200 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

I'm sure when BioWare wants to do a sandbox game, they will. I mean, that's the easiest answer: they just don't want to.

[AllThatJazz]

88mphSlayer wrote...

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

It just seems that what people want (and yes, in an ideal world I would include myself in this) is the Very Best that Bio has to offer plus the Very Best of Bethesda plus the Very Best of Rockstar.  In one game. Made by one studio. And I can't see that happening in my lifetime. Partly because it would probably take the rest of my lifetime to produce such a game.

Believe me, if someone said that Bio and Rockstar and Beth and Obsidian were going to collaborate on a massive project where each dev could concentrate on its strongest areas, my mouth would be watering. But since that ain't happening, I'm okay with the fact that each studio has its own priorities. But hey, you can dream 

[Dr. Impossible]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Everything he mentioned is just as easily implemented in a sandbox game.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

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."

Not really,  I just recognize that having a story doesn't make a game an RPG.  I also recognize that if that character sheet can be completely removed without altering the gameplay,  then the game cannot be an RPG.  Take Oblivion,  remove the entire leveling process and the game still functions perfectly fine because it doesn't actually do anything.  You can be the greatest warrior in the land at level 1,  theoretically if you could get to the end boss you could kill him at level 1,  so the entire character sheet/leveling portion is illusionary and has no gameplay effect.

Take ME2,  remove the whole leveling concept,  the entire game still functions perfectly.

If you can excise the system,  and the game still works,  then the system wasn't doing anything.  Therefore,  those games cannot be RPGs.

I understand there are some people who think that having a story and dialogue equate to a game being an RPG,  but really,  as I said to you on the ME boards,  that doesn't work.  I can go to my local D&D shop and without ever engaging in dialogue or being told a story,  can play out an entire D&D session through hack & slash with my character.  But if you eliminate my character and leave just narrative and dialogue...

DM:  You see an emerald in the store keepers display case
Player:  I'm going to try and steal it.
::Everyone sits quietly for 30 seconds::
Player:  I've decided I succeeded.
DM:  Ok!

Doesn't work.  It's not an RPG.  It's a group story telling session without form or consequence.

Personally,  I blame the industry for abusing the word RPG.  10 years ago Oblivion would've been correctly labeled as an Adventure game,  and ME2 a TPS.

As I said before though,  you're welcome to keep claiming I'm wrong.  But I've got 40 years of material that shows what an RPG is,  and what it takes to be one,  mainly because it is what a cRPG is attempting to emulate.

You've got,  "But the developer told me it was an RPG...",  so seriously,  who's trying to redefine things?  The guy with 40 years of evidence to back him up?  Or the guy whose basis is "The developer told me...".  Because last time we did this I showed you exactly where the stats are in the systems you claimed didn't have them.

Modifié par Gatt9, 20 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[Pedrak]

The Baldur's Gate series found the perfect balance between the exploration of a huge world and the importance of plot/characters, as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par Pedrak, 20 mars 2011 - 07:45 .

[HorrorScope]

I'm saddened reading this and see how narrow most replies are here. There are many other examples outside Bethesda's take on a more open-world game. I'm also not sure it has to be total sandbox, just a much bigger load area, to make the game feel more real and give a larger sense of adventure. I believe European developers are leading the way putting the best of both together. They will always be hybrids of either end. The games I mentioned were all very tight on story and had a much more open world then Bioware games.

[Dr. Impossible]

Role-playing games are games in which players assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Modifié par Dr. Impossible, 20 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[Maxilor]

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.

I Agree.

Leave Sandbox to Rockstar, Ubisoft, and Bethesda.

If I want a Linear RPG with a good story and characters I will know what company to look for.

and if Bioware delivers a fantastic ME3 I will re-add them to my list of companies.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

such close minded people lurk on these boards.

[Il Divo]

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Everything he mentioned is just as easily implemented in a sandbox game.

No, it's not. No one has actually addressed this point. It took five years to make Origins. Yet, Origins is not a sandbox despite its exhausting game length. Realistically, how is Bioware supposed to keep all the features that make them 'Bioware games' while expanding as you would like? The only game they've ever created which was a sandbox is Baldur's Gate, which was a top-down view.

Saying Bioware should increase exploration and Bioware should make a sandbox are still two entirely different things. The first results in a few more environments. The second means rebuilding the game from the ground up.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 mars 2011 - 12:05 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Not really,  I just recognize that having a story doesn't make a game an RPG.  I also recognize that if that character sheet can be completely removed without altering the gameplay,  then the game cannot be an RPG.  Take Oblivion,  remove the entire leveling process and the game still functions perfectly fine because it doesn't actually do anything.  You can be the greatest warrior in the land at level 1,  theoretically if you could get to the end boss you could kill him at level 1,  so the entire character sheet/leveling portion is illusionary and has no gameplay effect..

Welcome to playing an Elder Scrolls game. It's funny that you try to describe Mass Effect as a 'fine RPG' when even Oblivion was more complicated. Go figure!

[Iwasdrunkbro]

Il Divo wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Everything he mentioned is just as easily implemented in a sandbox game.

No, it's not. No one has actually addressed this point. It took five years [/b]to make Origins. Yet, Origins is not a sandbox despite its exhausting game length. Realistically, how is Bioware supposed to keep all the features that make them 'Bioware games' while expanding as you would like? The only game they've ever created which was a sandbox is Baldur's Gate, which was a top-down view.

Saying Bioware should increase exploration and Bioware should make a sandbox are still two entirely different things. The first results in a few more environments. The second means rebuilding the game from the ground up.

Theyre doing just fine with Tor last time I checked.

[Il Divo]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

Theyre doing just fine with Tor last time I checked.

And notice how many resources it's taking to develop. It's also an mmo and is going to have a great deal more difficulty in providing a dedicated single player.

[Beerfish]

It's very simple, the more open a game and it's world is the less control you have over things and the less tight you can make the story. It's an ongoing battle linearity and a tight story vs more freedom and much more difficulty in story arch.

[trh5001]

Sandbox games are horrible. I have yet to play a good one, it seems everyone of them replaces story and gameplay with running around seeing all the repeated landscapes...

[BeljoraDien]

trh5001 wrote...

Sandbox games are horrible. I have yet to play a good one, it seems everyone of them replaces story and gameplay with running around seeing all the repeated landscapes...

Agree completely... However, I am interested in seeing how LA Noire turns out... It may just prove me wrong, and I welcome that.

[88mphSlayer]

trh5001 wrote...

Sandbox games are horrible. I have yet to play a good one, it seems everyone of them replaces story and gameplay with running around seeing all the repeated landscapes...

i find the STALKER games to be far more compelling experiences than Metro 2033 was... which was still awesome, it was linear and the STALKER gamers are pretty open world/sandbox in nature but that actually helped make them feel more immersive and make the finale feel much more impressive than Metro 2033 where you're just being herded through corridors for hours

[AllThatJazz]

Iwasdrunkbro wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dr. Impossible wrote...

Everything he mentioned is just as easily implemented in a sandbox game.

No, it's not. No one has actually addressed this point. It took five years [/b]to make Origins. Yet, Origins is not a sandbox despite its exhausting game length. Realistically, how is Bioware supposed to keep all the features that make them 'Bioware games' while expanding as you would like? The only game they've ever created which was a sandbox is Baldur's Gate, which was a top-down view.

Saying Bioware should increase exploration and Bioware should make a sandbox are still two entirely different things. The first results in a few more environments. The second means rebuilding the game from the ground up.

Theyre doing just fine with Tor last time I checked.

Completely different beast. MMORPG with some single-player functionality. They've spent insane anounts of money on producing it, which they will get back by charging people to play the game. Do you want to play a purely SP sandbox game that charges you a monthly fee?

[Legbiter]

Why dosen't Bethesda make hex-based wargames. I've always wondered.

[Needa85]

I dissagree with OP in almost every way here. For starters, both systems have merit. I have both DA2 and oblivion, if they where more simaler, what would be the point?

Personally I feel a bit detatched from my vault dweller or prison escapee (oblivion). While I do enjoy these games DA/ME's more controlled environments come with a more personal involvemet in the story. (Voice acters help a great deal too)

There is little in the way of personal connections in oblivion anf fallout, its like what you do makes little difference to these people and the only effect you have on them is whether they live or die. Besides one or two comments your vault dweller's actions seem to mean nothing to his/her father, no reason to care about his fate.

In DA2 it 'does' matter people react to you differently, how your sibling ends up is drastically altered by the choices you make. Your actions have personal consequences beyond the guard trying to arrest you or what reward you get. Make a bad call in DA2 and it can bite you in the ass a few hours later.

And lets face it, even in these open sandbox games, you make the long trudge to a remote loacation and what do you find when you get there? A quest giver with a job that has 1 objective, 1 outcome, take it or leave it. Wheres the freedom? Wheres the options? Wheres the reason for giving a damn about these people and their problems?

Sandbox games have all that extra optional explorational content but pay the price in personal attatchment. Maybe one day someone will be able to make a great game with both elements fully realized, until then stick to the genre you enjoy.

Modifié par Needa85, 21 mars 2011 - 12:08 .

[Dr. Impossible]

Needa85 wrote...

Personally I feel a bit detatched from my vault dweller or prison
escapee (oblivion). While I do enjoy these games DA/ME's more controlled
environments come with a more personal involvemet in the story. (Voice
acters help a great deal too)

Oblivion's prison escapee is you. Hawke is just some guy you're controlling.

Sandbox games have all that extra optional explorational content but pay the price in personal attatchment.

Only if the developers make the game that way.

[Nozybidaj]

BW already has their niche, why would they want to try and branch out into a genre already filled with the likes of Bethesda? I have no doubt Skyrim is going to be setting a new standard in open-world rpg's and there is no way EA would give BW the time or money to make a game capable of even coming close to what Skyrim is gonna be.

Just wouldn't make sense. BW is the best at making story driven action games. Bethesda is the best at making open-world rpg's. I think it is best that way.

[trh5001]

If bethesda is the best at anything its solely due to a lack of competition...

[LoneStalker]

Since Fallout 3 killed every good memory I had about Fallout universe, I've sworn to avoid any title developed by Bethesda. I've kept my promise without remorse, not a great loss actually. I'm glad I didn't touched any Elder Scrolls games for this reason.
The least thing I want for Dragon Age games is FO3 with swords. I'm already disappointed by DA2 and I don't think I can handle the same suffering again. When I want to play an open-world game, I simply play Mount&Blade:Warband. If nothing, the combat is great.
Satiating a player's need for exploration is one thing, forcing him/her to wander around without an eligible purpose is another...

[Tsuki-no-Oni]

I don't think that they're 'against' such games; most of the staff I've had 'mini-chats' with due to asking questions have said that those games are some of their favorites. If I correctly remember early statements in articles, they do this so you don't have to spend insane amounts of time trying to find your destination (ES example: in Morrowind it was sort of fun, because you investigate books and NPCs; but in Oblivion, it wasn't really, because you just got an arrow and "walk/run for half an hour in this direction and crawl through an equally long cave"; though both have awesome scenery and fun-to-see-and/or-fight creatures [except those blasted cliff racers]); but it is still annoying when you can't just click a button when not in a dungeon to go somewhere else. Also, in sandbox games, there's lots of stuff that can be so hard to find that it drives you insane (the Suicide Hill skulls in Shivering Isles; a bunch of stuff in Tamriel Rebuilt mods for Morrowind [and the official game and mods]). In my opinion, the biggest reason the last two Elder Scrolls games are still so disgustingly (not used literally, FYI) popular is that they have literally unlimited potential for modding, and many, many people devoted to said mods. I do love sandbox games, but some of the 'features' of them can get tedious, even for die-hard completionists (and Oblivion is greatly inferior to Morrowind, just putting that out there).