68 réponses à ce sujet

[Silensfurtim]

at first, I thought the explorable areas are small. but when I finished the game, I thought that size of the areas are just enough for the stories and quests. Bioware maximized the areas. I felt like there was no "junk area" moment.

[mmu1]

Eurypterid wrote...

To address the OP: I find the game has a big feel to me due to the sheer amount of content, although it also has a restrictive feel to it as well, due to the linear nature of the various areas. I personally have no issue with that though, as I'd much rather have a confined, story-driven game like this than something open and sprawlling with little or no substance to it.

I agree with the part I bolded completely... I just think that, even compared to their own past games - and I'm talking about the 3D ones here, not BG2 - DAO feels more restrictive.

Also, just to reiterate, game length is not what I'm talking about, here. Jade Empire was a short game, but IMO it was actually pretty loaded with solid, story-driven content, with very little filler, and the game world actually had a nice scope to it.

[Eurypterid]

marshalleck wrote...

mmu1 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Are you really saying that for example the caves leading to the mountain temple aren't sprawling and huge? What game in the last few years has had dungeons so large? Oblivion and Fallout 3 certainly didn't. The areas in this game are by current standards, quite large.

Yeah, they're big... and so what? There's nothing in there, except for loads of repetitive combats. They're cheap filler, put in there to extend game length, because it's a lot easier to do that than it is to create more real quests and record more dialogue.

As for comparisons to Oblivion... Are you serious? That game is all dungeon. The starting dungeon alone is longer - though broken up into several parts, but who cares? I certainly have nothing against loading screens, I want the world to feel large, and could care less about how the designers achieve it.

(though it is nice to have a large continous area to explore, and as I said, you can do better than  DAO in that respect without making a sandbox game)

My point is that "big and sprawling" has no bearing on how much content may be contained therein.

The words "big" and "sprawling" have clear definitions which can apply to many areas and dungeons in the game.

I agree with that point, but I can also see what mmu1 is saying. I do, however, take issue with mmu1's assertion that the 'filler' is put there solely to extend the game length and to avoid creating 'more real quests and record more dialog'. I believe that's a bit cynical and probably way off the mark.

[emontyj]

what misled me was the markings on the game map showing the shortcut to orlais, and sten talking about his homeland to the north, which felt like it really existed. The characters made me believe they existed which is what make's the game so brilliant.



but the real confusion was just that i didn't know orzimmar was in the frostback mountains, i thought that was just a quest area, and places popped up on the map so there was a lot of content in a small place -- another bonus.

but i wish the toolset wiki was better because i'd like to make additional maps or destinations on the main campaign to extend it instead of killing the archdemon which was a poor endgame.

[marshalleck]

Well "enough" content is entirely subjective. Someone will always want more no matter how much is there. Many players are getting ~55 hours out of their first run through, which is pretty good by today's standard.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 novembre 2009 - 02:59 .

[Ghandorian]

there is a great thread on this on another section of the bioware boards from a while back.



http://forums.biowar...&forum=84&sp=15



Just a really great level of discussion there that is hard to achieve here right now for anyone interested. The specific reason "why?" is the Engine but I am sure that still leaves room for "why?" in another sense.

[Ghandorian]

emontyj wrote...

what misled me was the markings on the game map showing the shortcut to orlais, and sten talking about his homeland to the north, which felt like it really existed. The characters made me believe they existed which is what make's the game so brilliant.

but the real confusion was just that i didn't know orzimmar was in the frostback mountains, i thought that was just a quest area, and places popped up on the map so there was a lot of content in a small place -- another bonus.
but i wish the toolset wiki was better because i'd like to make additional maps or destinations on the main campaign to extend it instead of killing the archdemon which was a poor endgame.

they do. Be patient Grasshopper

[Scar9533]

I personally have no issue with that though, as I'd much rather have a confined, story-driven game like this than something open and sprawlling with little or no substance to it.

I can agree with this though would love to see a huge company make a sprawling game with tons of content and substance to it that does not leave you saying "Son of a...I have to run from here to there and there is NOTHING to do between here and there because this is my 2nd playthrough and I already scoured the entire map clean!"

I know what people mean when they say huge worlds but practically nothing to do in then...Its these HUGE games with nothing to do that leave the sour bile taste in gamers mouths and make them detest larger games.

I dont know, guess I am looking for an MMORPG without the MMO part...Maybe a Co-Op with up to four or five players but not MMO.

And please don't compare DA:O to Oblivion or Morrowind.  DA:O is a more complete game than either one and doesnt require a dedicated team of GAMERS with toolsets to modify the game to be playable without using console commands to fix level scaling or npc's running out of coin.  Box edition of Oblivion or Morrowind is nigh unplayable due to the game not being finished in ANY usage of the term.  DA:O can be played beginning to end without a single mod or add-on and is enjoyable.

[mmu1]

Eurypterid wrote...

I agree with that point, but I can also see what mmu1 is saying. I do, however, take issue with mmu1's assertion that the 'filler' is put there solely to extend the game length and to avoid creating 'more real quests and record more dialog'. I believe that's a bit cynical and probably way off the mark.

I never said they were there "solely" as filler... But come on, don't you think areas like the temple on the way to the ashes (lots of very long corridors with repeated identical combats) or the Orzammar thieves' guild bit feel like they're just there as an unnecessarily long gauntlet to run the PCs through?

They certainly don't compare well to those dungeons DAO actually does well. (like the one you need to rescue a certain someone from, during the Landsmeet, or even the one under Honnleath... )

[Seifz]

I wouldn't use the in-game clock as an accurate measure of time. It doesn't consider any time that you were paused (in combat, reading the codex, etc.) nor does it consider time lost when you had to reload because you died or because you made a bad choice that you want to remedy.



Further, a single playthrough isn't enough to see everything. You have 6 origins to complete, more when you consider the drastic differences between male/female for some origins, different factions to supports, different party members to travel with, etc. When your character sheet says that you've completed 100% of DA:O, let us know how many real hours it took.

[DragonRageGT]

maggitPL wrote...

Yeah, I noticed it lacks some big, living cities like in Baldur's Gate. Actually, if you come to think of it. There was no such thing since Baldur's Gate. Neither NWN, NWN2, nor Mass Effect (which tried to be an RPG but wasn't, well it still was a great game though) had big open locations. Unfortunately, Bethesda has won the "open world" palm. Not that it makes their games better than Bioware's or Obsidian's... Personally I would love to see a game with an open world as big as in Bethesda's games but with the story driven by Bioware. That simply couldn't fail. And maybe would keep us satisfied.

You might want to try Gothic 2 and Risen, perhaps even Gothic 3 with the 900MB community patch. Really great games and I'm a huge fan of the Piranhas, as much as of Bioware, each with their own style. Both are way better than TES4 for me.

mmu1 wrote...

Ghandorian wrote...
edit: I
wanted to add that if the levels where any bigger nobody wold be able
to run them. Its all in 3d this time around.

Some areas in The WItcher, which is 2 years old and based on a much older engine, are much bigger than anything in DAO. (and look better)

Hell, plenty of the areas in freakin' Drakensang were much bigger than those in DAO.

It is
possible to make a Bioware-style game that has a bigger playable world
than DAO without making a Bethesda-style sandbox. Then there are the
in-between titles like Gothic 2 or Risen...

Indeed, although OTS camera in The Witcher is not something I like. I'd like more DA's style, or Gothic's.

[Deathstyk85]

the reason this game may seem small, is because its meant to be played through different ways.

ive seen alot of people play through on one character, do all the dlc on that one character, and complain about having nothing to do.

make a new character

they made 6 distinct origins for a reason, use them

plus, with a game like this, if they said "hey heres this big open world where you can go anywhere, do anything, and we wont be linear with the story at all" you would get distracted and lost, and then be complaining that the game has no story line to it.

many people who played oblivion, or the other elder scrolls games were upset that they had no idea what they were doing and found it hard to focus on any one task.

i think this is one of those "the grass is greener on the other side" things.

[maggitPL]

RageGT wrote...

You might want to try Gothic 2 and Risen, perhaps even Gothic 3 with the 900MB community patch. Really great games and I'm a huge fan of the Piranhas, as much as of Bioware, each with their own style. Both are way better than TES4 for me.

I loved the first Gothic, actually. It was a great game but the next ones weren't as good. Oh and a huge
disadvantage was the lack of a party-based adventure. Ah, perhaps people got the wrong idea when I
was comparing expansiveness with Oblivion. I hated that game (though not as much as I loathe Fallout 3).
Though I have to hand it to Bethsoft: they can make big worlds. If only better writers fleshed them out(hint, hint!).

Ghandorian wrote...
edit: I
wanted to add that if the levels where any bigger nobody wold be able
to run them. Its all in 3d this time around.

Some areas in The WItcher, which is 2 years old and based on a much older engine, are much bigger than anything in DAO. (and look better)

Hell, plenty of the areas in freakin' Drakensang were much bigger than those in DAO.

It is
possible to make a Bioware-style game that has a bigger playable world
than DAO without making a Bethesda-style sandbox. Then there are the
in-between titles like Gothic 2 or Risen...

That's a good point. To bring up a closer example - even Fallout or the classic Baldur's Gate seemed to
be more open, so whenever the DA:O map reads "to wide open world" it always puts an ironic smile on my
face. The problem is that for example: the capital city - Denerim didn't feel like one. It was basically one
big map (the market) and 5 or 6 dungeons and a few shops. That's pretty small even by Bioware's standards.
Hell, come to think of it Lothering has got a bigger map!

Modifié par maggitPL, 28 novembre 2009 - 12:03 .

[Chragen]

What I missed was not the actual size of the zones, but the lack of optional zones. You got 5-6 major zones in Dragon Age when you get out from Lothering and they are all part of the main story.



There's nothing like say Firekraags lair, or de'Arnise Keep, the Planar Sphere or all the different city zones in Athkatla.



I personally would have preferred something similar to that then having a open story with lots of choices. Since I personally feel the "hard" choices in Dragon Age are extremely obvious when you get to them and it somewhat breaks the game.



But I'm optimistic that Bioware will be able to fix a lot of the faults in Dragon Age in the sequel.

[maggitPL]

Well, yeah that too. But if you look at Lothering, there was a lot of sidequests on this single map. There is nothing like that in Denerim, or anywhere else. Well the fact that there's a pressure of time with the blight coming and all, may have had the influence (at least plot-wise) on making so few optional locations. On the other hand that's what the DLC's are for, aren't they? Being optional. 

Modifié par maggitPL, 28 novembre 2009 - 02:11 .

[Aeshyn Stormsinger]

maggitPL wrote...

Well, yeah that too. But if you look at Lothering, there was a lot of sidequests on this single map. There is nothing like that in Denerim, or anywhere else. Well the fact that there's a pressure of time with the blight coming and all, may have had the influence (at least plot-wise) on making so few optional locations. On the other hand that's what the DLC's are for, aren't they? Being optional. 

Denerim has a decent array of side-quests. You have the Chantry board, the Magi Collective, and the Blackstone Irregulars as per usual. That's what... at least 10 side-quests in total to do. So that's maybe... 2 hours of gameplay added, depending on your playing style.

[Looy]

It's not very "BIG" in a physical sense, but it's pretty long and the story is more like a huge web than a linear line or a big open "thing".

maggitPL wrote...

Personally I would love to see a game with an open world as big as in Bethesda's games but with the story driven by Bioware. That simply couldn't fail.

It would be horribly balanced, neither Bethesda nor Bioware can balance games.

[Jolly Teaparty]

Assuming you're asking and not just having a whinge; I'd rather have many small areas with rich content than a big open world with sporadic content. It's not so much big as it is grand. I think a sense of scale can have far more impact than actual scale. Oblivion did nothing for me. A game which uses this concept to great effect is Fallout. That is Fallout 1 and 2. It had much the same system as DA:O does; world map, specific locations, random encounters, and also managed to pull off a sense of scale.

Modifié par Jolly Teaparty, 28 novembre 2009 - 02:25 .

[Bonkz]

I have to agree to some extent with the OP. Let me start by saying that i believe the game is just great. I'm enjoying every minute of it. I think all the major "stuff" that i expected to be in it are there.
Character development/interactions, good combat, choices etc.

If there is one thing that would make DA:O an even better game than it already is(in my opinion ofc) are the areas you can explore. I don't mean all of them of course. Redcliffe, Orzammar, the urn of sacred ashes areas (haven and the temple) etc are all great. What i mean are the cities.
When i heard about going to Denerim for example i expected to be able to visit several districts of the city and discover stuff and quests, maybe like those in BG2 where you had 4-5 major quests in different areas on the world map. I expected a Docks district, a palace district (example names ofc) and things like that where they would make you believe that it is actually a city and some big quest lines are available. I know it would be a lot of work of course, just me wishful thinking.

All in all it is still a very good game.

Edit: I don't want an open world ala Oblivion. Just pointing that out. Just wanted a more live and big city

Modifié par Bonkz, 28 novembre 2009 - 02:24 .

[Dezhem]

DA:O is not a 'small' game. It's just that the trend these past few years has been to create games with HUGE open areas (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout etc) that create the illusion of size. To clarify, the illusion that because the area is big, the game is big. 'Tis not so.



Baldur's Gate did the same thing; I was wondering just that during my last play-through. Think about it - Each map in BG, at least the Wilderness areas, had something like 2-5 encounters scattered across it. Everything else was empty space or a few randomly generated mobs. Granted, the cities felt a lot more 'alive', though. Denerim was decent, but in general the towns felt pretty small and 'prop-like', unlike the cities of Baldur's Gate.



Oblivion was much the same. I'm assuming Fallout too, but I didn't stick with it past the first town.



Personally, I prefer DA:O's style, It's a refreshing change from the 'must mod to play' games that have been released lately. I got the feeling devs were making a HUGE world, and telling us: "Here's a sandbox with a few details and toys; If you want more, you can assemble these tools we'll provide you with and build it yourself."



DA:O is a structured world - Linear at the higher level but offering diverse choices at the lower level of game play. I suspect Bioware wanted to break away from the trend of wide open sandbox worlds, as that would really kill the 'spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate' idea. Not to mention it's been done to death already.

[fro7k]

Such a game would also take 8 years to develop and its tech would be horribly dated at release

There's a reason developers do it one way or the other, and not both

Morrowind and Oblivion took 8 years to develop?  Creating sprawling locations is worth it, they should just hire more manpower.

[Derengard]

I've only been in the Brecilian Forest, Redcliffe and Redcliffe Castle, the Circle Tower and I recovered the Urn of Sacred Ashes. I noticed that while each of these areas is supposed to be a massive part of the game world, they are basically comprised of one "cleanse the area"-quest with dialogues inbetween. In order for the game to feel more like a sprawling epic, there would have to be little independent storylines in each of these areas, like in Athkathla in BG2, which felt like it made no difference if the hero was there or not, all its little tales would go on regardless. In DA:O you are more like the chosen one who keeps all things working.

Modifié par Derengard, 28 novembre 2009 - 03:30 .

[Aeshyn Stormsinger]

fro7k wrote...

Such a game would also take 8 years to develop and its tech would be horribly dated at release

There's a reason developers do it one way or the other, and not both

Morrowind and Oblivion took 8 years to develop?  Creating sprawling locations is worth it, they should just hire more manpower.

As your quoter had states, there's a reason developers do it one way or the other.  Bioware has always made games that are enjoyably explorable, and still linear, just with perception that it is vast.  And I'm assuming the reason they don't change it is that the majority of us still like them making games the way they do, it just works.

Not to mention Morrowind and Oblivion are different types of roleplaying experience.  I wouldn't call either of those a story-driven RPG, because you can run off and get lost for hours on end doing stuff without keeping in check.  DA:O is story-driven and lets you do some of that, whilst keeping you in check with the storyline.  Personally, I like how they've done it.  I wouldn't go to lengths as to say that DA:O is sprawling, but it is indeed massive and involving, and enjoyably so.

[Netherdemon]

Well, now that everything has spoken audio instead of just text with a couple audio clips, the sound files take up a ton of space just by themselves.



If you balloon the whole game up, you'd need a Blu-Ray disc to fit everything on - which would mean a blu-ray ROM drive purchase.