623 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

Announce DA3 with a day-night cycle and non-linear branching story lines while running the Frostbyte Engine 3 and you'll grab everyone's attention. Just saying...

Edit: The interactivity between the DA team and fans is really encouraging to see. No market talk or fancy words just a nice little chat... 

Modifié par Savber100, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:53 .

[John Epler]

Il Divo wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Oh, and Dark Souls. Dear god, Dark Souls. I think timing the blades in Sen's Fortress may have broken a part of my soul, and I beat Demon's.

And then someone tells me Anor Londo is going to be worse. *sigh*

Still, Dark Souls is an exceptional example of atmosphere, mood and unquestionably clever level design.

Hearing a Bioware dev say this brings a tear to my eye. Dark Souls caught me completely off-guard with how well-designed the game is. If you guys are looking to steal gameplay/combat ideas from anywhere, I'm hoping it's this game. It's been a long time since I played a game where every small victory felt incredibly satisfying.

One of the neatest things that Dark Souls did was create a world that felt like it got bigger the further you progressed into it. All the shortcuts and various ways to get from point A to point D without having to go through points B and C were neat.

I've always liked open world games that don't feel entirely 'open world'. STALKER (yes, I'm talking about STALKER again, take a drink) was zone-based, but each zone was, itself, very 'open' and allowed for a lot of exploration. Call of Pripyat reduced the number of zones but made each zone a lot bigger, and that's probably my favourite 'exploration' mechanic I've seen thus far. While Dark Souls was one contiguous 'zone' (well, minus a few exceptions such as going from Sen's to Anor Londo, which required a cut scene), it felt less sprawling and more connected - something I thought was to its benefit.

[DreGregoire]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As to my thoughts on why I would prefer a "night guy" over "the store closes and you have to wait is because I tend to see four ways to deal with the latter:

So, they're all fine, I just happen to prefer 4, because I happen to consider it the least disruptive to immersion. 

Largely an academic discussion at the moment, but since someone asked, there you go!

In regards to the closing of a store I think it's important to mention that this makes it possible for other interaction with the same building, structure, or character. For instance, breaking and entering and lockpicking for thieves and joining the merchant at a tavern or at their home for further conversation. I actually have used the wait much less in Skyrim than I did in Oblivion because there were just so many more things I could do while I waited for the store to open, or I would go to sleep because everybody kept telling me I looked sick. LOL!

And Like others have said I have no trouble with the concept of knowing what my character is doing while waiting. We won't go where my mind goes some of the time. LOL!



Edit: However, if rogue skills are going to be scaled down like they were in DAII then I guess it doesn't really matter to the Devs of DAIII *shrugs*

Modifié par DreGregoire, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:59 .

[craigdolphin]

JohnEpler wrote...

I don't think it'd be a stretch to suggest that certain vendors (like you said, in an alley or similar) might keep irregular hours. I think the primary concern is not 'let's make sure that the experience is exactly the same in the daytime or the night time', but rather 'let's make sure that the player has access to similar experiences regardless of the time of day'. Night time should be different from day time - in game play as well as in general atmosphere. However, there's a distinction to be made between 'it's night time, so everything is closed and all you can do is wander around the town, gazing forlornly into closed shops with your face pressed up against the glass' and 'it's night time, so certain services are located elsewhere and the general feel of the town is different'. I think the latter adds to immersion while avoiding certain pitfalls associated with hard 'IF YOU ARE NOT HERE AT THE RIGHT TIME THEN YOU ARE SOL' limits.

That's not to say there aren't games where the latter is appropriate (anything that mixes survival horror and open world seems like an ideal place to force you to spend the night outside, in a sleeping bag, holed up in a tree because oh my god the monsters might eat me), but the things you gain from this sort of thing have to be measured against the downsides of such an approach.

It's hard for me to respond to that. I'm so used to disagreeing with SOMETHING in a dev post that the lack of a tempting target leaves me stumped as to how to reply.

So er, yes. What you said. :innocent:

[Il Divo]

JohnEpler wrote...

One of the neatest things that Dark Souls did was create a world that felt like it got bigger the further you progressed into it. All the shortcuts and various ways to get from point A to point D without having to go through points B and C were neat.

I've always liked open world games that don't feel entirely 'open world'. STALKER (yes, I'm talking about STALKER again, take a drink) was zone-based, but each zone was, itself, very 'open' and allowed for a lot of exploration. Call of Pripyat reduced the number of zones but made each zone a lot bigger, and that's probably my favourite 'exploration' mechanic I've seen thus far. While Dark Souls was one contiguous 'zone' (well, minus a few exceptions such as going from Sen's to Anor Londo, which required a cut scene), it felt less sprawling and more connected - something I thought was to its benefit.

Agreed. Especially after playing Skyward Sword, it hit me how "Zelda-esque" the game is in terms of the open world format. In a Zelda game, it's pretty typical part-way through a dungeon to find a cleverly placed short-cut which lets you make your way around much easier. Dark Souls basically takes that concept and extends it to the entire world. Perfect example: About three days ago, I discovered that back path which connects Blighttown to the New Londo Ruins, which makes navigation infinitely easier.
 
Edit: Of course, I've also made incredibly stupid mistakes, including my initial attempt to go through the Catacombs once reaching Firelink Shrine. It goes without saying that the skeletons ripped me apart.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:09 .

[Ponendus]

JohnEpler wrote...

I've always liked open world games that don't feel entirely 'open world'. STALKER (yes, I'm talking about STALKER again, take a drink) was zone-based, but each zone was, itself, very 'open' and allowed for a lot of exploration. Call of Pripyat reduced the number of zones but made each zone a lot bigger, and that's probably my favourite 'exploration' mechanic I've seen thus far. While Dark Souls was one contiguous 'zone' (well, minus a few exceptions such as going from Sen's to Anor Londo, which required a cut scene), it felt less sprawling and more connected - something I thought was to its benefit.

I agree with this very much. I think too much of an open world potentially spreads resources a little thin, and I for one do not go exploring every single nook and cranny of a mountainside for example. The quests still guide me to where I need to go. I think the 'zone in' areas which are large and open and explorable is a perfect plan for future DA titles if that is indeed where the development is heading. For example, you could have all the locations that were present on the DA:O map, but just make those locations bigger and at each location make us able to leave the 'path' and explore every room in the castle etc.

Just thinking about that is exciting, I hope this is what happens.

[DreGregoire]

DreGregoire wrote...

In regards to the closing of a store I think it's important to mention that this makes it possible for other interaction with the same building, structure, or character. For instance, breaking and entering and lockpicking for thieves and joining the merchant at a tavern or at their home for further conversation. I actually have used the wait much less in Skyrim than I did in Oblivion because there were just so many more things I could do while I waited for the store to open, or I would go to sleep because everybody kept telling me I looked sick. LOL!

And Like others have said I have no trouble with the concept of knowing what my character is doing while waiting. We won't go where my mind goes some of the time. LOL!



Edit: However, if rogue skills are going to be scaled down like they were in DAII then I guess it doesn't really matter to the Devs of DAIII *shrugs*

I think much of this has to do with the way a person plays the game. Some people rush through each quest to get to the end, not bothering with side quests and exploration. Others may enjoy showing up at a closed shop and may say, "Oh good I have time to go do that side quest I've been meaning to do." It's why the wait option is essential in a more open game because it caters to more than one specific audience.  

[Gotholhorakh]

You might expect the availability of goods at night in a city on the bases mentioned - night staff, guy in the pub/alleyway etc. - "If you ever want to do business after sun-down, you can usually find me having some mead at the Greased Qunari on GropeDwarf Lane".

On the same subject for smaller/rural settings, this reminds me of shops in island communities - befriending a shopkeeper in a small town or village, you might be able to knock on their door in the night if you have some business for them. If they're desperate enough (especially in remote places) you might not even have to be friends.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:21 .

[Chromie]

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

[Ponendus]

Ringo12 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

I quite liked Hawke. It is a matter of opinion of course.

When compared to Geralt, I would take Hawke any day. Geralt is a terribly unlikeable protagonist in my opinion, and the sole reason I couldn't bring myself to go much further than 10 hours into TW and TW2 (I tried! I promise I tried!!!).

Modifié par Ponendus, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:15 .

[Chromie]

Ponendus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

I quite liked Hawke. It is a matter of opinion of course.

When compared to Geralt, I would take Hawke any day. Geralt is a terribly unlikeable protagonist in my opinion, and the sole reason I couldn't bring myself to go much further than 10 hours into TW and TW2 (I tried! I promise I tried!!!).

I understand but what I hate about Hawke is how unimportant of a character he/she is. If you remove Hawke the story could easily have gone on. You also have no impact on the game. Look at Mass Effect, Shepard is central to the game and story. It wouldn't be Mass Effect with out Shepard but it would be Dragon Age 2 withou Hawke.

[Gotholhorakh]

Ponendus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

I quite liked Hawke. It is a matter of opinion of course.

When compared to Geralt, I would take Hawke any day. Geralt is a terribly unlikeable protagonist in my opinion, and the sole reason I couldn't bring myself to go much further than 10 hours into TW and TW2 (I tried! I promise I tried!!!).

Well except for Geralt's blatant Melnibonean heritage, going by both the game and the literature he features in (haven't watched stuff with him in, it really didn't look very good). You just can't knock an Elric knock-off if it's done passably, even if it's Geralt.

Nonetheless I agree, neither PC was particularly charm-filled. Nothing a little customization couldn't have fixed, though (hint ).

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:26 .

[Ponendus]

Ringo12 wrote...

I understand but what I hate about Hawke is how unimportant of a character he/she is. If you remove Hawke the story could easily have gone on. You also have no impact on the game. Look at Mass Effect, Shepard is central to the game and story. It wouldn't be Mass Effect with out Shepard but it would be Dragon Age 2 withou Hawke.

That's fair, I have read a lot about this opinion over time and I do see this point of view. Hawke possibly was not given as much importance as he/she could have been. I'm not sure the story would have gone on without them (particularly if you look at the story as 3 seperate stories which is what I tend to do) but I see your point.

You are right about Shephard too. He/she is much more entwined with the story. You have given me things to think about today. Thanks for that.

[alex90c]

Ponendus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

I quite liked Hawke. It is a matter of opinion of course.

When compared to Geralt, I would take Hawke any day. Geralt is a terribly unlikeable protagonist in my opinion, and the sole reason I couldn't bring myself to go much further than 10 hours into TW and TW2 (I tried! I promise I tried!!!).

Geralt is meh, but Hawke made me want to just ... whack my own character with a spade.

Having to control a passive failure is not my idea of a fun game.

[Mike_Neel]

I like Bioware games though. I know there's a difference between taking inspiration and copying, sure. But if I want to play the Witcher or Skyrim I'll go play those games. Not a copy cat game.

I like how Bioware has a focus on the party system with unique characters. That's something I'd definately like to see them keep doing. In Skyrim the companions are bland and replaceable by design, with maybe a few personal exceptions. But even those exceptions have a limited dialogue interaction. What I like about Bioware is that the characters are all important, maybe just as much so as the main character. They each have a purpose and place in the story.

Again though I do know the difference between inspiration and getting ideas from, but too many people seem to want copy cat games, and copy cat games never really seem to take off from my experience. People just play the original games instead.

[Sylvianus]

Can we all stop the dramatic part about bioware games ? They never said they were going to copy a game, they never said they would sacrifice their way. Even after reinsurance in this topic, you continue to claim or imply that they think to do that.

[Ponendus]

Sylvianus wrote...

Can we all stop the dramatic part about bioware games ? They never said they were going to copy a game, they never said they would sacrifice their way. Even after reinsurance in this topic, you continue to claim or imply that they think to do that.

Yes. The implication has only ever been a 'taking of inspiration' not copying. Taking inspiration from your peers is an extremely wise thing to do in any creative industry. I am more reassured than ever that DA3 will be a marked improvement due to this.

[Am1vf]

alex90c wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Ponendus wrote...
I hope they do not take away from it how to create the most unlikeable protagonist in RPG history. :-)

Hawke? Worst character ever.

I quite liked Hawke. It is a matter of opinion of course.

When compared to Geralt, I would take Hawke any day. Geralt is a terribly unlikeable protagonist in my opinion, and the sole reason I couldn't bring myself to go much further than 10 hours into TW and TW2 (I tried! I promise I tried!!!).

Geralt is meh, but Hawke made me want to just ... whack my own character with a spade.

Having to control a passive failure is not my idea of a fun game.

Geralt is, imho, a great character for the books. In the games, for me, it doesn't translate  well, and there is also the thing: I never saw the point to all those options because, afer reading the books, Geralt is a completed character in my mind and doing anything I dont belive he would do just feels wrong (wich doesn't happen with new fixed characters like Adam Jensen because I can imagine several versions of him with different personalities).

Modifié par Am1_vf, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:59 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

In some ways I agree with you, and if there wasn't a way to speed up the passage of time I'd definitely agree with you.

Except for that time In Ultima 5 where I couldn't get Dupre cured of a fatal poison because the healer was asleep though, I can't say I've ever found schedules to be a frustrating burden. That might be because U5 had no inventory limit though. DA you have to unload after every second quest.

Actually, while inventory is on my mind and realism getting in the way of fun is being discussed, what purpose does limiting inventory serve in Dragon Age? Having backpacks as expensive and/or rare luxury items makes as much sense as a diamond taking up as much room as broadsword. definitely not advocating slotted jigsaw inventories, but I'm curious if the limit is there for the sake of 'Look, see, you can't carry absolutely everything' token realism.

[Ponendus]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I'm curious if the limit is there for the sake of 'Look, see, you can't carry absolutely everything' token realism.

I think there is some value to that though. If the token realism were removed and backpacks unlimited, then there would be no realism wouldn't there? I'm not sure how else to have realism in inventory, possibly the 'encumbered' method that games like the Elder Scrolls uses is the closest I can think of, but that only is realistic for weight and not for space. Then if we want realistic space use, we will have to use tetris-style backpacks and they make me shudder. I'm not sure there is a middle ground. It's an interesting thought.

[Am1vf]

Ponendus wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


I'm curious if the limit is there for the sake of 'Look, see, you can't carry absolutely everything' token realism.

I think there is some value to that though. If the token realism were removed and backpacks unlimited, then there would be no realism wouldn't there? I'm not sure how else to have realism in inventory, possibly the 'encumbered' method that games like the Elder Scrolls uses is the closest I can think of, but that only is realistic for weight and not for space. Then if we want realistic space use, we will have to use tetris-style backpacks and they make me shudder. I'm not sure there is a middle ground. It's an interesting thought.

I would pick the inventory from The Wicher 1: Three slots for big weapons, two on the back and one in the belt; one for a small dagger or something; and a bunch of slots for tiny things like stones, jewels, ingredients and stuff carried in the bags. I think something similar was used in some other game before but I can't remember it.

edit: I don't expect many people to like this but it is still what I would prefer.

For those who want to carry more weapons or more armor to sell it would be nice to be able to buy a packmule like in Dusgeon Siege, and that would explain better the cost than buyng backpacks.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:52 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

One thing I desperately wish the Dragon Age games would borrow from the Elder Scrolls series is a fast-travel option if no combatants are in the area.

Yes, I know the player needs to be somewhat directed so as to set up quest/story points, but by the time I finish a sidequest in a cave (for example) - and THEN have to wind my way back through the Wounded Coast for the fourth time during Act III when there ARE NO MORE COMBATANTS OR QUEST POINTS LEFT - I feel punished for completing a quest rather than enjoying the story moment or character interaction I just experienced. 

Heck, it would even help the complaint of reused environments (the Wounded Coast is pretty) if you didn't feel like you were forced to see every square inch of it every time you visited. 

*ends grumping*

[DreamwareStudio]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As to my thoughts on why I would prefer a "night guy" over "the store closes and you have to wait is because I tend to see four ways to deal with the latter:

1. You have to wait for time to pass. Perhaps you go do something else, perhaps you just stare at the screen, but time? It moves on its own.
2. You have to go somewhere to make time pass. Perhaps an inn, where you sleep and it becomes morning.
3. You "wait" and time passes around you. (as seen in skyrim/Fallout)
4. The store or service you need doesn't close, but who you deal with changes in some way (aka: "the night guy comes on shift" or "an alternative, nearby service opens up, offered by another guy...in an alley or something")

They all have perfectly valid rationales in a scheduled game.
1 is realistic, and borders on simulation, but may significantly impact the "flow" of your gaming if you absolutely need to interact with that service to progress.
2 maps well to our real world experience, in that to "advance time" we need to, typically, go to bed, but asks the player to travel, and potentially area-transition.
3 is exceptionally convenient in that you don't have to move/load, but breaks some degree of immersion in that you wonder if your character was standing perfectly still for that entire period of time.
4. Ensures the service is available and doesn't require travel time/loads, but does make less sense in a medieval world than it does in our night-shift society.

So, they're all fine, I just happen to prefer 4, because I happen to consider it the least disruptive to immersion. 

Largely an academic discussion at the moment, but since someone asked, there you go!

I personally think allowing day/night sim and rest anywhere (i.e., BG 2 mod or better case, TW 2) to a chosen hour is the best option with the least disruption.  It balances with some realism and keeps things relatively convenient.  If you're a stickler for introducing our night-shift society into a society that lives by lantern and candlelight, well, I don't see much value in that, but then, I lean way more towards realism.

Once more, PLEASE, consider different atmospheres between night and day with different people and enemies/monsters about.  Having day go to night and then back again just for the sake of that is next to worthless, IMO.  It's like having a city with no people.  It's there.  It's pretty, but what good is it?

I do like, however, gender equality put into a game.  I especially enjoyed that about DA:O and the BG series and I
often wish women played a more independent and/or vital role in the Witcher games.  I have played a bit of Skyrim but not enough to comment on what that game is like.  Gender equality was one of the few things I liked in DA 2.  Other than that, however, I will not comment on DA 2 as I don't think my criticisms would be anything you have not heard.

Modifié par google_calasade, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:57 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Am1_vf wrote...


I would pick the inventory from The Wicher 1: Three slots for big weapons, two on the back and one in the belt; one for a small dagger or something; and a bunch of slots for tiny things like stones, jewels, ingredients and stuff carried in the bags. I think something similar was used in some other game before but I can't remember it.

edit: I don't expect many people to like this but it is still what I would prefer.

For those who want to carry more weapons or more armor to sell it would be nice to be able to buy a packmule like in Dusgeon Siege, and that would explain better the cost than buyng backpacks.

Sortable (but limited) inventory gets my vote.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 12:06 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Actually, while inventory is on my mind and realism getting in the way of fun is being discussed, what purpose does limiting inventory serve in Dragon Age? Having backpacks as expensive and/or rare luxury items makes as much sense as a diamond taking up as much room as broadsword. definitely not advocating slotted jigsaw inventories, but I'm curious if the limit is there for the sake of 'Look, see, you can't carry absolutely everything' token realism.

A limited inventory that can be expanded serves two purposes:

1) Backpacks provide an avenue of progression for the player that encourages exploration of the stores
Finding and purchasing the backpacks make your life easier, which allow for a sense of accomplishment when you find them and can afford them. In a very real way your "team" has just gotten better, in that they can carry more stuff from dungeons. Also, seeking that progression (after establishing backpacks as a desirable, and very affordable thing, in the first store in Ostagar, for instance) causes players to look in stores in new places they visit to see if there's another one. In doing so, they're exposed to some of the rare, powerful loot lurking in those stores, ideally sitting there as aspirational items to be acquired later.

2) A limited inventory provides an impetus to return to store locations and note potentially upgraded stock.
Some people noticed that new stuff appeared in the stores at certain points of DAO and DAII. If you never had to sell, you might get no exposure to the evoloving stock.

We went with the more abstract "space" concept for the inventory rather than weight so as not to penalize mage-heavy parties (who presumably would have lower collective strength than warriors, but don't deserve to have to leave a bunch of loot lying around, since multi-mages should be viable).

We went for non-inventory-tetris because in early prototypes that proved to be a LOT of shuffling if your bags were full and you needed to move things between party members. I tend to feel inventory tetris works far better with one "grid" than multiple grids.

That's the thinking behind it, anyway. YMMV, but we have put a fair amount of thought into it.