200 réponses à ce sujet

[Dazaster Dellus]

I have to say, I agree with the OP. I think BIoware should go this route. They should keep doing amazing stories and really deep character progression and so on, but they definietly have to do something about their enviornments in DA series. To all the people saying they don't want to see an open world game like the OP suggests I fail to see why. Out of all the responses I have read not one has given a negative outcome to having a game done in that way as opposed to keeping it the way it is now. The only things I have seen are people's own personal reasons and that they are afraid of change.

Nobody is saying that DA has to become like Oblivion or Skyrim or Fallout, etc. It is just being said that the game should open up a bit more. I can tell you that I was quite annoyed at having to change zones and wait for loading every 5 minutes to complete 1 or 2 quests. I can't see why people would want to keep load times and smaller worlds as they don't offer any benefit at all, as we have seen with DA2.

Bottom line is it can be done if you have a team that is dedicated to making an amazing, epic, classic, Hall of Fame game. All it takes is for one company to succeed at combining the two (Bioware style story + Large deeply immersive open world= a new style and a major hit) to have a new engine and game type that other companies will try to imitate. I don't know about you but I think Bioware is the company to do it(Though with every disappointment my position changes more). I would rather see them as leaders in this industry than as followers. Also, in order to make money you have to be willing to spend money and time on your product. Especially today. 10 years ago when people had excess capital to toss around on anything you might be able to get away with cutting a few corners or "streamlining" to make quick $$$. Not now. You have to be fresh and creative and not to be cheesy but, "boldly go where no one has gone before". Just Sayin!

[Il Divo]

Dazaster Dellus wrote...

I have to say, I agree with the OP. I think BIoware should go this route. They should keep doing amazing stories and really deep character progression and so on, but they definietly have to do something about their enviornments in DA series. To all the people saying they don't want to see an open world game like the OP suggests I fail to see why. Out of all the responses I have read not one has given a negative outcome to having a game done in that way as opposed to keeping it the way it is now. The only things I have seen are people's own personal reasons and that they are afraid of change.

Nobody is saying that DA has to become like Oblivion or Skyrim or Fallout, etc. It is just being said that the game should open up a bit more. I can tell you that I was quite annoyed at having to change zones and wait for loading every 5 minutes to complete 1 or 2 quests. I can't see why people would want to keep load times and smaller worlds as they don't offer any benefit at all, as we have seen with DA2.

Bottom line is it can be done if you have a team that is dedicated to making an amazing, epic, classic, Hall of Fame game. All it takes is for one company to succeed at combining the two (Bioware style story + Large deeply immersive open world= a new style and a major hit) to have a new engine and game type that other companies will try to imitate. I don't know about you but I think Bioware is the company to do it(Though with every disappointment my position changes more). I would rather see them as leaders in this industry than as followers. Also, in order to make money you have to be willing to spend money and time on your product. Especially today. 10 years ago when people had excess capital to toss around on anything you might be able to get away with cutting a few corners or "streamlining" to make quick $$$. Not now. You have to be fresh and creative and not to be cheesy but, "boldly go where no one has gone before". Just Sayin!

So what are you willing to give up in exchange for this? Something inevitably has to give. Origins took 5 years to develop, and the game was nothing close to a sand box. As wonderful as the idea is, what features are users here willing to exchange for the sandbox world? I doubt there will be any agreement.

[88mphSlayer]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

....Act 1....
All side quest......
Act 2....
It has a clear definition of when Act 2 ends
 plus the exclimation points stating you have quests ready and letters.
Act 3.....
The same thing and act 2.

And compare that to a sandbox. Compare even Origins to a sandbox; there is only so much you can do before the Warden is forced back into the main quest, hence why it is much easier to pace. Morrowind is a terrific game that offers an absurd amount of exploration, yet all this comes at the expense of a terrible narrative.

i agree that Bethesda's games tend to go off the rails so much that you almost don't want to get back on, but it's hardly a unique problem to open world games

[HorrorScope]

I've been harping what the OP stated for a lot of years now. IMO Bioware's engine has been resting on it's laurels and in this field you shouldn't be, you've been given a very subpar effort here from Bioware.

To those saying you can't have good narrative and a large open world, that is insulting. You can, it just has to be done. And it has. Gothics, Divinity 2 DKS, to a lesser extent Witcher (With Bioware's engine even! lol) Divinity actually uses the same engine Oblivion does, has huge area's, a great narrative and story along with a very solid combat model, you need to check it out.

But both can be done, not saying it's easy, but then again Bioware isn't some new small development house either. The group that did your Gothic's, your Divnity's, your Witcher's are much smaller and imo overall have delivered a better overall RPG taking all parts into account.

I would love to see a total new Bioware engine that rid itself of small maps. To it's credit, they have made huge strides loading maps in DA2, for me it's now a 2-5 second load and that is huge. That is one of the two biggest improvements to DA2.

Oblivion is not the end all for larger world games.

Modifié par HorrorScope, 20 mars 2011 - 05:12 .

[Il Divo]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i agree that Bethesda's games tend to go off the rails so much that you almost don't want to get back on, but it's hardly a unique problem to open world games

Ah, but that's exactly the problem. Bethesda games provide freedom. Bioware games provide focus. It's possible to have both, but not exactly easy. It would take up a ton of resources, for example. And people would likely still expect a Bioware level of plot, cut-scenes, companions, etc.

[AlanC9]

Having been more-or-less bored by Bethesda's games, I can't imagine anything good coming from Bio's trying to be more like them.

We need more diversity in RPG design approaches, not less.

[Dr. Impossible]

Il Divo wrote...

It's impossible to pace a story-line properly when you have no way of knowing at what point your players will reach that part of the story. Notice for example that even though Bioware games offer multiple side quests, there's only ever so much you can do before you have to move things forward.

This is not the case in sand-boxes; worlds are usually so large that you might never hit the main quest.

Read Squire's post more closely.

[Il Divo]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

It's impossible to pace a story-line properly when you have no way of knowing at what point your players will reach that part of the story. Notice for example that even though Bioware games offer multiple side quests, there's only ever so much you can do before you have to move things forward.

This is not the case in sand-boxes; worlds are usually so large that you might never hit the main quest.

Read Squire's post more closely.

I did. It was a fantastic post, but still raises development cost issues. What will be considered the appropriate 'balance'? What if Bioware retained voice-acting, cut-scenes, etc, but took out dedicated companions? Someone would surely have a problem with that.
 
Hence my point that DA:O, despite its 5 year development, was still nothing close to sand box freedom.

[AlanC9]

Hell, if anything I think Bio games should have less freedom. Some of the DAO sidequests and a lot of the ME1 sidequests made no RP sense. ME2's were a little better because the plot structure leaves the player with a fair amount of undirected time.

[CaimDark]

God, I hope Bioware doesn't ever go the "sandbox", more exploration/less story route. There are many excelent sandbox games out there there and I don't want every single game to be like that. Besides, why are you here complaining that Bioware doesn't make games in your favorite genre instead of playing games from the companies that do? That's like going to the Rockstar forum and asking what they have against point-and-click adventures! As for Bioware games not having changed much, well, to quote the protagonist of one of your beloved sandboxes, "change is only good when it makes things better". I like Bioware games the way they are and I hope they don't change just for the sake of change. What I do hope is that instead of switching genre they take the time to make their next games as good as possible instead of rushing cash-in sequels.

Modifié par CaimDark, 20 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[Incantrix]

While I do think that it could happen, I also think BW has the potential to make an open world.

But then again, do you really want to wait 6-7 years for a game? The size of DA world is huge and usually set in a particular region, so unless they do a fable 3-ish type open world, I don't think they will be doing that.

[Capeo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Second,  it would be a really good time for you to realize Oblivion isn't an RPG,  it's an Adventure game.  It fails every single test for being an RPG.  No Character Development due to Level Scaling,  no character based skill due to level scaling and the non-existant hit system,  no effect on the world.  It is almost identical to a wide-open Uncharted. 

Second,  no one sits there and reloads every conversation to see what all the responses are.

Third,  there's nothing to explore in your "Open World" games.  There's no point to it,  there's nothing there but some really crappy item and a dungeon with no point.  Progress Quest has more compelling reasons to play than going through one of Oblivion's empty ruins.

LOL!  That is utterly ridiculous.  Now Bethesda doesn't make RPGs.  People on this board are out of their minds.  Oblivion, a quintessential RPG is not an RPG?  Your tests for being an RPG are BS by the way.  You have far, far more freedom in Bethesda RPGs to create the exact character you want and role play it.  Hence a roll playing game.  Level scaling (something that has been modified in their games since Oblivion) doesn't mean you don't develop your character.  There are actually far more ways you can take your character than any Bioware game.  No effect on the world?  You save the damn world.  Same as every Bioware game aside from DA2.  

Also, if you don't replay conversations that's your loss.  You seem to have no clue how much you can change things in Oblivion.  

Lastly, there's nothing to explore?  No, just a couple hundred quests you can pick up all over the world, monsters and animals to hunt, resources for crafting, items to find, etc.  Yeah, that's nothing.   

Not to mention, to this point, Bethesda's most recent RPG New Vegas is the only RPG where choices have a persitent effect on the world as you're experiencing it.  Something no Bioware game has ever achieved. 

But heck, you probably don't think the Fallout series are RPGs either.

[Lord Coake]

Why is Bioware so against open world or "sandbox" games?

Because they take effort to create, and EA is against effort, as it impacts profit returns.  Now shut up and enjoy your scripted rail shooter with swords.

[Brenus]

Because Bioware are lazy and have completely lost the idea of how to make good RPGs anymore.

[88mphSlayer]

Il Divo wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i agree that Bethesda's games tend to go off the rails so much that you almost don't want to get back on, but it's hardly a unique problem to open world games

Ah, but that's exactly the problem. Bethesda games provide freedom. Bioware games provide focus. It's possible to have both, but not exactly easy. It would take up a ton of resources, for example. And people would likely still expect a Bioware level of plot, cut-scenes, companions, etc.

you can have all of those things in a sandbox game, rockstar has proven that for 10 years, the assassins creed games are a more recent example

it's harder to do, that's really all there is to it

[Biefstukfriet]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Biefstukfriet wrote...

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

Yes you can.

Not in a way that entertains me.

[AllThatJazz]

 I don't think it's possible to have both an exploration and character customisation driven CRPG (like Bethesda games) and a strongly narrative driven game in a world that is more reactive to the (fewer) choices made by the character (Bioware titles).

Bethesda are brilliant at open world exploration and visual storytelling (though I personally found Oblivion very boring), pretty surroundings and allowing complete freedom of character - they aren't generally so hot at the storylines, characters and writing. And their worlds suffer slightly because there is very little reaction to anything the PC does. See, in disagreement with the OP, I would say that Oblivion and the Capital Wasteland were the 'dead' worlds - nothing I did had any kind of consequence, no-one reacted to anything. Sure I could explore to my hearts' content, but I was exploring a static environment where my actions had absolutely no meaning. 


When I blew up Megaton, there was pretty much no response - my dad told me off a bit, Three Dog insulted me on air, and Moira was a ghoul who still gave me the Wasteland Survival Guide quest. But no-one cared that I'd just nuked an entire town! Same in Oblivion. I'd closed all the Gates, played the hero, but aside from a few lines of dialogue going 'oooh, it's the great hero', nothing changed.  And for me, choice without consequence, or at least an attempt at the illusion of consequence, is a bit meaningless. Compare this to something like Origins, where your actions determine who fights alongside you, the order of quests you do can open up new dialogue options; or DA2, where choosing to take a particular companion along with you on a quest changes whether another character lives or dies. Okay, the over arching plot still takes precedence, so the world doesn't change that much, but it still gives me the illusion that what I'm doing actually matters.

And I'm not convinced that the dev cycle of games makes a huge difference here - both Oblivion and Fallout 3 had quite considerable development cycles; more than enough time, one would think, to get the writing and characters and storylines top notch. As much as I enjoyed Fallout 3, the best that could be said of it story-wise is that some of the sidequests were good. And the characters in Beth games are generally very dull, certainly in comparison to Bioware's offerings. And the writing? Unmemorable is perhaps the kindest thing that can be said here.

This is fine, because these are the kinds of games that Bethesda makes. They choose to make exploration, freedom and graphical loveliness their priorities. They are also first person games with no 'party' to speak of, therefore no banter, no romance, all things that I enjoy in Bioware's titles. I can appreciate that and will no doubt be making Skyrim a day one purchase. But I don't want Bioware to start making the same priorities.  If they do, then my experience of sandbox games tells me that the things I really like Bio for might well suffer as a result. A little more exploration would be nice, but a full-blown sandbox? Not if it means in any way compromising the story or characters.

[Ingrimm22]

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.

QFT. There's really nothing more to say about it, they are just different approaches. Sandbox isn't per defaul "better" than more restrained gamedesigns, it's just a matter of taste. For me it's like this: If i want vast open worlds i'd rather play MMOs nowadays.

And to be perfectly honest: i bought and played every Bethesda RPG since Morowind and i never could bring myself to finish them, not one of them. At some point they where just too boring and i lost interest wanderin aimlessly through forests or deserts. As soon as get used to the graphics and Artdirection Boredom sets in.

Modifié par Ingrimm22, 20 mars 2011 - 07:25 .

[AllThatJazz]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i agree that Bethesda's games tend to go off the rails so much that you almost don't want to get back on, but it's hardly a unique problem to open world games

Ah, but that's exactly the problem. Bethesda games provide freedom. Bioware games provide focus. It's possible to have both, but not exactly easy. It would take up a ton of resources, for example. And people would likely still expect a Bioware level of plot, cut-scenes, companions, etc.

you can have all of those things in a sandbox game, rockstar has proven that for 10 years, the assassins creed games are a more recent example

it's harder to do, that's really all there is to it

The Assassin's Creed games were ridiculously short. And games like GTA/RDR are very good, no denying that - but where's the character development? Where is any main character customisation? Where is the fully controllable party of characters with interesting personalities/sidequests etc which are a massive part of why I buy Bioware games? Again, I like what Rockstar does, but I don't want Bioware to do it. I want Rockstar to carry on doing it, while Bioware plays to its own strengths.

[AlanC9]

Capeo wrote...
LOL!  That is utterly ridiculous.  Now Bethesda doesn't make RPGs.  People on this board are out of their minds.  

Just Gatt9 -- he's on a somewhat quixotic quest to redefine "RPG."

[BioSpirit]

Why to waste resources in something that doesn't do any good ? Fallout 3 and Oblivion are both excellent games but I can't find any reason why DA:O should be a similar sandbox game. DA:O is much better in many ways than any sandbox game I have played. The empty space between different areas isn't the only thing that can be developped or improved. It's good to have different kind of games. Having every game like the Oblivion would be boring.

[88mphSlayer]

AllThatJazz wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i agree that Bethesda's games tend to go off the rails so much that you almost don't want to get back on, but it's hardly a unique problem to open world games

Ah, but that's exactly the problem. Bethesda games provide freedom. Bioware games provide focus. It's possible to have both, but not exactly easy. It would take up a ton of resources, for example. And people would likely still expect a Bioware level of plot, cut-scenes, companions, etc.

you can have all of those things in a sandbox game, rockstar has proven that for 10 years, the assassins creed games are a more recent example

it's harder to do, that's really all there is to it

The Assassin's Creed games were ridiculously short. And games like GTA/RDR are very good, no denying that - but where's the character development? Where is any main character customisation? Where is the fully controllable party of characters with interesting personalities/sidequests etc which are a massive part of why I buy Bioware games? Again, I like what Rockstar does, but I don't want Bioware to do it. I want Rockstar to carry on doing it, while Bioware plays to its own strengths.

they are examples of how to do focused main-quests in an open world environment vs. the classic unfocused example of Bethesda rpg's, they're not really the holy grail tho or something Bioware should follow

the interesting thing would be to see what Bioware does as it would be uncharted territory for them, i don't think it would be impossible tho, anything but impossible really, the harder part would just be the longer QA period due to more complex mission structures

[AlanC9]

Brenus wrote...

Because Bioware are lazy and have completely lost the idea of how to make good RPGs anymore.

If open-world is your criterion for a good RPG, then Bio lost that idea a long time ago. BG1's the only game they ever made that can be plausibly described as open-world.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

open-world games bore me. however, who knows? they might be able to do something interesting with this idea.

[TwistedComplex]

Brenus wrote...

Because Bioware are lazy and have completely lost the idea of how to make good RPGs anymore.

So KOTOR and Baulders Gate wasn't a good RPG

Yeah, ok, you're not a troll