300 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

I think some people don't really understand how to play Bethesda' games, and that's understandable if Skyrim is their first game, and they used to play only Bioware's games.

it's easy to create a story in bethesda games. I can not imagine that someone who already played oblivion is unable to choose its priorities, to choose its missions, according to its own adventure and its own vision. It's simple. Freedom is complete, choose yourself how to structure the story, your story. Some began with some factions, others are immediately fighting with imperials or stormcloak, other try something else. If you feel that it is important to kill immediately the dragons according to your story, do it.

If you need to be accompanied for the story, and that's fine, this kind of game isn't really for you

My hero  ( female redguard ) first started to build her life as a mercenary around whiterun ( redguards are all mercenaries xD ), the biggest missions, I'll do them after, in the end.

My hero, isn't yet the hero that will  save the world from dragons.

After I did all the missions around Whiterun, my hero will be an adventurer who crosses Skyrim ( many side quests ), which has been ravaged by conflict. And through her travels she will learn more about the war, and she will be increasingly involved in the conflict. She finally will join a side. And that's after that war, that she will decide to finish this story of dragon that according to my story has taken on worrying proportions now.

this is just an example how to create and structure your own story.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 décembre 2011 - 05:03 .

[Yrkoon]

Sidney wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

squints*  That's... completely backwards.  Skyrim does not limit you arbitrarily, it allows you complete freedom to choose what weapons and crafting skills you want to use, then levels you up on that basis, allowing you to improve them even more through the perks.  You're never asked at the beginning of the game what class you want to be, and then restricted to one or two weapons and perk trees.  If by chance you get tired of archery and want to use sword and shield instead, you're completely free to do that and the game responds immediately.  It's complete freedom of character building.  Even your racials don't limit your class.  I'm thinking of making an orc mage.  Guess what?  I can do that and no one can stop me.

The example I used earlier- and i don't think anyone addressed it, or else I missed it- was the fact that my preferred playstyle is a spellsword.  Tell me how I could build a spellsword in DA2.

Skyrim's problem isn't that you can't build things it is the WAY you have to build that sucks.

Oh  indeed!   The WAY you have to build things Sucks!  I mean,  the notion of building up your 2-handed skill by having to  continually use 2-handed weapons in combat is  just too illogical and unintuitive.     And don't get me started on Enchanting.  Who was the idiot who decided that the way to raise your enchanting skill is by  enchanting things?    Or raising your Conjuration skill by casting conjuration spells?  What a sucky system.


If only things were more like DA2, where the way to master lockpicking  is to. . . . . Kill enough enemies with your Bow.

Sidney wrote...
There is no way to level up smithing or enchanting in game based on crafting what you need - you just won't ever craft enough items. You have to go all assembly line to pump them up so you can build that ebony sword or dragon armor.

Translation:  it sucks that you can't instantly become a  master of the forge  without practicing.  lol

  BTW, genius,  Blacksmithing and  Enchanting   are TRADE SKILLS.  They're designed to be done for a living.   And  They're *supposed* to  involve  continuous  application in order to get good.  Because that's how a businessman makes money; that's how  a mechanic  becomes good at what he does; how an ice sculpter  becomes a master; how a gamer masters gaming etc. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[Addai]

Sidney wrote...
Skyrim's problem isn't that you can't build things it is the WAY you have to build that sucks. Crafting skills all require metagaming. There is no way to level up smithing or enchanting in game based on crafting what you need - you just won't ever craft enough items.

So it's metagaming that your character can work some of their own weapons and enchantments?  That's part of roleplaying.  You do NOT have to "go all assembly line."  I have never played that way and both my characters got their smithing pretty high.  Powergamers who then complain the game is unbalanced are so freaking annoying.

You have to go all assembly line to pump them up so you can build that ebony sword or dragon armor. There are entire schools of magic (Restoration/ Alteration) that really can't be leveled properly w/o cheese. Even Conjuration requires the stupidity of levelling by casting your summons AFTER you enter combat as opposed to before it. - well you can cast before but leveling is epically slower.

Really?  I have a thief character who only heals herself occasionally and her restoration is about 40 at level 50.  That's just about right.

The game rewards you for natural roleplaying.  I don't know what you're talking about.

Plus, to get back on topic for all the whining about Sword Saints and Spell Sword you poeple really do role play job descriptions and not characters.

What?  The fact that my battle mage was a battle mage was very much part of her backstory.  A Nord whose family insisted she become a warrior but who wanted to fight the Thalmor with their own weapons, and finally struck out on her own to learn more magic.  That's a character story, a job description and a leveling path.  It all worked out beautifully.

Your problem is that you assume that the way you play is the only way anyone plays, and furthermore the only valid way to play the game.  Like I said, arrogant.  And now you're just making excuses for DA2.  I can't even believe people are trying to make this argument, when Bioware said it was a design decision to restrict classes.  They tried to make it sound like a feature, but I fail to see how that worked out in actuality.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 décembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Sylvianus wrote...

I think some people don't really understand how to play Bethesda' games, and that's understandable if Skyrim is their first game, and they used to play only Bioware's games.

it's easy to create a story in bethesda games. I can not imagine that someone who already played oblivion is unable to choose its priorities, to choose its missions, according to its own adventure and its own vision. It's simple. Freedom is complete, choose yourself how to structure the story, your story. Some began with some factions, others are immediately fighting with imperials or stormcloak, other try something else. If you feel that it is important to kill immediately the dragons according to your story, do it.

If you need to be accompanied for the story, and that's fine, this kind of game isn't really for you

My hero  ( female redguard ) first started to build her life as a mercenary around whiterun ( redguards are all mercenaries xD ), the biggest missions, I'll do them after, in the end.

My hero, isn't yet the hero that will  save the world from dragons.

After I did all the missions around Whiterun, my hero will be an adventurer who crosses Skyrim ( many side quests ), which has been ravaged by conflict. And through her travels she will learn more about the war, and she will be increasingly involved in the conflict. She finally will join a side. And that's after that war, that she will decide to finish this story of dragon that according to my story has taken on worrying proportions now.

this is just an example how to create and structure your own story.

Well said.  You definitely have to work a lot harder at Skyrim.

[alex90c]

snfonseka wrote...

Let's hope BW won't take the following from Skyrim to DA3

1. Below average level AI for NPC (including companions and emphasis on companions).
2. Emotionless NPCs.
3. Below average, main quest storyline.

Definitely hope for the following from Skyrim to DA3.

1. Open ended huge world.
2. Ability to craft our own armor and weapons.
3. Guild/ Faction base quests and separate storylines for them.
4. Ability to buy houses and decorate them.
5. Mini sidequests.

Compared to "standing around doing nothing", Skyrim's NPCs are miles better.

[LarryFat]

Also, let us see the gear our character puts on, instead of the god awful "We want the player to have a visual connection to the characters, we think this is important". No, this is not important, we were able to change the appearance of our DA:O characters and we still knew exactly who was who.
By voice.
By personality.
This is all you need to differentiate characters. Just leave the helmets off like in the DA:O cutscenes / dialogue.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvianus wrote...

I think some people don't really understand how to play Bethesda' games, and that's understandable if Skyrim is their first game, and they used to play only Bioware's games.

it's easy to create a story in bethesda games. I can not imagine that someone who already played oblivion is unable to choose its priorities, to choose its missions, according to its own adventure and its own vision. It's simple. Freedom is complete, choose yourself how to structure the story, your story. Some began with some factions, others are immediately fighting with imperials or stormcloak, other try something else. If you feel that it is important to kill immediately the dragons according to your story, do it.

If you need to be accompanied for the story, and that's fine, this kind of game isn't really for you

My hero  ( female redguard ) first started to build her life as a mercenary around whiterun ( redguards are all mercenaries xD ), the biggest missions, I'll do them after, in the end.

My hero, isn't yet the hero that will  save the world from dragons.

After I did all the missions around Whiterun, my hero will be an adventurer who crosses Skyrim ( many side quests ), which has been ravaged by conflict. And through her travels she will learn more about the war, and she will be increasingly involved in the conflict. She finally will join a side. And that's after that war, that she will decide to finish this story of dragon that according to my story has taken on worrying proportions now.

this is just an example how to create and structure your own story.

It a weird dichotomy though, because after playing the past three Elder Scroll games (Daggerfall to Oblivion) I would normally agree with you.

The problem is it feels like Skyrim is attempting to bring the world stage more in the forefront, but couldn't go all the way in the process because of the established canon of what the Elder Scrolls really are; prophecies of great importance. 

Oblivion, I get it. They made that a Cyrodiil conflict mainly, but it did feel like a conflict because the gates started popping up everywhere around the land. Hell when I played it I decided to destroy as many as possible and just jump into dozens of gates just to stem the tide, a one man crusade. That was a good conflict.

In Skyrim it just feels...disconnected to what we have here. We have a main quest that disjointed from the side missions which are, if you ask me, more fascinating because we see the world act out through events and war and whatnot. It is ham-fisted and somewhat forced, but it is a new take on what Elder Scrolls can do because the conflict in Skyrim is far from personal due to outside forces, namely the whole war that happened off-screen and the changed face of Tamriel.

I guess the problem is after three games involving socio-political conflicts as the main story, a more simple "chosen one" mentality taking precedence over those socio-polical conflicts seems like a step backwards. Now of course you don't have to make dragons appear in the game, and thats fine, but in the end that is the official canon of what Bethesda wants you to do, it is what they focused on.

I guess that is part of the reason for my dissapointment with Skyrim; damn good game, but such a missed oppertunity after the good stories in Oblivion and Morrowind, I feel like Bethesda held back to keep things simple and exciting. It worked, but it loses its charm quickly. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 30 décembre 2011 - 02:25 .

[snfonseka]

alex90c wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Let's hope BW won't take the following from Skyrim to DA3

1. Below average level AI for NPC (including companions and emphasis on companions).
2. Emotionless NPCs.
3. Below average, main quest storyline.

Definitely hope for the following from Skyrim to DA3.

1. Open ended huge world.
2. Ability to craft our own armor and weapons.
3. Guild/ Faction base quests and separate storylines for them.
4. Ability to buy houses and decorate them.
5. Mini sidequests.

Compared to "standing around doing nothing", Skyrim's NPCs are miles better.

This is true, NPCs in Skyrim are actually doing something, at least walking around.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

snfonseka wrote...

alex90c wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Let's hope BW won't take the following from Skyrim to DA3

1. Below average level AI for NPC (including companions and emphasis on companions).
2. Emotionless NPCs.
3. Below average, main quest storyline.

Definitely hope for the following from Skyrim to DA3.

1. Open ended huge world.
2. Ability to craft our own armor and weapons.
3. Guild/ Faction base quests and separate storylines for them.
4. Ability to buy houses and decorate them.
5. Mini sidequests.

Compared to "standing around doing nothing", Skyrim's NPCs are miles better.

This is true, NPCs in Skyrim are actually doing something, at least walking around.

No they're not. Almost every single one of them can talk to you. Even the children will tell you what they do and invite  you to play tags with them. A lot of them are also quest givers like Ysolda, the lovely Charlotta Valentia, etc... Heck even the skooma trader you meet along the road has something to talk about ( and fight you later ). This people can talk more than your housecarls do. LOL

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:People

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 02:55 .

[LinksOcarina]

Talking though doesn't necessarily mean depth, it just makes them akin to townsfolk in Final Fantasy.

Granted Dragon Age II is no better, but still...

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talking though doesn't necessarily mean depth, it just makes them akin to townsfolk in Final Fantasy.

Granted Dragon Age II is no better, but still...

True.  A lot of work need to be done for this people to have more depth. Probably in another 10 years where we have the technology to generate truly dynamic NPC dialogue, Personality, background story and motivation. It would be a wonder, I guess. A huge world populated by semi conscious AI almost identical to Matrix world. 

Well...At least none of them just standing outside the chantry's corner day and night, taking hit by Hawke's or Bethany's fireball without a flinch. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talking though doesn't necessarily mean depth, it just makes them akin to townsfolk in Final Fantasy.

Granted Dragon Age II is no better, but still...

True.  A lot of work need to be done for this people to have more depth. Probably in another 10 years where we have the technology to generate truly dynamic NPC dialogue, Personality, background story and motivation. It would be a wonder, I guess. A huge world populated by semi conscious AI almost identical to Matrix world. 

Well...At least none of them just standing outside the chantry's corner day and night, taking hit by Hawke's or Bethany's fireball without a flinch. 

I can't fault that too much though since I never really focus on the background when i'm fighting. That said, even if that happens is it such a deal breaker when it seems like a minor nitpick on overall design, something that Bioware got half right?

[Yrkoon]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talking though doesn't necessarily mean depth

It doesn't have to.  They weren't  discussing depth.    Because this isn't about depth.  It's about a  living world  containing  NPCs that  simply respond to what they're seeing.  It's about flavor, immersion,  and developer attention to detail.  They were comparing basic NPC  AI and NPC reactions to what's going on around them in the two games.   And the result is that there  practically ISN'T a comparison.  DA2 simply does not use townsfolk for anything more than city decoration.  They might as well be  stone  Pillars on the street.    For example:  Take your  mage Hawke in DA2 and  cast a  spell in  Kirkwall.  What happens?  Nothing.  Nothing at all.  Despite the fact that the entire city.... excuse me.... the entire GAME,  is about a  Mage conflict.   Witnesses to your spell casting, even Templars,  do NOTHING, they say NOTHING.  They flat out do not react..

By contrast,  cast a firebolt spell  in Whiterun, or Riften, or Solitude, or any city in Skyrim.  What happens?     People not only notice and react to the fact that you just cast a spell in front of them, but they comment on the specific spell you cast.  They'll  make comments to you about  Fire if you just cast a Fire spell.  Varied comments... ranging from awe, to fear to disgust.   This, of course,  assumes you didn't actually hit them with the spell, causing  them to go hostile and defend themselves or alert the city guards.

Townspeople also comment about your Race,    They comment about what you're wearing, what you're wielding,  and what you've done.  They comment about your actions  (if you drop items on the ground, they'll make comments about it... or they'll run over and pick up the item  then come up to you and say  "hey, you dropped this!")

And we're not just talking about a few named NPCs, we're talking about ALL npcs.

LinksOcarina wrote...
Granted Dragon Age II is no better, but still...

It's not even equal.    Dragon age 2 is  a lot worse  when it comes to the issue we're discussing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:09 .

[LinksOcarina]

Flavor and a feeling of immersion it does give, but engagement to continue overall...that's something different entirely.

For example, why don't the guards attack you if you use magic in Skyrim after they ask you to stop? Hell several times they warn me about it and I just flat out tell them no...and they do nothing. The one exception was one guy who recognized a bounty I had, but he didnt last long.

We get the immersion in the sense that they say something about it, but we get no reactions when its repeated, which once again breaks the immersion. It is superficial at best.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Talking though doesn't necessarily mean depth, it just makes them akin to townsfolk in Final Fantasy.

Granted Dragon Age II is no better, but still...

True.  A lot of work need to be done for this people to have more depth. Probably in another 10 years where we have the technology to generate truly dynamic NPC dialogue, Personality, background story and motivation. It would be a wonder, I guess. A huge world populated by semi conscious AI almost identical to Matrix world. 

Well...At least none of them just standing outside the chantry's corner day and night, taking hit by Hawke's or Bethany's fireball without a flinch. 

I can't fault that too much though since I never really focus on the background when i'm fighting. That said, even if that happens is it such a deal breaker when it seems like a minor nitpick on overall design, something that Bioware got half right?

No. It's not a big deal on it's own. It's just one of the factors that when combine together makes Dragon Age's world more "exaggerated unreliable believable". 

Sigh... BioWare need to fix and improve a lot of things in term of story and party interaction since it's their strength over the past. I mean a lot. Presenting story based on third person unreliable narrator is not going help making the world more believable. Nor do the inability to actually show changes over time. I can understand the reason behind one city concept but without variety of open world like GTA bustling city model, those artful design won't feel "artful" anymore. "Open world feel" is ambitious in theory but way too unrealistic for linear story driven games. In order to have huge map with "exploration feel" the corridor design philoshopy need to go or at least hide it well like TES did. Story linearity also need to go because it's conflict with "open world" philoshopy.  Then there's a matter of radiant AI to accomodate such spaces to give life to the world. I doubt this is something BioWare is capable or interested in doing. 

[Yrkoon]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Flavor and a feeling of immersion it does give, but engagement to continue overall...that's something different entirely.

For example, why don't the guards attack you if you use magic in Skyrim after they ask you to stop? Hell several times they warn me about it and I just flat out tell them no...and they do nothing. The one exception was one guy who recognized a bounty I had, but he didnt last long.

We get the immersion in the sense that they say something about it, but we get no reactions when its repeated, which once again breaks the immersion. It is superficial at best.

Hit them with that magic and they'll attack you...

Again, no one here has claimed that Skyrim's NPC reaction system is "Teh best Evah!", just that it's miles, light-years ahead of DA2's.  This was a comparison discussion, yes?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[nitefyre410]

Dynamic worlds are nice and all but pointless if I looking at them mostly from and over head traveling map and codex entries. How about let me actually travel from point A to point B.. . instead of selecting the single player map I would like to quest in.

Then we can talk about NPC reactions.

[Yrkoon]

Or for that matter, how about they go back to having an actual Day and Night cycle instead of a retarded toggle (Click Here if you want Kirkwall to be dark. Double click if you want it to be light again!  lol).

  That always cracked me up in DA2.     You have the god-like ability To directly (and instantly) affect day/night cycles for an entire city, but you can't equip 2 weapons on your  warrior.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:50 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Sigh... BioWare need to fix and improve a lot of things in term of story and party interaction since it's their strength over the past. I mean a lot. Presenting story based on third person unreliable narrator is not going help making the world more believable.

 

Uh...its a story mechanic used countless times over. IT has little to do with making the world believable, that is what the design of the game needs to accomplish...which sadly Bioware was unable to do adequately.

Nor do the inability to actually show changes over time. I can understand the reason behind one city concept but without variety of open world like GTA bustling city model, those artful design won't feel "artful" anymore.

I agree here. That was the biggest shortcoming of Dragon Age II, but for me it was not too much of a deal-breaker since few games actually capute the feel of a real world. Fallout New Vegas I felt was the closest to that personally, same with Planescape Torment back in the day and Mass Effect 2.

"Open world feel" is ambitious in theory but way too unrealistic for linear story driven games. In order to have huge map with "exploration feel" the corridor design philoshopy need to go or at least hide it well like TES did. Story linearity also need to go because it's conflict with "open world" philoshopy.  Then there's a matter of radiant AI to accomodate such spaces to give life to the world. I doubt this is something BioWare is capable or interested in doing. 

The story linearity is a hallmark of Dragon Age, and for that matter all of the console and computer RPGs Bioware has done in the past. The semblence of the open world and corridor philosophy is akin to what Elder Scrolls does, you are right there. Dragon Age II they didn't hide it properly because the story was supposed to take place in Kirkwall. If they actually cleaned up things and made the enviorments change a bit more over time...then I would say they did a good job in changing things around. 

And honestly, Bioware doesn't have to make an open world. They just need to make the linear world with more polish and better interaction. Open world does not translate well to what Bioware is doing with storytelling, it would be foolish to make it so. If they polished the world they made, I guarentee the discussions on Dragon Age II would be a lot less black and white.

[LinksOcarina]

Yrkoon wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Flavor and a feeling of immersion it does give, but engagement to continue overall...that's something different entirely.

For example, why don't the guards attack you if you use magic in Skyrim after they ask you to stop? Hell several times they warn me about it and I just flat out tell them no...and they do nothing. The one exception was one guy who recognized a bounty I had, but he didnt last long.

We get the immersion in the sense that they say something about it, but we get no reactions when its repeated, which once again breaks the immersion. It is superficial at best.

Hit them with that magic and they'll attack you...

Again, no one here has claimed that Skyrim's NPC reaction system is "Teh best Evah!", just that it's miles, light-years ahead of DA2's.  This was a comparison discussion, yes?

It really shouldn't be, considering the orignal post was about "taking pointers from Skyrim" which in all honesty, is a silly thing to do since they are both different types of RPGs that work well in their respected genres. I don't know why some people are making this a case study for comparison then.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[IanPolaris]

LinksOcarina wrote...
It really shouldn't be, considering the orignal post was about "taking pointers from Skyrim" which in all honesty, is a silly thing to do since they are both different types of RPGs that work well in their respected genres. I don't know why some people are making this a case study for comparison then.

Why?  It's (yet another) self-inflicted wound by Bioware.  By saying that DA will be taking pointers from Skyrim as silly as that is (and I fully agree with you that it is extremely silly), they invite the invidious comparison.  The fact that Skyrim is a continuing game in a series (a sequel to TES Morrowind and Oblivion) but is selling like gangbusters (getting the sales Bioware clearly hoped DA2 would get) adds further salt to the wound since Skyrim is successful because Bethesda deliberately chose NOT to revamp the entire game...merely improve what didn't work (or was clunky) in Oblivion.

-Polaris

[LinksOcarina]

But Skyrim is successful for different reasons than what people cite on here, atmosphere, marketing, and dungeon crawling. Everything else, the somewhat decent attempts at immersing players, the storyline, the unbalanced yet charming gameplay coupled with bugs up wazoo just make it more digestable for gamers overall.

For us the bits we talk about is what makes it a good RPG, but for non RPG gamers the above makes it appealing because of the casual-ness of it all.

[IanPolaris]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But Skyrim is successful for different reasons than what people cite on here, atmosphere, marketing, and dungeon crawling. Everything else, the somewhat decent attempts at immersing players, the storyline, the unbalanced yet charming gameplay coupled with bugs up wazoo just make it more digestable for gamers overall.

For us the bits we talk about is what makes it a good RPG, but for non RPG gamers the above makes it appealing because of the casual-ness of it all.

I agree and I think I've said as much elsewhere.  The point is that if Bioware seriously thinks that making DA3 more like Skyrim is going to save the franchise.......*ouch*.....I see disaster in the future......

-POlaris

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...



Uh...its a story mechanic used countless times over. IT has little to do with making the world believable, that is what the design of the game needs to accomplish...which sadly Bioware was unable to do adequately.

Well then so Varric exaggerating the story does not affect the world he describe? I don't know about you but if the intent of story is clearly indicates that the story is not meant to be taken seriously due it's "unreliable" nature, then the world itself is not to be taken seriously either. Because for BioWare's games, the story is the world. Kirkwall is just a window to look at the story. Hence, could affected player role-playing experience. 

LinksOcarina wrote...

I agree here. That was the biggest shortcoming of Dragon Age II, but for me it was not too much of a deal-breaker since few games actually capute the feel of a real world. Fallout New Vegas I felt was the closest to that personally, same with Planescape Torment back in the day and Mass Effect 2.

It's unfortunate such shortcomings could have been avoided. Because it's also contribute to the overall story  presentation. Sure you can closed one eyes on few minor things. But  if there're many "shortcomings" then it's a problem already. 

LinksOcarina wrote...


The story linearity is a hallmark of Dragon Age, and for that matter all of the console and computer RPGs Bioware has done in the past. The semblence of the open world and corridor philosophy is akin to what Elder Scrolls does, you are right there. Dragon Age II they didn't hide it properly because the story was supposed to take place in Kirkwall. If they actually cleaned up things and made the enviorments change a bit more over time...then I would say they did a good job in changing things around.

And honestly, Bioware doesn't have to make an open world. They just need to make the linear world with more polish and better interaction. Open world does not translate well to what Bioware is doing with storytelling, it would be foolish to make it so. If they polished the world they made, I guarentee the discussions on Dragon Age II would be a lot less black and white.

Precisely. Well then this is something at least we can agree with. Hopefully, BioWare wouldn't try to please Skyrim's fans by resorting to "open world feel".  Open world without variety of functions, freedom of choice, non-linear story and exotic exploration is pointless. Because that's what majority of Skyrim fans generally want. It's really not that hard to know this. Basically all TES are the same in concept and gameplay. And this is coming from someone who bought every single copies of TES series since ARENA.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 30 décembre 2011 - 05:36 .

[Atakuma]

IanPolaris wrote...

I agree and I think I've said as much elsewhere.  The point is that if Bioware seriously thinks that making DA3 more like Skyrim is going to save the franchise.......*ouch*.....I see disaster in the future......

-POlaris

There's no indication that that's what they think. It's pretty clear to me that all they are doing is riding of Skyrim's success to try and drum up some enthusiasm for DA3.