174 réponses à ce sujet

[Viking Stoner]

Not a big fan of Dragon Age. The first was nice but being a mage was so underwhelming and there was no way i was being a boring ol warrior. The sequel improved the mage combat but it was all over the place. I enjoyed the characters of the first though. Not really into it as a franchise, though. Perhaps thats largely due to my tiring of the fantasy genre. I'm a Sci fi guy.

Modifié par Viking Stoner, 21 décembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[Elhanan]

RPGamer13 wrote...

Nothing in that article suggested DAIII possibly being as open as skyrim.

Honestly, I think they just want to make it so the story isn't as linear as it has been. And I think put in more dragons, I'm honestly upset in the lack of dragons in a game titled Dragon Age.

Actually, I prefer the smaller numbers; makes the encounters more memorable for me.

While the dragons of Skyrim are terrific, they appear too frequently; starts to seem less amazing and more like  daily occurence. IMO.

Modifié par Elhanan, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:21 .

[RPGamer13]

I've hardly encountered any dragons, the only ones I have are guarding the word walls. I haven't encountered one just by walking around.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think DA needs the number of dragons Skyrim has. But I expected more than one or two per game.

[Remmirath]

While I don't think that 'a more open world' is the cue that really needs to be taken here (I think that is that Skyrim proves that no small number of people will still buy, play, and enjoy a game with a list-style dialogue system and an unvoiced PC), it would be nice - more open than DA II, certainly. DA II often felt rather confined. I agree that something on the level of BG again would be ideal; not completely open, but plenty of places to explore around.

I'm also going to go against the grain here and say that I would, in fact, actively like it if they put in multiplayer. By this I do mean LAN multiplayer, of course, and definitely of the 'two or more people go through the whole game at the same time' sort. Partial multiplayer and massively multiplayer I agree are both quite aggravating.

[Shepard the Leper]

I frankly don't see what Bioware could learn from TES games.

I play RPG's first and foremost for their story, the characters you encounter, and decision-making. The major issue I have with games like Skyrim is the complete lack of a story, characters and meaningful decision-making. It's just one big playground with a lot of stuff you can do without making much sense or connection.

It's close to impossible to enjoy anything resembling a "story" in Skyrim - there are too many distractions. You start a quest and while going to your objective you're attacked by a random dragon. Looting it will deplete your spare carrying capacity forcing you to travel back to one of your houses to store items. On your way you run into someone starting a new quest which results in a complete distraction from your previous objective thus you hardly ever get drawn into a story. Playing Skyrim feels like playing a pizza courier who's driving around town delivering packages. There are no stories that draw you in, there are no characters that make an impression, and there is a complete lack of decisions you've made along the way that come back to bite you in the ass or surprise you in any way.

Bioware games don't have the "open world" feel (though every quest and dungeon in Skyrim is extremely linear anyway), but your character has purpose. You know what you're doing and why. You meet interesting (and well presented) characters and you have to make a couple of tough decisions with lasting consequences throughout your playthrough. I.e. Bioware does present the player with a decent story, characters and decisions. To achieve that goal, they have to make consessions about what you can do and when, which makes their games feel more linear but also more coherent. That isn't a bad thing in my book.

[Viking Stoner]

RPGamer13 wrote...

I've hardly encountered any dragons, the only ones I have are guarding the word walls. I haven't encountered one just by walking around.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think DA needs the number of dragons Skyrim has. But I expected more than one or two per game.

Do you Fast travel everywhere?

Fast traveling is not a good way to find random dragons.

[Melca36]

RPGamer13 wrote...

I've hardly encountered any dragons, the only ones I have are guarding the word walls. I haven't encountered one just by walking around.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think DA needs the number of dragons Skyrim has. But I expected more than one or two per game.

Um...you need to travel but not fast travel to encounter dragons

[SOLID_EVEREST]

The Dragon Age series had a huge hit with Origins, yet they look at a game that is pretty much non-RPG as a guide. They should look at Origins or even New Vegas with the intense amount of roleplaying, fantastic characters, and deep storytelling (moreso in New Vegas, though). They should just allow us one series that kind of resembles the RPGs of old instead of pushing it all towards a ME style game.

[bleetman]

Given that Dragon Age and Skyrim are only similar in that they feature dragons in a fantasy setting, I don't really see the point. I'd rather Bioware focused on what they do best (characters and character interaction, player influence over the direction of the story, being able to express your own roleplayed character, so on and so forth) than going after the open world thing. I can't imagine that's what they mean by this, because it's something they've not done for, what, around a decade now?

[bussinrounds]

  Seriously though, I agree with Seagloom.  They should look towards their best games, the BG series and how that was done. Not complete sandbox, but not linear tunnels either.  And they should focus more on making decent tactical GAMEPLAY, with some actual depth, like in BG.  Not the cinematic/romance crap they've been obsessing over..

[Morroian]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

The Dragon Age series had a huge hit with Origins, yet they look at a game that is pretty much non-RPG as a guide. .

Non rpg? Skyrim? 

[HoonDing]

Morroian wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

The Dragon Age series had a huge hit with Origins, yet they look at a game that is pretty much non-RPG as a guide. .

Non rpg? Skyrim? 

Didn't you know that any game that doesn't follow my arbitrary definition of a RPG, is not a RPG?

[sympathyforsaren]

Taking cues from The Elder Scrolls V doesn't just mean 'open-world'. More openess is always better, but it doesn't have to be a sandbox, nor does it mean that. Where I think they should (and probably are) taking cues from is the fact of how inspired the game is. The loot system, the number of spells, the details, the cool features like being able to rotate and zoom loot, the amazing detail in everything. It takes passion. It takes a will to put that in.

Kudos to BioWare for taking notice of the masterpiece that is Skyrim....a strong roleplaying game....and looking for elements to incorporate. The first thing is immense detail. Everywhere, and in everything.

[Thiefy]

no thanks. open world/sand box games aren't my thing. fable series put me off from that type of game.

the only one i ever liked was assassin's creed 2, and the games in general (genre) tend to be short, storyline wise. the only thing that made that game stretch out for me was collecting feathers, and that got really old, really fast. i'd rather have the same type of games bioware has had before with more engaging characters, more detailed plot and more pc interaction; open world games tend to not have so much in those catagories and focus a lot more on gameplay or some other mechanic.

[1136342t54_]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

no thanks. open world/sand box games aren't my thing. fable series put me off from that type of game.

the only one i ever liked was assassin's creed 2, and the games in general (genre) tend to be short, storyline wise. the only thing that made that game stretch out for me was collecting feathers, and that got really old, really fast. i'd rather have the same type of games bioware has had before with more engaging characters, more detailed plot and more pc interaction; open world games tend to not have so much in those catagories and focus a lot more on gameplay or some other mechanic.

Fable is a bad example of great open world games. Especially the later games. They just got worse and worse after every game. Also you must not have played Fallout New Vegas then? While a open world game it has some actually pretty interesting factions, story, protagonists and awesome companions.  Also Assassins Creed Brotherhood is what Assassins Creed 2 was supposed to be lol.

[slimgrin]

More PR speak from the good doctor. Muzkya cracks me up.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:10 .

[Dominus]

Multiplayer involving dragons is comes off a bit too absurd to be a probable feature for the game. An Open-World take on the dragon age franchise isn't surprising, and would be complementary to the game if handled right. As was mentioned before, there are complications to the cinematic storylining in open environments, hopefully they'll figure that out. They could always take a few tips from both RDR and skyrim, creating relatively-scripted events i.e. So-and-So bandits are terrorizing so-and-so fereldens.

[Gunderic]

They were referring to having larger environments afaik which is great.

[Jonp382]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Taking cues from The Elder Scrolls V doesn't just mean 'open-world'. More openess is always better, but it doesn't have to be a sandbox, nor does it mean that.

The thing I like most about Skyrim is the dialog system. Being able to disengage the dialog at will is a +9001 in my book.

I also like the automatic leveling. One should get better at what they do.

[SkittlesKat96]

This could be a good or bad thing. It would be nice if the Dragon Age games were a bit more open worlded (whether that means making the locations more bigger, making more locations, or making all the locations connect in a more immersive way where you don't have to use a map.)

I would also welcome a game engine change if it lets them achieve this 'best of both worlds' they are trying to achieve (I use the ' because some people hate it when Bioware says that and I don't want to make any of you guys rage)

[SOLID_EVEREST]

virumor wrote...

Morroian wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

The Dragon Age series had a huge hit with Origins, yet they look at a game that is pretty much non-RPG as a guide. .

Non rpg? Skyrim? 

Didn't you know that any game that doesn't follow my arbitrary definition of a RPG, is not a RPG?

I just don't see any role in the character that Skyrim gives. There is nothing to tie the character to any sort of background or relationship to the world other than the fact that he/she is an adventurer and prisoner. You only have persuade and a few other skills to actually differentiate anything in dialogue.

In New Vegas, you can establish a character as a doctor, player, idiot, cannibal, scientist, etc.--included with this are several past exploits that you can choose to have your character establish (such as going to New Reno/having a girl back in Montana). The possiblities are endless because skills are so vast and count towards dialogue. As much as I disliked Fallout: 3, it was more of a roleplaying game than Skyrim as the character actually had (although badly written) a purpose for being in the Wasteland and caring for it.

Skyrim is more about being a hiking simulator than actually roleplaying a character and exploring the characters that dwell within its universe. It was fun in Oblivion because that was my first TES game, but re-hashing it again did not sit well with me.

Now, before I get flamed, I shouldn't even need to mention it, but this is all in my own opinion.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

sympathyforsaren wrote...

Taking cues from The Elder Scrolls V doesn't just mean 'open-world'. More openess is always better, but it doesn't have to be a sandbox, nor does it mean that. Where I think they should (and probably are) taking cues from is the fact of how inspired the game is. The loot system, the number of spells, the details, the cool features like being able to rotate and zoom loot, the amazing detail in everything. It takes passion. It takes a will to put that in.

Kudos to BioWare for taking notice of the masterpiece that is Skyrim....a strong roleplaying game....and looking for elements to incorporate. The first thing is immense detail. Everywhere, and in everything.

Yeah but the thing is does the Dragon Age team really have the drive and the passion to put that sort of work into the game, and will those in charge give them the time and the resources needed to take their game to the next level? I mean say what you will about the pre defined main character, dialogue wheel and the lack of origins the biggest disappointment about DA2 was the lack of effort put in, now I dont know if it was the result or those in charge cracking the whip and forcing the game through such a small development window but between the lazy writing and the dull recycled environments I get the feeling that the only thing they really cared about was pushing the game out as quickly as possible for a quick buck, besides I get the feeling that David Gaider would be much happier writing a novel rather than a script for an open ended video game.

DominusVita wrote...

Multiplayer involving dragons is comes off a bit too absurd to be a probable feature for the game. An Open-World take on the dragon age franchise isn't surprising, and would be complementary to the game if handled right. As was mentioned before, there are complications to the cinematic storylining in open environments, hopefully they'll figure that out. They could always take a few tips from both RDR and skyrim, creating relatively-scripted events i.e. So-and-So bandits are terrorizing so-and-so fereldens.

Am I the only one who thinks that making a gameworld fully open (as in a continuous map in which you can explore every inch like the Elder Scrolls games or the GTA/RDR games) is not always inherently a good thing? I mean I am all for making the game world more open and a fully open gameworld does have its benefits however you do also have to take into consideration the size of the gameworld that you are trying to portray and the size of the locations within that gameworld. Sometimes I wonder if games like the Elder Scrolls could benefit more from an approach similar to how Baldur's Gate handled the world map.

[Moondoggie]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Am I the only one who thinks that making a gameworld fully open (as in a continuous map in which you can explore every inch like the Elder Scrolls games or the GTA/RDR games) is not always inherently a good thing? I mean I am all for making the game world more open and a fully open gameworld does have its benefits however you do also have to take into consideration the size of the gameworld that you are trying to portray and the size of the locations within that gameworld. Sometimes I wonder if games like the Elder Scrolls could benefit more from an approach similar to how Baldur's Gate handled the world map.

I'm personally not a big believer in the "open world" fad that seems to plague the RPG fandom. Often i find open world games very tedious and lacking in much satisfaction when it comes to quests and NPC interaction. Sure a game like FO3 is huge in world size with tons of exploration but it's just insanely dull. The combat is tedious the NPC's are stripped down and you don't feel like you are following much of a storyline. It feels like in these type of games they sacrifice on storyline and structure just for the sake of cramming as much content as they can in there to make the game feel artifically longer. Sure you could get over 100 hours of play out of it but what's the point if that 100 hours barely does anything but sends you on random fetch quests?

There needs to be a balance between storyline and open exploration and these open world games often don't get that and the open world fans will gladly not care how badly written the story is as long as they have a large world to explore and lots of side quests. Personally i'd rather my hours of gaming feel like i am doing something relevent to the story than just wondering around mindlessly trying to find new towns. In an RPG i want character development and storylines that keep advancing the plot so there really does need to be a balance between exloration and not steering too far off the storyline or sacrificing character development to cram more NPC's in there in more towns.

So i'm up for more exploration but i wouldn't want to see it as open world as the likes of Skyrim just for the sake of it. I'd like to see DA:O with the plot constantly moving forward and characters developing with the plot even when you are doing side quests you still feel like you are not going away from the plot. And mix that in with more places to explore then great. But if they use open world mechanics to turn it into an even longer fetch quest than DA2 then it could be an issue.

[slimgrin]

I understand the bias on this site against open world games. And it is a bias. they are a perfectly valid structure for an RPG, and story can be implemented just fine in an open world setting. I've actually wanted Bioware to provide bigger maps in their games for ages, as both ME2 and especially DA:O had some fairly uninspired and contrived level design. There can be a compromise, as games like Ego Draconis, Divine Divinity, and TW2 prove. Open form gameplay + story driven narrative is a win for everyone.

So if they're serious about this, more power to them.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 décembre 2011 - 01:44 .

[LPPrince]

slimgrin wrote...

I understand the bias on this site against open world games. And it is a bias. they are a perfectly valid structure for an RPG, and story can be implemented just fine in an open world setting. I've actually wanted Bioware to provide bigger maps in their games for ages, as both ME2 and especially DA:O had some fairly uninspired and contrived level design. There can be a compromise, as games like Ego Draconis, Divine Divinity, and TW2 prove. Open form gameplay + story driven narrative is a win for everyone.

So if they're serious about this, more power to them.

Read my mind, so I'll just quote it to add emphasis.