200 réponses à ce sujet

[Iwasdrunkbro]

cotheer wrote...

SW:TOR is classic MMO with personal story going in parallel to the rest of the game.
It's not single player MMO (lol) as such, but it is more oriented towards that "personal story" aspect than any other MMO.

Okay ..yea thats what I thought. I really got scared there for a minute lol.

[Shepard Lives]

cotheer wrote...

I think majority is missing the point of OP.
No one asked copy/paste of Bethesda model, but rather "fusion" of Biowares story telling and character handling with Bethesdas open world and graphics.
I'm strongly against empty open world, but with Bioware in the same story, i't "wouldn't" fail.

Oh, so you just want a game with exceptionally gripping storylines and characters and a huge interesting open-world map. No pressure!

[AkiKishi]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...
You've got to be joking... how does Bioware plan to compete? Having an open world is essential to the mmo experience.

Oh this WILL be interesting. Very, very interesting. I seriously had no idea just how far off the map they were trying to take this game. Truley they are throwing every egg they have into the same basket.

To the best of my knowledge it's correct.

The plot for LOTRO was ok, it's just you can only do the same story so many times before it gets old. And having to do it with every character got old very fast.

[V_Burgh]

Meh I much prefer Bioware's non-open world story driven take on RPG's than Bethesda's "look at our big gigantic worlds full of nothing." I don't think I ever played a single Bethesda game and felt like the story had anything relevant to say or was even remotely entertaining. Not to mention the characters and dialogue in Bethesda games, holy crap are they awful. As others have said though Bethesda's model has some merits(sometimes, maybe, supposedly...) as does Bioware's they should each stick with what they are good at. I think the only Open World games that have been decent this whole current generation was Red Dead Redemption and Just Cause 2 and neither of those are RPG's.

[Drake Sigar]

cotheer wrote...

I think majority is missing the point of OP.
No one asked copy/paste of Bethesda model, but rather "fusion" of Biowares story telling and character handling with Bethesdas open world and graphics.
I'm strongly against empty open world, but with Bioware in the same story, i't "wouldn't" fail.

So basically you want a burger from Burger King, then you want to swing by Mcdonalds for some fries.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

Drake Sigar wrote...

cotheer wrote...

I think majority is missing the point of OP.
No one asked copy/paste of Bethesda model, but rather "fusion" of Biowares story telling and character handling with Bethesdas open world and graphics.
I'm strongly against empty open world, but with Bioware in the same story, i't "wouldn't" fail.

So basically you want a burger from Burger King, then you want to swing by Mcdonalds for some fries.

Ive done it.

[mesmerizedish]

Because that's not the kind of game BioWare make? Why aren't Battlefield games rail shooters?

[cotheer]

Shepard Lives wrote...

cotheer wrote...

I think majority is missing the point of OP.
No one asked copy/paste of Bethesda model, but rather "fusion" of Biowares story telling and character handling with Bethesdas open world and graphics.
I'm strongly against empty open world, but with Bioware in the same story, i't "wouldn't" fail.

Oh, so you just want a game with exceptionally gripping storylines and characters and a huge interesting open-world map. No pressure!

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
They're developers, this is suggestion.

Besides, if they are able to work on a project such as SW:TOR (just reading about that game, makes me wonder how are they able to do that) i really see no reason why wouldn't they be able to handle this kind of "pressure" especially because it would be a single player game.

Modifié par cotheer, 20 mars 2011 - 11:42 .

[xichus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

You could just as well ask why Bethesda games have such a poor narrative and weak characters. Both developers have their niche. I wouldn't want either of them try to be the other.

Aye. The /theory/ of Open World games is a lot different from the /reality/ of how they actually play, I've found.

Simply put, Open World games seem to be "Twice as wide, but half as deep". The open concept makes it diffiicult to get very focused or specific -- two things true storytelling needs.

As has been said, Bioware's trademark is about telling a story; if things went open-world in the Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto sense, Bioware would lose most of what makes Bioware games unique.

[Drake Sigar]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

Drake Sigar wrote...

cotheer wrote...

I think majority is missing the point of OP.
No one asked copy/paste of Bethesda model, but rather "fusion" of Biowares story telling and character handling with Bethesdas open world and graphics.
I'm strongly against empty open world, but with Bioware in the same story, i't "wouldn't" fail.

So basically you want a burger from Burger King, then you want to swing by Mcdonalds for some fries.

Ive done it.

You can’t have the best of both worlds. Surely your burger will get cold by the time you get to Mcdonalds and combine burger and fries into what should have been the ultimate meal.

Modifié par Drake Sigar, 20 mars 2011 - 11:51 .

[aries1001]

Bioware tells stories. Bethesda does not. So is it. Bioware did choose from the very start to tell the best stories in videogames they could. Bethesda did from the start choose to make open world games, sandbox games, in which the player could go anywhere and do anything, including finishing the main quest, and then continue playing. Bioware games, right from the start with Baldur's Gate, have always been about telling a compelling story that ends. A beginning - a middle - and an end. This is the way, we tell stories in our western world. And a concep that Bioware has been successfull with during the years. And I, for one, do not want Bioware to change this concept. If people want to play sandbox games (rpgs), they can buy and play games from Bethesda. There is a place in the world for both Bioware as well as Bethesda games.

And what new Bioware game? The only new Bioware games I know of are mass effect and sw:tor (the old republic) And as for tor, this game is being published by LucasArts, not EA. It is thus Lucas Arts that decides when this game, tor, is being released, not EA.

[upsettingshorts]

aries1001: He was responding to my comment about Rockstar's quest format growing tiresome, and suggested that LA Noire seems to be going in a new direction in that regard. And it is. So yay!

Also, EA is publishing SW:TOR.  They had a press release about it when this changed, in fact.  Given how poorly LucasArts managed SOE - I blame them more than Sony for what happened with SWG personally - I view this as good news, at least for now.  Time will tell of course.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Dr. Impossible]

aries1001 wrote...

Bioware tells stories. Bethesda does not.

This is obviously incorrect.

[upsettingshorts]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

aries1001 wrote...

Bioware tells focuses on stories. Bethesda does not.

This is obviously incorrect.

Now it isn't.

[Biefstukfriet]

You can´t properly tell a story in sandbox games. It´s why I can´t stand Bethesda games. (That and they couldn't write their way out of a wet cardboard box).

Modifié par Biefstukfriet, 20 mars 2011 - 11:57 .

[Dr. Impossible]

Biefstukfriet wrote...

You can´t properly tell a story in sandbox games.

Yes you can.

[upsettingshorts]

Sure, if you tell one in which pacing, urgency, dramatic structure and characterization aren't important. You know, like a Bethesda game story.

[Dr. Impossible]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure, if you tell one in which pacing, urgency, dramatic structure and characterization aren't important. You know, like a Bethesda game story.

You evidently have no idea how video games are designed.

[upsettingshorts]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

You evidently have no idea how video games are designed.

This is a good example of a somewhat cleverly deployed ad hominem.  It doesn't refute the argument, you see?  It claims that the discussion is essentially beyond my understanding and thus my points can be ignored.

Nicely done.   It's still not a counter-argument though, not really.  I don't expect one is forthcoming for that matter anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 12:17 .

[Dr. Impossible]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...

You evidently have no idea how video games are designed.

This is a good example of a somewhat cleverly deployed ad hominem.  It doesn't refute the argument, you see?  It claims that the discussion is essentially beyond my understanding and thus my points can be ignored.

It is beyond your understanding.

[hawat333]

It was a never a BioWare thing to make an open-world game, and I'm glad for it, I've tried them all, and could only enjoy Fallout:NV And even that wasn't for the game being open-world.
BioWare games are designed around a story and the characters that are placed in it, and when you are focusing on a story, it's not a good idea to use an open-world setting.

It's about the story pacing, in a sandbox world, they can't tell the story on it's designed rythm (or if they can, the world is not open-world), which hurts the experience a lot.

[mesmerizedish]

From what I can tell, 'Shorts and Impossible, you guys were actually on the same side until someone decided to be a jerk. Funny how that works.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

From what I can tell, 'Shorts and Impossible, you guys were actually on the same side until someone decided to be a jerk. Funny how that works.

I believe thats called a troll.

[upsettingshorts]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

It is beyond your understanding.

Then you can go ahead and explain it to everyone else, and I'll just sit here drooling on my keyboard.

A list of games that pulled off a compelling narrative as well as an open world at the same time would be a good start. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 12:40 .

[jerst]

Maybe because they've never tried it and don't want to. You could also ask why Valve doesn't create RPG ? There's no point.


As for the exploration in 3D environnement, I find it extremly boring. I can't stand to watch the character walk for hours just to see a mountain while I keep pushing on the forward button. Maybe it is because I can see many mountain from my window ? I don't know.


I never had that problem with 3D isometric games, probably because I have a better view and just have to click to move.