58 réponses à ce sujet

[Demx]

Weather effects will probably be limited to what kind of atmosphere they want to present in a specific area:

Warden's keep snow storm

The very beginning of Vigil's Keep raining

Night time for castle raids and campsite

[Cazlee]

I really dislike that in other games I have to equip torches and do a lot of needless traveling back to camp because of day/night cycles. I hope DA:2 is like DA:O with no day/night cycles.

[_-Greywolf-_]

Cazlee wrote...

I really dislike that in other games I have to equip torches and do a lot of needless traveling back to camp because of day/night cycles. I hope DA:2 is like DA:O with no day/night cycles.

Actually I like that about day and night cycles and dark and spooky dungeons as it adds a level of immersion to the game, however if it really bothers you that much to equip a torch I guess you could just crank the brightness up?

Also how does it force you to travel back to camp? Unless you hate traveling at night and only travel by day?

Edit: would be nice to see fatigue come into play like BG and whatnot but I am not sure everyone shares that view.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 06:39 .

[AmstradHero]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

The atmosphere should be appropriate to the scene. DAII is not an open world game so it doesn't make sense to have a day/night and weather cycle.

What atmosphere? There are only a few key scenes where the weather or day and night play a role in setting the tone of the scene, however you are probably right, Bioware is no longer in the buisness of making immersive RPGs and now seems to focus on interactive movies.

<Insert rant about pointless complaints based on personal opinions on what defines an RPG> Seriously, a day/night cycle is all that it takes to make an immersive RPG? *sigh*

Day/night cycles are both good and bad. From a atmosphere/realism point of view, they increase the realism of the world.  However, implementing a day/night cycle requires a lot of development time in both graphical programming and scripting effort. It also affects performance because lighting cannot be pre-calculated.

The biggest annoyance about day/night cycles is that it means that quests become time dependent (because NPCs have to go to sleep or otherwise act in accordance with the day/night cycle) forcing the player to waste time to visit people at the right time period during the day. Arguably this can be done simply through a "wait" mechanism a la Oblivion, but again, this requires extra development time, and can be aggravating for the player.

Unless I'm playing a sandbox game, I'd prefer the development time that could be spent creating a day/night cycle go towards creating playable content. Of course, this is personal preference, just like all those people who would prefer the increased atmosphere provided by the day/night cycle over more playable content.

However, simple weather would typically be far easier to implement in a dynamic fashion - at least if we're just talking rain or snow effects or the like occasionally.

[namedforthemoon]

If Varric is telling the story, and he says "It was a dark and stormy night..." It better be a dark and stormy night, for continuity's sake.

[Cazlee]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
Actually I
like that about day and night cycles and dark and spooky dungeons as it
adds a level of immersion to the game, however if it really bothers you
that much to equip a torch I guess you could just crank the brightness
up?

Also how does it force you to travel back to camp? Unless you hate traveling at night and only travel by day?

Edit: would be nice to see fatigue come into play like BG and whatnot but I am not sure everyone shares that view.

I find the cycle a nuisance because your torch can run out leaving you in complete darkness, and it is also often the case that torches require a weapon slot, which means that by wearing a torch your character becomes less effective. Along with day and night cycles comes quest objectives that can only be completed at specific times. So, if you're late by an hour you have to go back to camp and wait for the time to pass to try again. That's not fun for me. It's part of why I prefer DAO to other games.

Modifié par Cazlee, 22 octobre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Fortlowe]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

The atmosphere should be appropriate to the scene. DAII is not an open world game so it doesn't make sense to have a day/night and weather cycle.

What atmosphere? There are only a few key scenes where the weather or day and night play a role in setting the tone of the scene, however you are probably right, Bioware is no longer in the buisness of making immersive RPGs and now seems to focus on interactive movies.

Seriously, a day/night cycle is all that it takes to make an immersive RPG? *sigh*

Day/night cycles are both good and bad. From a atmosphere/realism point of view, they increase the realism of the world.  However, implementing a day/night cycle requires a lot of development time in both graphical programming and scripting effort. It also affects performance because lighting cannot be pre-calculated.

The biggest annoyance about day/night cycles is that it means that quests become time dependent (because NPCs have to go to sleep or otherwise act in accordance with the day/night cycle) forcing the player to waste time to visit people at the right time period during the day. Arguably this can be done simply through a "wait" mechanism a la Oblivion, but again, this requires extra development time, and can be aggravating for the player.

Unless I'm playing a sandbox game, I'd prefer the development time that could be spent creating a day/night cycle go towards creating playable content. Of course, this is personal preference, just like all those people who would prefer the increased atmosphere provided by the day/night cycle over more playable content.

However, simple weather would typically be far easier to implement in a dynamic fashion - at least if we're just talking rain or snow effects or the like occasionally.

You've considered this in depth. Outstanding. Weather is the easier of the two to pull off I imagine. Nothing signals the passage of time better than the sun and moon. One of the big draws of DA2 is that the story happens over a ten year period. The passasge of time will be acknowledged, so marking that passage with a day and night cycle would be sensable. Much better than the endless day of Denerum and the endless night at camp. 
A wait mechanism or even the option to sleep at camp of an inn would be a pragmatic way to quickly cycle time to the appropriate time of day.

[_-Greywolf-_]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

The atmosphere should be appropriate to the scene. DAII is not an open world game so it doesn't make sense to have a day/night and weather cycle.

What atmosphere? There are only a few key scenes where the weather or day and night play a role in setting the tone of the scene, however you are probably right, Bioware is no longer in the buisness of making immersive RPGs and now seems to focus on interactive movies.

Seriously, a day/night cycle is all that it takes to make an immersive RPG? *sigh*

No, there is a lot that goes into making an immersive RPG and a day/night cycle is only part of it.

I take it you feel that my comment "Bioware is no longer in the buisness of making immersive RPGs" was meant as an insult which it wasnt, it was merely an observation. Yes Bioware may still make RPGs however Immersive ones? No. If you are going to call games like Mass Effect "Immersive" you might as well start calling Gears of War or Devil May Cry immersive as honestly I felt about as immersed in those game as I did in Mass Effect which really wasnt much.

[_-Greywolf-_]

Cazlee wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
Actually I
like that about day and night cycles and dark and spooky dungeons as it
adds a level of immersion to the game, however if it really bothers you
that much to equip a torch I guess you could just crank the brightness
up?

Also how does it force you to travel back to camp? Unless you hate traveling at night and only travel by day?

Edit: would be nice to see fatigue come into play like BG and whatnot but I am not sure everyone shares that view.

I find the cycle a nuisance because your torch can run out leaving you in complete darkness, and it is also often the case that torches require a weapon slot, which means that by wearing a torch your character becomes less effective. Along with day and night cycles comes quest objectives that can only be completed at specific times. So, if you're late by an hour you have to go back to camp and wait for the time to pass to try again. That's not fun for me. It's part of why I prefer DAO to other games.

I guess it just comes down to different tastes as these things really dont bother me (and in some areas improve the experience for me). Err having torches run out on you can be annoying I will give you that, but that can be solved by carrying many torches OR in most games that feature torches there are usually magic ones that dont run out so you could just use them.

But one thing that I feel should be mentioned about the day/night cycle is while you may not have access to merchants and some quest givers it also opens up other opportunities that you dont have during the day like theivery and shadier quests and events, its not like you twiddle your thumbs and wait until morning.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 07:59 .

[AmstradHero]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
But one thing that I feel should be mentioned about the day/night cycle is while you may not have access to merchants and some quest givers it also opens up other opportunities that you dont have during the day like theivery and shadier quests and events, its not like you twiddle your thumbs and wait until morning.

Which means you're more likely to miss out on that content if you don't happen to visit that area at a particular time, or alternatively have the game force the player to those locations so they don't miss out on content.

It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the players. Say the development team has collectively spent 50 hours on design, writing, VO, scripting, testing, etc, for a particular quest. If 95% of players miss that content completely, then those 50 hours probably haven't really been that well spent compared to other portions of the game.

As I said before, a day/night cycle isn't a bad thing, but every potential feature in a game must be weighed against other potential features during development, because it's not possible to implement them all. Given the style of game the Dragon Age: Origins is, I don't think the cost of adding day/night cycles would have been worth the benefits it would have provided.  If Dragon Age 2 has a similar style to Origins (which it appears to have), then I would say the decision should remain as it was for the first game.

[Mehow_pwn]

The game needs weather.. since it can fuel the quests by that I mean you can get rally amazing quests with the right atmosphere



Like assinasion...and so on..

[_-Greywolf-_]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
But one thing that I feel should be mentioned about the day/night cycle is while you may not have access to merchants and some quest givers it also opens up other opportunities that you dont have during the day like theivery and shadier quests and events, its not like you twiddle your thumbs and wait until morning.

Which means you're more likely to miss out on that content if you don't happen to visit that area at a particular time, or alternatively have the game force the player to those locations so they don't miss out on content.

It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the players. Say the development team has collectively spent 50 hours on design, writing, VO, scripting, testing, etc, for a particular quest. If 95% of players miss that content completely, then those 50 hours probably haven't really been that well spent compared to other portions of the game.

As I said before, a day/night cycle isn't a bad thing, but every potential feature in a game must be weighed against other potential features during development, because it's not possible to implement them all. Given the style of game the Dragon Age: Origins is, I don't think the cost of adding day/night cycles would have been worth the benefits it would have provided.  If Dragon Age 2 has a similar style to Origins (which it appears to have), then I would say the decision should remain as it was for the first game.

Oh cmon fella, if the developers just spoon feed you everything then what the hell is the point of exploration and experimentation? It seems that the fans on these forums screem "Choice and Consequence, Yay" but really what they want are choices that mean nothing and no consequences at all, and really that is what Bioware delivers

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 11:25 .

[L33TDAWG]

They are making better lightning effects

[Wulfram]

I can't see that you're going to spend enough time in one area for day/night cycles to actually make sense.



It bugs me when if I forget to pause then when I come back in half an hour it's next tuesday.

[Sir JK]

Personally I'd love to see day, night and weather being used for narrative effect. To show the passage of time between events, to set a proper atmosphere or used for drama in scenes (like the rain starting upon the death of a companion). However... actual cycles is not something I think would add to the game. In open worlds where you can go where you please, fair enough. But Bioware's games have always typically been closed areas, if I stand doing nothing on a market square I'd not like to see the sun rise and a short while later set.

However, if I enter a dungeon at noon, dusk sets in halfway through and when I finish and leave it's dark out. That I'd approve of.

[Bobad]

I don't think that we need to see the world cycling from day to nught or between different weather patterns as it's not really necessary given the nature of the game, no pun intended.



I would like to see certain areas with different effects however, night ambush whilst travelling or raiding a camp whilst the foes sleep, climbing the peak of a snowy mountain to acquire the doomsday slippers and of course the old night time thunderstorm battle is always evocative.

[AmstradHero]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the players. Say the development team has collectively spent 50 hours on design, writing, VO, scripting, testing, etc, for a particular quest. If 95% of players miss that content  completely, then those 50 hours probably haven't really been that well spent compared to other portions of the game.

Oh cmon fella, if the developers just spoon feed you everything then what the hell is the point of exploration and experimentation? It seems that the fans on these forums screem "Choice and Consequence, Yay" but really what they want are choices that mean nothing and no consequences at all, and really that is what Bioware delivers

You're confusing two completely different concepts.

Imagine Leliana was like Alora from Baldur's Gate. That is, you could only get her to join your party if you happened to go to Hall of Wonders at night. Or perhaps like Skie, where you had to traipse around with Eldoth and take him to a particular location to get her into the party.  Imagine all the content that players would miss out on as a result of that design choice.

Do not confuse content that comes around as a result of consequence with content that comes about because of exploration of a location in obscure circumstances. The two are completely different things. 
Compare and contrast:
A) There is a sidequest with two alternate paths of content because of a choice the player makes, each amounting to 2 hours playtime each. 95% of players will experience this content, and the two alternate content paths are experienced by approximately 50% of that player base.
There is a sidequest with one linear path amounting to approximately 4 hours playtime. 95% of players will not experience this content because it can only be discovered through an obscure series of events.

Which offers better value for the developers and the player base?

I'm not saying that everything should be handed to the player on a silver platter. I said: "It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the player". I did not say all content should be like this. There should be some content that players have to search for and that is a reward for the dedicated player. However, that should be a relatively small amount of content unless you're playing a sandbox game where exploration is a major part of the gameplay. 

Also, do not confuse easily-accessible with optional.  I explore games a lot. I make a habit of going back and exploring everywhere, so I am going to experience this content. I am going to do pretty much every single sidequest in the game. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider the player base at large. The statistics for both Dragon Age and Mass Effect were that approximately 50% of people finished the game. That's right, only HALF of the people who played the games finished them.  What percentage of the player base do you think would make the effort to explore every area in the game during day and night if day/night cycles were introduced?

I'm not arguing that content should be stripped down to cater for the lowest common denominator, but when you critique a game or design one (I mod, so I think about this stuff a lot), you have to understand your audience and what will make your game popular. I know I do not belong to the "typical" demographic. If content is not accessible in a reasonably straightforwad manner, it will be missed by a large proportion of the player base. Designers should reward the curious player, but they have to keep in mind that if they only cater to 5% of their potential audience when making AAA titles (especially if you're talking about a game in the RPG genre which has a smaller player base than something like the FPS market), they're probably not going to be making a (commercially/financially) successful game.

I have no problem with content being located in an obscure location - say I have to visit the abandoned building off the market at midnight. But, there should be something that I could encounter as part of my ordinary adventure to indicate that I have to follow this set of steps to get additional content.  Designers should not hide content from players, that's just stupid and wastes the time of the developers and players (The exception would be if we were talking easter eggs, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely).

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 octobre 2010 - 12:19 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I enjoyed the day and night cycles in the Baldur's Gate games and how the crowds would sometimes change at night in the cities. It was cool when vampires attacked late at night and the weather effects were nice, especially when Kahlid got hit with lightning (I was hoping it would fix his stuttering). They didn't do as much of this in Neverwinter Nights but I still enjoyed it.



It's hard to deal with time though in video games. Most companies seem to make game times a fraction of real time so you can enjoy the change of atmosphere and such. When day and night happen too quickly it can feel odd but the effects are a nice touch to see the sun set. It also does get a little old to arrive at Orzammar in Dragon Age: Origins and always have it at dusk or have an eternal night at the Mage Circle tower.



I would also like to see more interaction with environments, such as walking through water (if not swimming) and climbing cliffs or ropes would be nice. I know it's hard to do that with an entire party in tow and to have it work with combat but it could lead to some awesome exploration aspects. Bioware already has the storytelling aspect down, if they could deepen that with more exploration, it could lead to a very deep gameplay.



One think I've always wished for a game to do was to have a area begin at the begining of a snowstorm and see the snow accumulate on the ground, gradually turning everything white in patches then have the whole area snowed in eventually. Then again I would settle just to wade around in knee high snow with my characters if I could.

[TimelordDC]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the players. Say the development team has collectively spent 50 hours on design, writing, VO, scripting, testing, etc, for a particular quest. If 95% of players miss that content  completely, then those 50 hours probably haven't really been that well spent compared to other portions of the game.

Oh cmon fella, if the developers just spoon feed you everything then what the hell is the point of exploration and experimentation? It seems that the fans on these forums screem "Choice and Consequence, Yay" but really what they want are choices that mean nothing and no consequences at all, and really that is what Bioware delivers

You're confusing two completely different concepts.

Imagine Leliana was like Alora from Baldur's Gate. That is, you could only get her to join your party if you happened to go to Hall of Wonders at night. Or perhaps like Skie, where you had to traipse around with Eldoth and take him to a particular location to get her into the party.  Imagine all the content that players would miss out on as a result of that design choice.

Do not confuse content that comes around as a result of consequence with content that comes about because of exploration of a location in obscure circumstances. The two are completely different things. 
Compare and contrast:
A) There is a sidequest with two alternate paths of content because of a choice the player makes, each amounting to 2 hours playtime each. 95% of players will experience this content, and the two alternate content paths are experienced by approximately 50% of that player base.
There is a sidequest with one linear path amounting to approximately 4 hours playtime. 95% of players will not experience this content because it can only be discovered through an obscure series of events.

Which offers better value for the developers and the player base?

I'm not saying that everything should be handed to the player on a silver platter. I said: "It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the player". I did not say all content should be like this. There should be some content that players have to search for and that is a reward for the dedicated player. However, that should be a relatively small amount of content unless you're playing a sandbox game where exploration is a major part of the gameplay. 

Also, do not confuse easily-accessible with optional.  I explore games a lot. I make a habit of going back and exploring everywhere, so I am going to experience this content. I am going to do pretty much every single sidequest in the game. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider the player base at large. The statistics for both Dragon Age and Mass Effect were that approximately 50% of people finished the game. That's right, only HALF of the people who played the games finished them.  What percentage of the player base do you think would make the effort to explore every area in the game during day and night if day/night cycles were introduced?

I'm not arguing that content should be stripped down to cater for the lowest common denominator, but when you critique a game or design one (I mod, so I think about this stuff a lot), you have to understand your audience and what will make your game popular. I know I do not belong to the "typical" demographic. If content is not accessible in a reasonably straightforwad manner, it will be missed by a large proportion of the player base. Designers should reward the curious player, but they have to keep in mind that if they only cater to 5% of their potential audience when making AAA titles (especially if you're talking about a game in the RPG genre which has a smaller player base than something like the FPS market), they're probably not going to be making a (commercially/financially) successful game.

I have no problem with content being located in an obscure location - say I have to visit the abandoned building off the market at midnight. But, there should be something that I could encounter as part of my ordinary adventure to indicate that I have to follow this set of steps to get additional content.  Designers should not hide content from players, that's just stupid and wastes the time of the developers and players (The exception would be if we were talking easter eggs, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely).

I think you assumed day/night cycle to naturally spawn off quests that are possible only in the appropriate times in the appropriate places. That is not what is being asked here and nor is it a direct consequence of having day/night cycle. Sure, there can be a few quests that are time-dependent and if this is going to be a good game (of any genre), there should be things that challenge the player (if that type of quest does, in the first place).

This notion of making content available for the lowest common denominator doesn't make sense - nor will it ever, I guess, since I am not being paid to make mods . Every developer wants every one to play their games...well, good luck! What it does do is water down the game mechanics - not only RPG games but every other genre that tries to expand beyond it's borders. And no, that is not a good thing, IMO. Also, if they really want an expanded audience, they would take the
time to include at least co-op multiplayer in their games - which they
don't. Do you think FPS games are popular because of the single-player campaign?

If Bioware had thrown out the Chanter's Board, those mercenaries, the Mages' Collective quests and spent all that time in creating 2 or 3 complex side-quests (involving day/night cycles, etc if it was possible), they would have done a better job and more than half the people would have finished the game. This notion of content for content's sake - and no matter how big a fan of Bioware you are, you have to acknowledge that was evident in DA - takes away development time that can be used elsewhere.

The only real argument for not having day/night cycle is due to performance degradation resulting from dynamic light calculation. There is nothing inherently content-related to that.

[_-Greywolf-_]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
It's generally good if content is as easy to access as possible for the players. Say the development team has collectively spent 50 hours on design, writing, VO, scripting, testing, etc, for a particular quest. If 95% of players miss that content  completely, then those 50 hours probably haven't really been that well spent compared to other portions of the game.

Oh cmon fella, if the developers just spoon feed you everything then what the hell is the point of exploration and experimentation? It seems that the fans on these forums screem "Choice and Consequence, Yay" but really what they want are choices that mean nothing and no consequences at all, and really that is what Bioware delivers

Snip (insert rant here)

Sorry pal but I really dont agree with anything you said, a big part of my enjoyment of RPGs is exploration, I enjoy exploring areas at different times and seeing the changes and all the content I would have missed if I were to only travel through the daytime, I enjoy replaying a game and finding content I never knew existed and would have missed depending on the choices I make, I really dont want everything to be spoon fed to me and when I do find something cool I want it to feel like an acomplishment.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 01:18 .

[AmstradHero]

TimelordDC wrote...
I think you assumed day/night cycle to naturally spawn off quests that are possible only in the appropriate times in the appropriate places. That is not what is being asked here and nor is it a direct consequence of having day/night cycle.

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
But one thing that I feel should be mentioned about the day/night cycle is while you may not have access to merchants and some quest givers it also opens up other opportunities that you dont have during the day like
theivery and shadier quests and events, its not like you twiddle your thumbs and wait until morning.

It was asked for, and I was responding to that.

TimelordDC wrote...
If Bioware had thrown out the Chanter's Board, those mercenaries, the Mages' Collective quests and spent all that time in creating 2 or 3 complex side-quests (involving day/night cycles, etc if it was possible), they would have done a better job and more than half the people would have finished the game. This notion of content for content's sake - and no matter how big a fan of Bioware you are, you have to acknowledge that was evident in DA - takes away development time that can be used elsewhere.

Would it have really made a difference? Would a day/night cycle and replacing those quests with more involved ones really made those people finish the game?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, are you certain that a few more involved quests would have been more popular than the all the board quests? some people might have liked shaping the future of the Blackstone Irregular's siding with their favourite thief, or choosing whether to hinder or help the Mages' Collective?

Personally, I would have preferred fewer quests in each of those areas (perhaps even omitting one or two quest lines) to get more involved with the characters in each situation. But that's just my personal opinion. There might be others who disagree.  Maybe the variety of having quests where you got involved with the NPCs and other quests where there was very little interaction provides some balance and contrast in quest design?  Just a thought.

But we're getting quite sidetracked off the actual discussion about weather.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 octobre 2010 - 01:36 .

[AmstradHero]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Snip (insert rant here)

Sorry pal but I really dont agree with anything you said, a big part of my enjoyment of RPGs is exploration, ... I really dont want everything to be spoon fed to me and when I do find something cool I want it to feel like an acomplishment.

Quick off-topic: Something you disagree with isn't automatically a rant. Neither is a long and reasoned argument. My post was intended to be direct and logical, not attacking you or getting emotional. I'm not here to start bickering, I'm here for potentially interesting discussions on game design.

Back on topic: I'm not saying that's not a valid opinion. But you're saying you want Dragon Age to be more like a sandbox game and be about exploration.  It's not a sandbox, so it can't wholly meet those desires.

Conversely, I didn't like Fallout 3 because there was so much emptiness and aimless exploration (well, I disliked it for more reasons than that, but they're not relevant to this discussion), whereas you probably loved the exploration aspects of it.

I'd love to see what a middle ground between the two would feel like, but that opens a reasonably large can of worms when it comes to game design issues.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 22 octobre 2010 - 01:35 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

AmstradHero wrote...

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Snip (insert rant here)

Sorry pal but I really dont agree with anything you said, a big part of my enjoyment of RPGs is exploration, ... I really dont want everything to be spoon fed to me and when I do find something cool I want it to feel like an acomplishment.

Quick off-topic: Something you disagree with isn't automatically a rant. Neither is a long and reasoned argument. My post was intended to be direct and logical, not attacking you or getting emotional. I'm not here to start bickering, I'm here for potentially interesting discussions on game design.

Back on topic: I'm not saying that's not a valid opinion. But you're saying you want Dragon Age to be more like a sandbox game and be about exploration.  It's not a sandbox, so it can't wholly meet those desires.

Conversely, I didn't like Fallout 3 because there was so much emptiness and aimless exploration (well, I disliked it for more reasons than that, but they're not relevant to this discussion), whereas you probably loved the exploration aspects of it.

I'd love to see what a middle ground between the two would feel like, but that opens a reasonably large can of worms when it comes to game design issues.

Actually I must say that I hated Fallout 3 for very much the same reason (among other things), the problem there is they have one big open world but nothing of interest to fill it which to me is one of the biggest sins you can commit in a sandbox game.

Well there were some cool things like the crashed alien spacecraft but most of the world was pretty empty and a lot of the environments the same which made Fallout 3 feel pretty dull.

Modifié par _-Greywolf-_, 22 octobre 2010 - 01:53 .

[Elvhen Veluthil]

TimelordDC wrote...

The only real argument for not having day/night cycle is due to performance degradation resulting from dynamic light calculation. There is nothing inherently content-related to that.

That's how I see it. If Bioware had included day/night, time passing, weather and all that, you'd have all the devs posting in this thread saying how cool all these features are and what interesting things you can do with them. They haven't, so it's logical that they (and quite some players) will say that their story is told better without those features. That simply can't be true, scripting can do wonders.