Read on Twitter
As requested, here's a game design analysis thread of how Crusader Kings III goal-herding in a sandbox. Presented in 3 parts, one per day:
1 the problem for context
2 (my impression of) their approach
3 details & wrinkles https://store.steampowered.com/app/1158310/Crusader_Kings_III/
1 the problem for context
2 (my impression of) their approach
3 details & wrinkles https://store.steampowered.com/app/1158310/Crusader_Kings_III/
PART 1/3: THE SANDBOX PROBLEM
Most gameplay = working towards a goal. Whether it's "finish the level", "go somewhere","defeat the monster" or "roll the universe into a ball", players need to know what they're /trying/ to do. It's the "why", and usually, games GIVE you the goal.
Most gameplay = working towards a goal. Whether it's "finish the level", "go somewhere","defeat the monster" or "roll the universe into a ball", players need to know what they're /trying/ to do. It's the "why", and usually, games GIVE you the goal.
Sandboxes can be a tough design challenge because you want the player to come up with (or, feel like they came up with) their own goals. This is hard because by default, most people don't know what they CAN do in a game, never mind what they SHOULD (try to) do.
Designers love non-linear design because we tend to be excited about exploration and self-determination. But open-endedness *by itself* isn't meaningful. It's just a blank slate, which most people find uncompelling, without knowing context and consequences.
For an example of handling "open-endedness" poorly, look at the Moon Hunters world map. Good game, and the world map says, "You can go anywhere!" Yes but... why? What is meaningful or interesting about this choice? (Not much, most of the time.)
So, the 1st big problem of sandbox design is how to give the player an idea of what they /can/ do (and how long it might take them). Miyamoto forbid we use "just" a quest line or main story, i.e. things the player /must/ do, in a particular sequence, but it's a handholding tool.
In many Ubisoft games, they show icons on the map you /can/ go to find interesting things. Players look at the map and pick "something to do", often along the way of the main quest/story.
In Breath of the Wild, they have incredible level design, so when you look around the world, you see places you /can/ go to find interesting things, often distracted on the way to somewhere else.
In GTA, the world is close enough to our real one, that for most people, they can imagine what to do just based on seeing a screen. "Drive a car", "shoot a gun", are immediately meaningful and consequences are intuitive (also, icons + level design).
You might see a pattern. Those sandboxy worlds all have a 'main quest' of some kind, which then hopefully leads to sandbox play during or after, as the player gets more comfortable and knows what they can do. What starts as distractions become the main gameplay over time.
This isn't true in purer sandboxes like Crusader Kings III (or the Sims, Animal Crossing). No main quest beyond tutorials. So how does Paradox get the player comfy in an unfamiliar world long enough to choose their own goals? Let's look!
(will resume with part 2 tomorrow)
(will resume with part 2 tomorrow)
