RPGs are not masochists, they like convenience too.

Okay, maybe insta fast travel doesn't have negative effects on quest design. But how does that remove the possibility of the player missing clues or whatever if they use fast travel? Again, does this mean that the player should never use fast travel in order to have a proper game experience? Or does this mean that the developer will not be creative in how anything quest related happens to the player, so the player never misses information. If the latter is true, then how does insta fast travel not affect quest design.

The reason why teleport fast travel makes sense is because it encourages more road travel, but also provides convenience. If we're so hung up on being able to insta fast travel out of some tricky scenario, then let's have a rare magic stone or something which allows us to do that (and it disintegrates after use).

At the end of it, we don't know this game better than the people who are making it. If they think that TW3 will have the goodness that's missing from other games with insta fast travel even while having it, then great. But I still don't like the idea of never being able to fast travel if I want to play the game properly.

Sigh...

Double sigh...

You know darn well where I stand on this whole issue so I shan't bother to repeat myself.

Quote

Just based on those facts alone, we know that insta fast travel will reduce horses, boats, and other modes of transportation, to gimmicks by some point

That is not true.
I have presented five, 5, reasons why insta fast travel does not render horses and boats useless. If you want to have a discussion with me regarding this point, go back and refute them. Otherwise, there's just no point contnuing.

And I still haven't understood people who seem to believe logical axioms exist outside of our reality, in a parallel universe, with no ties or implications whatsoever to our wordily lives.

The use of bayonets has decrease over the XX century. In the same period, divorce rates have gone up. There's an inverse correlation between the two. Does that mean that less bayonet usage leads to a less happy married life?

[SonOfDovahkiin]

I think there should be a purchasable option of using a portal from a sorcerer (or you can do a favor for the sorcerer to earn one portal journey). Fast travel to villages should be disabled, but to towns they should be enabled.

[cmdr_silverbolt]

@ Agent: I can imagine CDPR pulling off both methods, insta fast travel and portal fast travel. The only thing I don't like is the idea of never having to use fast travel if I want to play a proper game.

Regarding the correlation-causation axiom, because I was only talking about this and not every "logical" axiom, it's insufficient for use in casual conversations, and it makes the person using it look like a tool. Like I said, how is it a good point when you can't prove anything either way. Let's just stick with what we know.

Oh and about the horses, I don't know where to find your post.

[Agent Blue]

cmdr_flashheart said:

@ Agent: I can imagine CDPR pulling off both methods, insta fast travel and portal fast travel. The only thing I don't like is the idea of never having to use fast travel if I want to play a proper game.

Regarding the correlation-causation axiom, because I was only talking about this and not every "logical" axiom, it's insufficient for use in casual conversations, and it makes the person using it look like a tool. Like I said, how is it a good point when you can't prove anything either way. Let's just stick with what we know.

Oh and about the horses, I don't know where to find your post.

This

Quote

I never understand why people like to use the correlation-causation axiom outside of statistics.

seems like a fairly broad statement to me.

And because the number of open world AAA RPGs that boast both insta fast travel and poor location descriptions and/or poor content distribution and/or poor quest design ammounts to a very small sample, nothing can really be said other than there seems to be a correlation between the two. I must insist, for all we know, they could be designing the world without fast travel in mind, and them enable it at the last minute. We don't know.

The fact remains: it's perfectly possible to have insta unrestricted fast travel - a feature I do not wish to see implementd in TW3 - and still have good content distribution, interesting and intelligent quests, a world that doesn't collapse under the weight of its own oversaturation.


Why UFT doesn't render horses/boats useless:

Quote

They may serve several purposes:

1) Expanded inventory.

2) Help you cross natural barriers otherwise insurmountable.

3) Mounted combat. While Geralt is more effective on foot, some enemies might be more susceptible to mounted combat.

4) You get to places you've never been to before faster than by foot.

5) You get out of dangerous situations where you can't fast travel faster than by foot. That speedy horse or boat just might save your rear end.

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Quote

They may serve several purposes:

1) Expanded inventory. Give Geralt a back pack, it doesn't run away or dies because of enemies.

2) Help you cross natural barriers otherwise insurmountable. Like what? What natural barrier will be insurmountable to Geralt's legs?

3) Mounted combat. While Geralt is more effective on foot, Some enemies might be more susceptible to mounted combat. I thought there wasn't going to be any in TW3.

4) You get to places you've never been to before faster than by foot. This is true. But after the first time, you can fast travel.

5) You get out of dangerous situations where you can't fast travel faster than by foot. That speedy horse or boat just might save your rear end. Not necessarily, you can dodge a bit and then fast travel. As I remember, enemies in the TW2 had boundaries to which they chased you.

I don't want to keep going off-topic to talk about the axiom, it's not important.

[Agent Blue]

Horses/boats may serve several purposes in a UFT context:

1) Expanded inventory. you said: Give Geralt a back pack, it doesn't run away or dies because of enemies.

By expanded I mean not only able to hold more regular items but also certain bulky items which Geralt simply wouldn't be able to carry around for extended periods. Example: statuettes.

2) Help you cross natural barriers otherwise insurmountable. you said: Like what? What natural barrier will be insurmountable to Geralt's legs?

Come on, give me a break here.
Rapids, steep mountains, freezing waters, monster infected waters, you get the idea.

3) Mounted combat. While Geralt is more effective on foot, Some enemies might be more susceptible to mounted combat. you said: I thought there wasn't going to be any in TW3.

Mounted combat is in. They said Geralt is generally more effective on foot. But if he were to fight hordes of giants or other hefty creatures, it's easy to see how a horse might be an advantage.

4) You get to places you've never been to before faster than by foot. you said: This is true. But after the first time, you can fast travel.

Even SKyrim sets limits as to when you can fast travel. For example, You cannot fast travel during combat. So the point applies not only to places you've never been to but also when fast travel is disabled.

5) You get out of dangerous situations where you can't fast travel faster than by foot. That speedy horse or boat just might save your rear end. you said: Not necessarily, you can dodge a bit and then fast travel. As I remember, enemies in the TW2 had boundaries to which they chased you.

Again, even Skyrim disables Fast travel during combat. You cannot fast travel during it. So indeed a speedy horse or a boat just might save your rear end. This alone would make horses and boats priceless. Enemy AI has been revamped. Let's hope they now chase you down much farther.

This post has been edited by Agent Blue: 14.03.2013 @ 23:30

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Agent Blue said:

Come on, give me a break here.
Rapids, steep mountains, freezing waters, monster infected waters, you get the idea. ›››

No />/> I can argue for why real horses wouldn't be practical for crossing any of those natural barriers, but I won't. Because >>>

Agent Blue said:

Mounted combat is in. They said Geralt is generally more effective on foot. But if he were to fight hordes of giants or other hefty creatures, it's easy to see how a horse might be an advantage. ›››

This is the only reason which cannot be argued against. I somehow missed this, and I am excited all over again for combat in TW3 (though I know some people hate the emphasis on the combat aspect of the game). Regardless, I hope this form of combat is top notch and well implemented, otherwise it will be such a disappointment.

So I don't like the statement that Geralt is more effective on foot. I hope by the time the game is released this is not so true.

Even if we can say that insta fast travel does not render horses useless by some point, or doesn't affect other aspects of game play (which is highly improbable), we still have to note that currently the game gives the impression that if you want to play it properly, then you don't use fast travel at all.

That's very impractical.

[Agent Blue]

cmdr_flashheart said:

No />/>/>/>/>/> I can argue for why real horses wouldn't be practical for crossing any of those natural barriers, but I won't. Because >>>



This is the only reason which cannot be argued against. I somehow missed this, and I am excited all over again for combat in TW3 (though I know some people hate the emphasis on the combat aspect of the game). Regardless, I hope this form of combat is top notch and well implemented, otherwise it will be such a disappointment.

So I don't like the statement that Geralt is more effective on foot. I hope by the time the game is released this is not so true.

Even if we can say that insta fast travel does not render horses useless by some point, or doesn't affect other aspects of game play (which is highly improbable), we still have to note that currently the game gives the impression that if you want to play it properly, then you don't use fast travel at all.

That's very impractical.

I'm sure you noticed the post states why horses / boats are not rendered useless by UFT...

Listen, after the game is released, one of us is going to come here and post

Quote

I told you so.

We both wish it'll be me.

[peteo]

Well, as far as "Fast Travel" goes, since we will have a Horse in TW3 and if its done as well as it was in "Red Dead Redemption", I don't believe that fast travel is needed and for me even wanted!

I'm currently playing RDD and just love the horseback riding, its exciting and fun! Even if the world is ten times bigger in TW3, Geralt could still make it from one end of the map to the other in lets say, two or three nights, with camping at night or staying in Inns along the way!

You could have fast travel in the game, used by Mages and even by Geralt in a quest, but for normal travel, getting from point A to B, it should be by horse, IF ITS DONE AS WELL AS IN RDD! This would allow for random "events" to be staged along the way!

Also, since you will want and have a horse, what is going to happen to the horse when you fast travel, you going to whistle and the horse is going to appear when you are on one side of the map and the horse is on the other?!

[Wichat]

peteo said:

....

Also, since you will want and have a horse, what is going to happen to the horse when you fast travel, you going to whistle and the horse is going to appear when you are on one side of the map and the horse is on the other?! ›››

You sell it or just rent a place in a stable.

[peteo]

You would not sell it! Played enough games to know that selling and than buying back the some item is not a winning strategy! Renting a place at a stable, yes, of course! But again, for when you have some quest that requires you to "tel-port" to some place for a few days, NOT AS A GENERAL MEANS OF TRAVEL!

[Wichat]

OK OK, no need to loud, with a simple underline it's enough.

[Greed1914]

Aver said:

Instead of fast travel they could make traveling interesting... ›››

You have a point. One of the reasons why I used fast travel it RDR is that thee was a lot of empty space that might have been used for unlocking a few items, but nothing else. Once those were covered, I felt like I had no reason to just skip to new areas. The same applies for Skryim. While not properly outlined, there are some major routes between certain areas that I felt that I had either covered thoroughly, or deemed unworthy of my time. Overall, I'm fine with the idea of fast travel. I get the feeling that it will work like TW1 where we will will only have options between major locations, and if there is as much content as they claim, I don't know that there will be much conflict. Those that want to use it can, and those that don't will have stuff to do. Like I sad, this all depends on CDPR making good on the amount of content it has suggested.

[RogueN]

While i do like games to be immersive, i do have a job to go to and a family to care care of. And i did ride a horse over a small hill in real life, it took me an hour, so that kind of immersion and realism would be a bit too much . I say Fast travel YES, to be honest you could play Skyrim without fast travel, but then again how big is that continent when you can get from one end to another in 40 minutes of riding? THAT actually brakes the immersion and does not make any sense.

[emperorzorn]

You don't have to use Fast Travel if you don't like it.
The point is that people who don't like to get lost in the world of the Witcher CAN use it
to get through the main story without having to do much exploration.

I know I won't use it, but it's no disadvantage for me if it's in the game.

[peteo]

Has anyone played Red Dead Redemption? Riding a horse (fast) is exciting and fun) and no, its not like riding a horse in real life!! Heck, are you a Witcher in real life?!

Riding a horse (fast) on well established roads would get you from point A to B without the loss of game immersion, that's the point of it! Fast travel, is like a cheat, if they are going to craft this game as well as they say they are, there will be no fast travel except perhaps as part of a quest.

Not saying that the Mages/Sorcerers will not be using it, but Geralt, NO!

Oh, and again, if you played RDR, you wont get lost, you will have GPS!

And Skyrim sucked!! I didn't even bother with a horse, it was done so badly, could walk faster. (it was fun till about lvl 25-30, downhill after that, got rid of the game and have not looked back)

[Agent Blue]

peteo said:

Has anyone played Red Dead Redemption? Riding a horse (fast) is exciting and fun) and no, its not like riding a horse in real life!! Heck, are you a Witcher in real life?!

Riding a horse (fast) on well established roads would get you from point A to B without the loss of game immersion, that's the point of it! Fast travel, is like a cheat, if they are going to craft this game as well as they say they are, there will be no fast travel except perhaps as part of a quest.

Not saying that the Mages/Sorcerers will not be using it, but Geralt, NO! ›››

No one's really concerned about immersion. Those who would be would simply avoid fast travel like the plague.

Some are concerned about the world design implications of having UFT which would affect all gamers, those who'd FT and those who would not.

But such problems can be solved, in my opinion.

[Sirnaq]

Im wandering why devs of open world games don't use fast travel similar to fallout 1 and 2. You see progress of your travel on the map and when you encounter some interesting event or monsters or whatever it just immediately stop fast traveling process. It wold be nice alternative to teleportation that make no sense. That also eliminate hand-holding with all them glowing questmarks and location marks, you need to remember where is some cave, can't pass through river without bridge etc.

[RogueN]

Sirnaq said:

Im wandering why devs of open world games don't use fast travel similar to fallout 1 and 2. You see progress of your travel on the map and when you encounter some interesting event or monsters or whatever it just immediately stop fast traveling process. It wold be nice alternative to teleportation that make no sense. That also eliminate hand-holding with all them glowing questmarks and location marks, you need to remember where is some cave, can't pass through river without bridge etc. ›››

this, easy and effective solution.