5 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Ok so might aswell create a thread which provided people don't go off on a tangent or attack each others views/opinions should be helpfull imho to Bioware regarding DA3. Please leave your 3 top priority items and move on so this thread doesn't become a flame war or ****** for tat like so many others, it will also keep it amazingly helpful if limited to just the 3 lines about what want most worked on for each person. I would also like the moderators to remove anything that isn't on topic or any arguing so can keep it easy to understand. Respect other peoples opinions and lists, don't reply to anyone or quote them or belittle their lists just list your own 3 items and move on and in doing so; other people should show same respect by not attacking yours and just list their own..

As the title suggests what are the top 3 things that matter most to you for Bioware to work on regarding improving the series for DA3 development. Obviously the are other things which people should already have left feedback for in many threads most importantly the CC threads, but what are the top 3 out of all the things that you would like to be worked on for DA3. Also try to make it short easy to understand and self-explanatory so that won't need to write vast amounts about why, just list what in a 'list format' as simple as can to understand. Will be interesting to see people take step back and think about the 3 most important things to them going forward.


I'll start with.

1. Large amount of areas for exploration within as close as possible a 'living world'

2. Large amounts of loot / customisation and crafting choices; including race choice at start.

3. Choice/consequence, cause/effect that matters, with a huge improvement needed in branching.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 août 2011 - 05:17 .

[John Epler]

Let's bear in mind that there are ways to disagree civilly. And, wherever possible, let's try and do exactly that.

[John Epler]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Let's bear in mind that there are ways to disagree civilly. And, wherever possible, let's try and do exactly that.

Is anyone disagreeing uncivilly in here, or is it just a "just to let you know post"?

I can feel a storm a-comin'. It's my trick knee.

But no, nothing particularly out-of-line, just wanted to give a general note that 'people might have different ideas than you. Let them have those ideas!'

[Luke Barrett]

Masako52 wrote...

3. Graphic sex scenes

do you actually mean that or did you just want nudity? Because 'graphic sex' means something a lot stronger than that typically.

Modifié par Luke Barrett, 10 août 2011 - 08:39 .

[John Epler]

Let's try to respect the notion behind this thread. Feel free to discuss, but it was structured in a rather specific way for a reason, I imagine.

[John Epler]

LPPrince wrote...

A John Epler Commentary Track for the next DA project.

That's all I need.

Listen to this man's ideas. He speaks the truth.

@craigdolphin, specifically your fourth point about sandbox.

I actually prefer the middle ground between sandbox and load screens. I don't know if you've ever played STALKER (any of them, really), but in their current iteration, they have a series of 4-15 set pieces that are connected via loading zones. Within those set pieces, however, you have quite a lot of freedom of exploration, and there are a number of missions that will take you from one end of the Zone to the other. It feels rather large, and while you don't see everything, you get a fair sense of scale by the end of the game.

Contrast that with FO:NV. And let me preface this by saying that I adored the game, to the point where I own two copies and bought a third for a friend. It was a blast. But while it certainly felt big and epic while I was running around at the start - as soon as I found the boundaries of the map, that sense of scale suddenly vanished for me.  It still felt big, but it no longer felt like this giant world.

It's odd, because in reality, none of the STALKER games cover as much ground as FO:NV. Not even close. Yet they felt bigger to me - probably because I never really saw the edges of the world. They were implied, of course, but since I couldn't actually get to them, the illusion that the Zone covered a massive amount of ground stuck. And thinking back on it, this is particularly strange as it was always implied that the zone-out point was the exact same place, geographically, as the zone-in point for the next area.

And I've started rambling. But my point was, I guess, that I personally feel that a set of a few large areas connected by zone triggers is more effective at creating a sense of sheer scale than one -very large- area. As to why that is? I'm not sure. Again, I think it comes down to implied versus explicit.