92 réponses à ce sujet

[Querne]

Yes, in contrast to Predifinedcharacterlesschoicesvoicingwheelknowingbegginingandendofplotalreadystuff that´s something I really like.

Modifié par Querne, 15 juillet 2010 - 08:25 .

[CarlSpackler]

I'll chime in and agree that this feature holds the most potential. As we're all still uncertain on how this will be handled I'll put forward my guess that we will play through the 1st yr or 2, then flash forward a couple yrs and play through yrs 5-6, and then flash forward to the ending yrs 9-10. They could conceivably show effects of decisions at the two junctures.



Alternatively they may in fact have us play through yrs 1-2 or 1-3 and do 1 jump forward to play through 9-10. Either could work if the writing would handle each appropriately, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I've only once played a game that had time limits that I liked.  Wizardry 7, your main goal was to find several pieces of a map, so as to reach a place where a certain treasure was hidden before the bad guy could.  In the game, you had certain time limits that you had to reach the various map fragments by, or someone else would get them and you would have to then get them from the people who had them (either through combat or purchasing/stealing them.)  NPC's could even take them from each other, if I remember correctly.

Though if I recall correctly, you've never actually managed to finish Wizardry 7, so that particular implementation mght hae been too difficult.

[AbounI]

Another game with a time limit : "Prince Of persia", the very first of all, with only 60 minutes allowed to go to the end.Unfinishable !

Anyway, what does a choice between a hurry history or a "take the time you want" history serve for games that does not implement a "time management"?Nothing at all if we don't look at the background of the game.

Modifié par AbounI, 15 juillet 2010 - 09:03 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I've only once played a game that had time limits that I liked.  Wizardry 7, your main goal was to find several pieces of a map, so as to reach a place where a certain treasure was hidden before the bad guy could.  In the game, you had certain time limits that you had to reach the various map fragments by, or someone else would get them and you would have to then get them from the people who had them (either through combat or purchasing/stealing them.)  NPC's could even take them from each other, if I remember correctly.

Though if I recall correctly, you've never actually managed to finish Wizardry 7, so that particular implementation mght hae been too difficult.

True.  But that's more due to the difficulty of the combat and never actually being able to find everything I needed to (I have a horrible tendency to get lost in that game.)

Also, the original version of the game doesn't work on Pentium+ systems, and the version that does has some serious bugs that never got patched, since Sir-Tech is now defunct.

Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that Bioware should do something like that, it's just the only example of a time limit I've ever encountered that I felt added to the fun and life of the world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that Bioware should do something like that, it's just the only example of a time limit I've ever encountered that I felt added to the fun and life of the world.

Your description of it certainly fits my standard.  It's a time-limit, sure, but failure to complete the task in time doesn't break the game - it just changes the game.

Failure shouldn't always end the game.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Anyway, I'm certainly not saying that Bioware should do something like that, it's just the only example of a time limit I've ever encountered that I felt added to the fun and life of the world.

Your description of it certainly fits my standard.  It's a time-limit, sure, but failure to complete the task in time doesn't break the game - it just changes the game.

Failure shouldn't always end the game.

Definitely.  I just like things that make it seem that the other people in the world are doing something besides just standing around waiting for the player to do things, and I find that too few games implement anything like that.  I realize how costly such a thing would be to implement (and thus realize why it doesn't happen) but that doesn't mean that it isn't something I'd like to see more of.

Also, after reading the Game Informer article I'm a bit distressed by the idea of moving through time in a non-linear fashion.  I'm not quite sure how I can reasonably be expected to play through portions of the game without knowing what may have come before that would have potentially effected my character's personality.

Game Informer wrote...
Events don't necessarily need to unfold chronologically, and the structure allows the team to skip over uneventful periods of time, keeping players in the action and cutting down on the excess travel time.

This quote in particular concerns me quite a bit.  While I understand fast forwarding through uneventful periods of time, it would be nice to at least be able to play through some periods where there wasn't something dire happening, as it would allow us to explore different facets of our character's personality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Also, after reading the Game Informer article I'm a bit distressed by the idea of moving through time in a non-linear fashion.  I'm not quite sure how I can reasonably be expected to play through portions of the game without knowing what may have come before that would have potentially effected my character's personality.

This design would, however, appear to prevent us from learning about Hawke as we go (as is intended with Shepard in ME) because we'd never have enough information.  For this non-linear style to be playable they would have to let us be the source of every last ounce of Hawke's personality.

This quote in particular concerns me quite a bit.  While I understand fast forwarding through uneventful periods of time, it would be nice to at least be able to play through some periods where there wasn't something dire happening, as it would allow us to explore different facets of our character's personality.

Indeed.  I quite enjoy what BioWare has taken to calling "excess travel time".  I wanted the Deep Roads to be longer, for example.  I didn't need any more encounters in them - I just wanted more walking through the environments.

Hell, I walked the trench run on Ilos (which breaks the game, incidentally) because I enjoyed the atmosphere.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Also, after reading the Game Informer article I'm a bit distressed by the idea of moving through time in a non-linear fashion.  I'm not quite sure how I can reasonably be expected to play through portions of the game without knowing what may have come before that would have potentially effected my character's personality.

This design would, however, appear to prevent us from learning about Hawke as we go (as is intended with Shepard in ME) because we'd never have enough information.  For this non-linear style to be playable they would have to let us be the source of every last ounce of Hawke's personality.

Sure.  My major concern is that I'm going to play through some events, and then get sent backward in time to some other set of events that would have a major impact on my character (failing to protect a loved one, a major betrayal, what have you) that would potentially effect his personality.  This would lead to a situation where future Hawke's actions didn't make any sense, because the events that occurred before would mean he would react differently than he (at least in terms of the game) already had.  Essentially, I'm concerned Bioware is going to make me break my own character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This quote in particular concerns me quite a bit.  While I understand fast forwarding through uneventful periods of time, it would be nice to at least be able to play through some periods where there wasn't something dire happening, as it would allow us to explore different facets of our character's personality.

Indeed.  I quite enjoy what BioWare has taken to calling "excess travel time".  I wanted the Deep Roads to be longer, for example.  I didn't need any more encounters in them - I just wanted more walking through the environments.

That would definitely be nice.  I'd just like the opportunity to interact with people in non-critical moments.  While it might not have made sense in DA, when we have a 10 year timespan that lacks a threat like the Blight, there are certainly going to be periods of peace, and if they're ignored completely, it will end up making the game feel more like a series of vignettes than a story about how Hawke became whoever he becomes.

Hell, I walked the trench run on Ilos (which breaks the game, incidentally) because I enjoyed the atmosphere.

I know.  It still amuses me that you did that.  I'd never have considered it (mostly because the Mako has so much extra firepower.)

[thenemesis77]

Suprez30 wrote...

Time in Dragon age it's all relative..How many week you have spend into the deep road?
How many day or week you have spend climbing the ashes mountain?
How many week you have spend walking ?


Between the betrayal of Belhen and when  meeting your friend in Denerim = Years have passed.
All in all ... Dragon age origins span over several years and you don't have any (1 years later)

I'm pretty sure it's will work just has well.

For instance when you meet Wynne in the circle of magi .. She said that 1 years have passed since the battle of Ostagaar .. Even  if you meet her right after Lothering.

I agree. How many years did DAO take from start to end?

[Eledran]

Yeah, I think this is an awesome idea, you can really show a lot of character development doing that.

Maybe your main char will even age visibly! Imagine going from an aspiring mage / warrior / ... to a much more wiser person over the course of a decade.

Modifié par Eledran, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

That would definitely be nice.  I'd just like the opportunity to interact with people in non-critical moments.  While it might not have made sense in DA, when we have a 10 year timespan that lacks a threat like the Blight, there are certainly going to be periods of peace, and if they're ignored completely, it will end up making the game feel more like a series of vignettes than a story about how Hawke became whoever he becomes.

Exactly.  Who's to say that it's the high-action fast-paced periods within the decade that make Hawke who he is?  If we're to be the ones to decide, then let us decide.

I know.  It still amuses me that you did that.  I'd never have considered it (mostly because the Mako has so much extra firepower.)

It seemed like a really good idea at the time.

[stevej713]

Eledran wrote...

Maybe you main char will even age visibly! Imagine going from an aspiring mage / warrior / ... to a much more wiser person over the course of a decade.

I LOVE playing an older/wiser character.  Unfortunately, being a Human Noble in DA:O, my only option is to be the youngest of the family.

[Bugzehat]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sure.  My major concern is that I'm going to play through some events, and then get sent backward in time to some other set of events that would have a major impact on my character (failing to protect a loved one, a major betrayal, what have you) that would potentially effect his personality.  This would lead to a situation where future Hawke's actions didn't make any sense, because the events that occurred before would mean he would react differently than he (at least in terms of the game) already had.  Essentially, I'm concerned Bioware is going to make me break my own character.

Have I missed something? What makes you think we'll ever be sent backwards in time? Seems that could be problematic, for the reasons you say.

[Vaeliorin]

Bah...unintentional double post.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 15 juillet 2010 - 11:24 .

[Vaeliorin]

Bugzehat wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Sure.  My major concern is that I'm going to play through some events, and then get sent backward in time to some other set of events that would have a major impact on my character (failing to protect a loved one, a major betrayal, what have you) that would potentially effect his personality.  This would lead to a situation where future Hawke's actions didn't make any sense, because the events that occurred before would mean he would react differently than he (at least in terms of the game) already had.  Essentially, I'm concerned Bioware is going to make me break my own character.

Have I missed something? What makes you think we'll ever be sent backwards in time? Seems that could be problematic, for the reasons you say.

This quote from Game Informer, that I quoted earlier.

Game Informer wrote...
Events don't necessarily need to unfold chronologically, and the structure allows the team to skip over uneventful periods of time, keeping players in the action and cutting down on the excess travel time.

The part about events not needing to unfold chronologically implies that we could end up doing things that occurred earlier in the timeline after we've already done things that occurred later.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

The part about events not needing to unfold chronologically implies that we could end up doing things that occurred earlier in the timeline after we've already done things that occurred later.

That might just be sloppy writing on Game Informer's part, though.  It's not clear.

If they'd said "events need not take place sequentially", that would be clearer.

[Bugzehat]

Vaeliorin wrote...

This quote from Game Informer, that I quoted earlier.

Game Informer wrote...
Events don't necessarily need to unfold chronologically, and the structure allows the team to skip over uneventful periods of time, keeping players in the action and cutting down on the excess travel time.

The part about events not needing to unfold chronologically implies that we could end up doing things that occurred earlier in the timeline after we've already done things that occurred later.

Ah, I see, thanks. I hope Sylvius is right and this is just sloppy writing, because I can see this getting confusing.