one of my biggest dissapointments with dao was that after you beat the game you couldnt revisit any place you went to pretty much ending any game play once you beat the game excluding dlc anyone agree
Still playing after the game is over
Débuté par
Cloud1995324
, juil. 29 2010 02:56
Retour en haut
#4
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 03:28
Bryy_Miller
-
- Members
- 7 676 messages
Yeah, we need to get to level 25 before we reach our first sidequest.
#5
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 03:30
aberdash
-
- Members
- 483 messages
Considering its a framed narrative I don't see how it is possible. Unless at some point close to the end we actually play as hawke in the present time and not in flashbacks.
#6
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 03:45
TheMadCat
-
- Members
- 2 728 messages
What would be the point? These games are about telling a story, once the story is told that's it, done, good night. These aren't open world exploration games where there are tons of little things for you to go find, it's all straight forwards and obvious.
#7
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 03:45
DarthRomance
-
- Members
- 103 messages
Bryy_Miller wrote...
Yeah, we need to get to level 25 before we reach our first sidequest.
If that is how you play the game, it is your choice, bro.
#8
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 05:00
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
No, because that's impossible with the kind of in depth story that they had. Each place would have to be recreated, updated according to your actions, that or it would appear that you had done nothing, which would be even worse.This just isn't an open world kind of game. Do I wish they gave us an expansion and DLCs that kept expanding the game, as I'd hoped? Yeah.Cloud1995324 wrote...
one of my biggest dissapointments with dao was that after you beat the game you couldnt revisit any place you went to pretty much ending any game play once you beat the game excluding dlc anyone agree
#9
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 05:03
Faust1979
-
- Members
- 2 397 messages
why would you want to keep going to old places once the story is done with? it would be quite boring with nothing to do
#10
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 05:11
SirOccam
-
- Members
- 2 645 messages
I wanted to take Loghain back to Ostagar to see how he reacts, but that means I can't take Alistair there.
#11
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:08
MotoSkunkX
-
- Members
- 145 messages
TheMadCat wrote...
What would be the point?
I want everyone to clap me on the back and say "GOOD JOB HERO." And have every shopkeeper offering me a massive discount without having to do anything for them.
It would make up for the 'Dude where's my respect?' part of the game. Though Bioware did make fun of that in the first Dragon Age with the head guard of the Market. "You mean people actually attack you voluntarily? They must be insane!"
#12
Guest_jojimbo_*
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:25
Guest_jojimbo_*
Guest_jojimbo_*
-
- Guests
DA:O isnt really an open world game per se,its definately more story driven and combat oriented.I loved the combat system because it was fundamentally different to other actual "open world" games like TES and M&B.
Oblivion is the way tho,it would be really interesting to see a real open Ferelden,introduction of horses,a living community like in assassins creed,but eh...dream dream dream
oh,and not forgetting the romancing,DA:O's one fundamental defining activity
Oblivion is the way tho,it would be really interesting to see a real open Ferelden,introduction of horses,a living community like in assassins creed,but eh...dream dream dream
oh,and not forgetting the romancing,DA:O's one fundamental defining activity
#13
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:33
Marzillius
-
- Members
- 361 messages
errant_knight wrote...
No, because that's impossible with the kind of in depth story that they had. Each place would have to be recreated, updated according to your actions, that or it would appear that you had done nothing, which would be even worse.This just isn't an open world kind of game. Do I wish they gave us an expansion and DLCs that kept expanding the game, as I'd hoped? Yeah.Cloud1995324 wrote...
one of my biggest dissapointments with dao was that after you beat the game you couldnt revisit any place you went to pretty much ending any game play once you beat the game excluding dlc anyone agree
I agree. A whole lot of **** would needed to be changed. In Mass Effect 2 they didn't bother to change Miranda's dialogue after she *SPOILER* resigns from Cerberus in the end. She still says that she is TIM's agent. If they couldn't even bother to change that, we shouldn't have gameplay after the game is finished.
Modifié par Marzillius, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:35 .
#14
Guest_KproTM_*
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:40
Guest_KproTM_*
Guest_KproTM_*
-
- Guests
That would be cool, except the problem is the question itself... what else is there to do after the game is over? You gotta give the devs some feedback on what they can do to improve the extended experience, like maybe adding some minor Epilogue quests or extra side quests that can only be done after the completed said game. Other than that DLC is what's exactly after the game. or in-between. Or whatever.
#15
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 05:59
Bryy_Miller
-
- Members
- 7 676 messages
jojimbo wrote...
oh,and not forgetting the romancing,DA:O's one fundamental defining activity
What? No, not at all.
#16
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 07:31
Haexpane
-
- Members
- 2 711 messages
Faust1979 wrote...
why would you want to keep going to old places once the story is done with? it would be quite boring with nothing to do
For the gameplay, in a true open world game if you clear out a dungeon, in a few weeks new monsters might move in.
yes it wouldn't work w/ DAO because of the constraints. But this idea that there is "nothing to do but the story" is a design choice, it doesn't have to be that way
#18
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 07:36
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 825 messages
Yeah, DA2 could just sorta trickle out like a TES game. I'm glad it won't, but the designers coudl do it if they felt like it.
#19
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 07:36
Harcken
-
- Members
- 343 messages
I was pleased that we couldn't go back and explore. To me, it takes away the "oomph" of the ending. Lalalalala i killed archdemon now i want to go back to redcliffe, o look they say exactly the same stuff they did before I left, but wait I still have a chanter's quest, i need to kill a bear let me go to blablabla. It makes it feel as though the ending had no impact whatsoever, and it takes away that "what next" feeling that you get when you beat a game or read a book. The hero lies dead or says his last goodbyes; his story is either over, or perhaps he has a tale or two left to complete.
An ending should be an ending, it shouldn't be like any other mission in the middle of the game that has no real permanent consequence whatsoever. The End.
Also, like others have pointed out; the only way for the ending to retain a post-climactic feeling is if Bioware goes back and changes all the companion dialog, the town dialog, etc... The developer probably wouldn't want to waste resources or development time on "yay you defeated the archdemon" when they could be adding more to the game itself. I believe that people just want an open epilogue because they itch for a taste of what's coming next, but that is usually what a sequel is for (a direct sequel, not a sequel in world and name only).
An ending should be an ending, it shouldn't be like any other mission in the middle of the game that has no real permanent consequence whatsoever. The End.
Also, like others have pointed out; the only way for the ending to retain a post-climactic feeling is if Bioware goes back and changes all the companion dialog, the town dialog, etc... The developer probably wouldn't want to waste resources or development time on "yay you defeated the archdemon" when they could be adding more to the game itself. I believe that people just want an open epilogue because they itch for a taste of what's coming next, but that is usually what a sequel is for (a direct sequel, not a sequel in world and name only).
Modifié par Harcken, 29 juillet 2010 - 07:41 .
#20
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 07:59
Omen72
-
- Members
- 28 messages
Open world games are great because of the amount of extra content (in the form of side missions, collectibles etc) for requiring you to continue after the main story has come to a end. The difference with Dragon Age (the first one at least) is that you can complete all the side quests before you get to the gathering, yes there may be the occassional missed one or two due to choices you make, but in general I do not see a requirement for being able to continue after the main game is done (although as I have stated somewhere else i would rather of liked to be able to go around and visit people and places after I'd kicked the Arch Demon's rear).
#21
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:04
LyletheBloody
-
- Members
- 167 messages
I didn't really notice that the world wasn't open so I guess I would say that I'm OK with not being able to revisit stuff. I wouldn't mind seeing that approach used in BioWare's next IP though.
#22
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:14
Shepard Lives
-
- Members
- 3 883 messages
If playing after the endgame means having to deal with Welcome To Corneria, I'd rather have the game go out in a blaze of glory like DAO did.
#23
Posté 29 juillet 2010 - 08:15
DPB
-
- Members
- 906 messages
If they did this, I'd want them to it properly so that the world actually reacts to your achievements, but I think it would probably take a lot of time and effort with little payoff. It was really disappointing in Fallout 2 when everyone still behaved as if the end of the game never happened.
Modifié par dbankier, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:16 .
