astrallite wrote...
The most obvious answer is the engine can't handle it. If you notice all of Bioware's games are segmented into small maps. None of their previous engines have handled large areas well and the current engine is really just an progressive extension of Aurora.
VictorianTrash wrote...
Sure, let's go open-world for DA3. We can hi-jack horses, extort small businesses, pick-up Orlesian hookers or a random girlfriend we can entertain at the cabaret... this is sounding really familiar.
I hope at some point they sit down and make a new engine. It's kind of disconcerting when I was playing DA2 and noticing how similar parts of the game are to Kotorastrallite wrote...
The most obvious answer is the engine can't handle it. If you notice all of Bioware's games are segmented into small maps. None of their previous engines have handled large areas well and the current engine is really just an progressive extension of Aurora.
Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
astrallite wrote...
The most obvious answer is the engine can't handle it. If you notice all of Bioware's games are segmented into small maps. None of their previous engines have handled large areas well and the current engine is really just an progressive extension of Aurora.
Im curious now, which engine will TOR be using?
Modifié par astrallite, 20 mars 2011 - 09:47 .
Whether or not the world is dead depends on how dynamic or static it is. It has little to do with whether the game's overworld is seamless or not (in Oblivion, dungeons and settlements are not a seamless part of the overworld).Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
1: The world around you is dead.
The main reason why games like Oblivion do so well is because there is a living, breathing world that is open to the player from the moment the disc loads up. It keeps the game interesting and makes people want to actually go out and explore this virtual world to see just what it holds. Humans by our very nature are curious and that thirst needs to be sated to keep people entertained longer than what is permited or even designed by the developers.
GTA III was released in 2001. Elder Scrolls Arena and Daggerfall were released in 1994 and 1996.Rockstar doesnt have the writers that Bioware does (yes thats a compliment)... but nor should they! They have mastered their own little niche and really paved the way for games like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas. How so?
No, there were plenty of games before that let you do that to varying degrees. Many of them make GTA III seem like a scripted corridor shooter in comparison.GTA 3 was really the game that gave Rockstar the name that they have today. Its equal to what Doom is to Call of Duty when talking about an open world "sand box" game. Why was it so successful? Because it gave the player, really for the first time, the freedom to break off from the main story of a game and do whatever the heck they wanted.
Depends on the design, and not on whether the overworld is seamless or not.2: There is NO Freedom!
BioWare's games don't have "seemingly endless outcomes," and there is nothing unique about choosing responses from a list.We play Bioware games because of the seemingly endless outcomes that any one decision could have on the world around us. Bioware, much like Rockstar, has become masters of their niche. The dialogue system that they use is unique to them and a few other very poorly designed RPGs.
What happens when the player has explored every area? And why exactly do you think exploration is impossible in a game where the overworld is not seamless?Regardless, the point is there is only so much FREEDOM that those choices can include. For instance, you have maybe 4 possible outcomes for any given dialogue yes? Well, what happens when the player has exhausted those 4 options (which many players do on a single play through by reloading saves)? In an open world he/she would go out and explore.. but if you're still using a system that doesnt allow that the game is basically done until DLC or mods are introduced.
Dr. Impossible wrote...
GTA III was released in 2001. Elder Scrolls Arena and Daggerfall were released in 1994 and 1996.
No, there were plenty of games before that let you do that to varying degrees. Many of them make GTA III seem like a scripted corridor shooter in comparison.
GTA 2 and GTA was Open world too.Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Dr. Impossible wrote...
GTA III was released in 2001. Elder Scrolls Arena and Daggerfall were released in 1994 and 1996.
No, there were plenty of games before that let you do that to varying degrees. Many of them make GTA III seem like a scripted corridor shooter in comparison.
Okay let me rephrase that. GTA 3 to the open world sandbox is more like what Goldeneye was to the FPS.
GTA III has no relation to the Elder Scrolls games or Fallout 3/New Vegas. And I don't know what you mean by your Golden Eye comparison.Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Okay let me rephrase that. GTA 3 to the open world sandbox is more like what Goldeneye was to the FPS.
she/he meant that it bought the FPS into the light.Dr. Impossible wrote...
GTA III has no relation to the Elder Scrolls games or Fallout 3/New Vegas. And I don't know what you mean by your Golden Eye comparison.Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Okay let me rephrase that. GTA 3 to the open world sandbox is more like what Goldeneye was to the FPS.
This really. Oblivion's world feels really dead and stagnant to me.Whether or not the world is dead depends on how dynamic or static it is. It has little to do with whether the game's overworld is seamless or not (in Oblivion, dungeons and settlements are not a seamless part of the overworld).
Did you get bored of closing identical oblivion gate after identical obvilion gate?JamesMoriarty123 wrote...
In Oblivion most of the time I was so bored just walking around going into identical ruin after ruin until I went a picked back up the main storyline.
Dr. Impossible wrote...
GTA III has no relation to the Elder Scrolls games or Fallout 3/New Vegas. And I don't know what you mean by your Golden Eye comparison.Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Okay let me rephrase that. GTA 3 to the open world sandbox is more like what Goldeneye was to the FPS.
MistySun wrote...
I have always said over and over again why dragon age 1, 2, 3 4 etc can't have an open world like Drakensang, Oblivion, The Witcher, where you can break off from the main campaign and EXPLORE the world around you.
TwistedComplex wrote...
Open world isn't as good for telling a story
Linear gives them more direction
Modifié par chinoyray, 20 mars 2011 - 10:09 .
Goldneye was not nearly as influential as Quake and Half-Life. Or even Halo.Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
Doom and Wolfenstein are really the great grand daddys of the FPS but it wasnt really until Goldeneye that it was done the way that modern FPS are created. The multiplayer for one has been seen time and time over in modern FPS and its almost entirely directly taken from Goldeneye. So while Doom and the like really created the genre, Golden was the game to really give it its modern feel.
Oblivion is simply a continuation of what Bethesda started in 1994. GTA has nothing to do with it.Now with this sub genre (that really can apply to any genre) of games with open worlds yes there were games before GTA 3 that really nailed that but it was that spark that Rockstar gave this sub genre with its release that really moved it into the more modern GTA 4 and Oblivion type games.
Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
TwistedComplex wrote...
Open world isn't as good for telling a story
Linear gives them more direction
I simply cannot understand why throwing a bigger explorable world on top of an already great script makes the story any less than it would be. All you're doing is making the world larger. Nobody in this thread is asking to trade in the story for exploration.
chinoyray wrote...
IMO... all of the repetition and change of model for DA2 is because a 23GB PC game won't fit in a single DVD for the PS3 or Xbox 360.
Dragon Age: Origins (including all DLC) is 23.4GB
Dragon Age 2 is just 6.15GB
See what consoles can do for a good PC game?
It's all about the money and selling more copies.
Dr. Impossible wrote...
Goldneye was not nearly as influential as Quake and Half-Life. Or even Halo.
Oblivion is simply a continuation of what Bethesda started in 1994. GTA has nothing to do with it.
Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
TwistedComplex wrote...
Open world isn't as good for telling a story
Linear gives them more direction
I simply cannot understand why throwing a bigger explorable world on top of an already great script makes the story any less than it would be. All you're doing is making the world larger. Nobody in this thread is asking to trade in the story for exploration.
Retour en haut
