89 réponses à ce sujet

[Gecon]

Bioware does areabased, storydriven games.



Sorry, thats their concept.



I would prefer open world games too, and by far, but well, Bioware wants to focus on story.

[Mordaedil]

Because Bioware didn't want to make another GTA.

[Aeshyn Stormsinger]

I don't mind how Bioware have their games, but one thing I really don't like is the walkable mesh restriction on water/swamp. It should have a relation to depth rather than forcing us to be unable to walk in shallow water. Sure, we can't swim and I get that, but we should be able to walk in a puddle at least (I'm referring to the Ostagar swamps, a puddle near the entry to the Denerim Elvenage thing, etc). I want to walk in shallow puddles, not be blocked and forced to walk around one... there's no sense in what they've done in that instance.

[EDfromRED]

I totally agree that the lack of terrain traveling in DA is a significant flaw. Any sense of mystery and wonder was greatly curtailed early on, when it was plain that I could not climb an anthill, or traverse a brook. It feels like the developers have the players tied to a rope and are dragging you through it along a narrow predetermined course. I felt like a mouse in a maze, bumping into painted backgrounds that were lovely to gaze at, but constantly reminded one how claustrophobic and suffocating the permitted exploration territory is.

[Selvec_Darkon]

Oblivion is sandbox, it's free roam. Dragon Age is CRPG. Look at Baldurs Gate 1&2 & Kotor,  they limit where you can go. This is to allow more focus on story telling, and keep the player focused on what is going on in that area, rather then overwealming the character with all the freedom, and losing the focus on the story and plot.

Bioware has always been about the story & plot. Given how lackluster Oblivion and Fallout 3's story and plot was, I think Bioware has the right idea.

[KalDurenik]

stop comparing it with oblivion atleast compare it to morrowind.......

[EDfromRED]

I don't think "lackluster" can be used in anyway to describe Oblivion and Fallout 3. Both of hem contain hundreds of quests & locales to explore. HUGE worlds, where every nook and cranny reveals suprises and attention to detail. I can play those games today and still find some undiscovered quest, character, locales. I tried the same thing with DA, and found returning to that gameworld a utter bore, with only a few and far between herb bush my only reward for replaying it. I think Dragon Ages wings are clipped too short for its own good.

[Mordaedil]

But, it's not even the same kind of game.



If you love Oblivion so much, why don't you just marry that game, or play that game instead?



DAO does NOT aspire to be a ****ty game like Oblivion is.

[Niten Ryu]

Yes sir, I hate invisible walls. Bioware REALLY dislike features like jumping.

[phordicus]

i can't believe how many people are citing the BG series as an excuse for DAO being so tunnel-visioned. both games had many, many unimportant yet interesting places to explore that might offer a chance to do something that wouldn't end up in a history book. bg1 had the old woman in the FAI that wanted you to reclaim her house from spiders and bring her some sentimental objects (boots and wine, i think). bg2 had the ale/bastard swords mini-quest in umar hills. those things weren't posted on a billboard or handed out in batches from some NPC with a Sims-like arrow pointing at his head.



dao is a depressingly closed world, tighter than some of the sphincters here.

[Mordaedil]

Dude, peoples sphincters here are so tight you can't see daylight. Now I *know* you're lying.

[Dark83]

EDfromRED wrote...

I don't think "lackluster" can be used in anyway to describe Oblivion and Fallout 3. Both of hem contain hundreds of quests & locales to explore. HUGE worlds, where every nook and cranny reveals suprises and attention to detail.

That's always been the point, isn't it? They make giant sandboxes for you to explore, but the story and plot is absent, and the characters are made of cardboard with laughable interactions.

Everything is good up until you interact with characters or the quests.

Fallout 3 is better than Oblivion in terms of roaming though, where you can wander up at level 1 to visit a town full of deathclaws to become lunch, if you want. Still, there's barely any characterization. They all have roughly the same depth as that farmer you first meet in Lothering.

Completely irrelevant comment: I both love and loath the lockpicking in Oblivion. I love it because I'm awesome at it, I loath it because it requires concentration.

[Selvec_Darkon]

EDfromRED wrote...

I don't think "lackluster" can be used in anyway to describe Oblivion and Fallout 3. Both of hem contain hundreds of quests & locales to explore. HUGE worlds, where every nook and cranny reveals suprises and attention to detail. I can play those games today and still find some undiscovered quest, character, locales. I tried the same thing with DA, and found returning to that gameworld a utter bore, with only a few and far between herb bush my only reward for replaying it. I think Dragon Ages wings are clipped too short for its own good.

Main story mate, I didn't say anything about oblivion and fallout 3' s gameplay. But as far as story telling goes...well they are lack luster. Go here, save this, do that, choose between good or evil. Complete quest. Land stays the same, go to new quest starter.

Okay.

[Dark83]

Selvec_Darkon wrote...

Land stays the same,

What's really annoying is that nuking Megaton doesn't really have much of an impact. You lose a city (which is stupid from a player-perspective) and all you get is your home is moved to a far less convenient location.

Awesome animation, though.

[ToJKa1]

Bethesda's games are all about free form exploration, which causes the story to suffer greatly. BioWare on the other hand focuses on the storytelling, which makes their games more or less linear.



As for not being able to walk trough puddles, it never bothered me nearly as much as the fact i could swim across the huge lake in Oblivion with no problem. As a Khajiit wearing heavy armor

[SirGCal]

Wolfva2 wrote...

This isn't an exploration game, it's a role play game with specific goals. Go figure.

As far as 'exploring' goes...do you REALLY want to enter every house in a city? How rude! And wilderness? Have you ever actually BEEN in a real wilderness? I used to back country camp. For those who don't know, that means you and a backpack with a few sundries off into a wilderness. It's funny, but there are actual trails you can't leave. Why? Because the surrounding area are heavily vegetated, often with thorny vegetation. Or because there's a rock face on one side and a very steep fall on the other. These paths are termed 'game trails' because game, ie. tasty animals such as deer, made them. Heck, I once trailed a bear a half mile up a mountain because I had no choice in the matter. And yes, bears DO poop in the woods. They ate lots of seeds to. ONLY in a computer game can you roam about freely and easily. In real life it's usually to danged difficult to do anything BUT follow the path.

A real RPG doesn't force you down one path. It might have a story progress as you go but it won't force you that way. Oblivion was more of a real RPG than this. You could play forever completely ignoring the main story line and just living the live of a mercenary, or stealing from the local houses, or...

Anyhow, as action RPGs go, DO:A is pretty good. The story is phenominal. But I agree with the OP that it could use a more interactive environment and smarter encounter system. I hate how (for example) I see a crowd up ahead, I stealth and walk up, but they don't seem evil so I can't attack. I get close enough and it triggers some event which decloaks me and gathers up the entire part together instead of spaced out where I had them, etc. I can't sneak around to investigate first. The Zevran encounter is a prime example. Only a moron would fall for that trap. I knew it the first playthrough looking there saying. "I'm not going there". But they force you too. A true RPG wouldn't but... that makes for more complicated coding. As a software engineer, I see why they did it the way they did. The game is still great. But it could be even better. But the environment does take away from the imersion to a small extent due to it's limiting exploration. And then on top of that, for a limited explore system, no fast travel (other than between the areas to avoid a wilderness generation system) really annoys me. Walking from the docks in redcliff to the 'zone'.is just a bit stupid. If they were going to use a fast travel system, they could have finished it.

[Cotilla]

I found two evil invisible walls:



The first was in Lothering, next to the river. I was exploring there and I couldn't leave a space rounded by boxes near the river. I had to change the main character to Alistair, go far far away and make the others follow me. I don't know how, but the dog ended in the river, and took a long time to go out.



The second was in the random dwarf merchant in the world's map. There Alistair got trapped beyond the limits and he could not leave, no matter what I tried.



PD: Sorry for my awful English, but it's my third lenguage

[Mordaedil]

A sand-box where nothing acknowledges anything about you does not an RPG make.

[orpheus333]

SirGCal wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

This isn't an exploration game, it's a role play game with specific goals. Go figure.

As far as 'exploring' goes...do you REALLY want to enter every house in a city? How rude! And wilderness? Have you ever actually BEEN in a real wilderness? I used to back country camp. For those who don't know, that means you and a backpack with a few sundries off into a wilderness. It's funny, but there are actual trails you can't leave. Why? Because the surrounding area are heavily vegetated, often with thorny vegetation. Or because there's a rock face on one side and a very steep fall on the other. These paths are termed 'game trails' because game, ie. tasty animals such as deer, made them. Heck, I once trailed a bear a half mile up a mountain because I had no choice in the matter. And yes, bears DO poop in the woods. They ate lots of seeds to. ONLY in a computer game can you roam about freely and easily. In real life it's usually to danged difficult to do anything BUT follow the path.

A real RPG doesn't force you down one path. It might have a story progress as you go but it won't force you that way. Oblivion was more of a real RPG than this. You could play forever completely ignoring the main story line and just living the live of a mercenary, or stealing from the local houses, or...

Anyhow, as action RPGs go, DO:A is pretty good. The story is phenominal. But I agree with the OP that it could use a more interactive environment and smarter encounter system. I hate how (for example) I see a crowd up ahead, I stealth and walk up, but they don't seem evil so I can't attack. I get close enough and it triggers some event which decloaks me and gathers up the entire part together instead of spaced out where I had them, etc. I can't sneak around to investigate first. The Zevran encounter is a prime example. Only a moron would fall for that trap. I knew it the first playthrough looking there saying. "I'm not going there". But they force you too. A true RPG wouldn't but... that makes for more complicated coding. As a software engineer, I see why they did it the way they did. The game is still great. But it could be even better. But the environment does take away from the imersion to a small extent due to it's limiting exploration. And then on top of that, for a limited explore system, no fast travel (other than between the areas to avoid a wilderness generation system) really annoys me. Walking from the docks in redcliff to the 'zone'.is just a bit stupid. If they were going to use a fast travel system, they could have finished it.

Role Playing Games force you to take a role. DA gives your role to you through the Origins segments. It gives you history, some semblance of how your origin character would react to the world. Oblivion gives you none of this and in that respect allows your character to have no meaning beyond the sword or spell you have equiped and the animal you are about to brutaly murder.

Which is a better role-playing experiance?

[Onlyasandwich]

I don't want a full sandbox experience. I just want to trod through puddles and not have to find a new route every time an anthill pops up.

[Dark83]

This is why using the mouse to click where to do is superior, your character goes there, and if he doesn't want to get his boots wet, he'll avoid the puddle and I don't care.

Edit: WTF? Dragon Age is an action RPG? Fallout 3 and Oblivion are more action RPG than Dragon Age.
Any RPG where player skill has a greater impact than character skill is obviously going to be less "hardcore" a RPG than one where character skill is all. If your character is a pansy who's a crap shot, but the player has perfect accuracy, and thus the character has perfect accuracy - that's already a step away from a "real" RPG.

Modifié par Dark83, 27 novembre 2009 - 07:04 .

[F-C]

Onlyasandwich wrote...

I don't want a full sandbox experience. I just want to trod through puddles and not have to find a new route every time an anthill pops up.

this is pretty much how i feel about it. i dont mind being funneled into the proper direction and whatnot, thats perfectly fine.

i just dislike the impassable objects being tiny little things that you could easily just step right over. its just so cheesy.

i still love the game and think its great, dont get me wrong. i just would like the impassable objects to be something that makes sense, like a river, or a pile of jagged rocks a few feet high.

[Dark83]

You know, I don't understand the complaint here, given that I recall my characters running over puddles. hm.

[I saved Star Wars :D]

SirGCal wrote...

Oblivion was more of a real RPG than this.

[Came99]

Actually I agree with the OP.
I liked Oblivion way more, and the open world really had an epic feel to it.
I cant see how this can be ignored by saying "another kind of game". In my book it is the same kind of game: Except here you cant even roam a city freely.


Edit: The downside to the Oblivion way of doing things was a quite funny feeling sometimes: "Ok, so I am on a quest about saving the world, but I chose to help these farmers out with a tedious task for a couple of days. Noone will ever notice"... But hey.. The gamedesign allowed for rushing through the main quest and then retire and doing sidequests, so hey.. You could roleplay like you were in a hurry, so no harm done.

Modifié par Came99, 27 novembre 2009 - 08:31 .