399 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


Fond memories.

Xenoblade has a very similiar vibe. Day/night cycle, variable weather, similiar structured enviroments. Game plays quite similiar too, except you cant program the AI in the same way and it's more skill/art based.

Wierd how after all the openess in FXII we went back to on rails XIII , overcompensating just like Bioware did with DA2.

Indeed. I enjoyed the story of FFXIII but the sheer linearity of it killed the game for me for a while. Then when I finally got to Gran Pulse, the open world seemed more like something that was added in at the last minute rather then something I had come to love about the FF series.

It was the story that dragged me through the game too. FFXIII-2 though I really like, strange that.

Highlight of FXIII was probably managing to land "death" on adamantoise.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 18 avril 2012 - 01:52 .

[Sabotin]

My 2 cents:

I like seeing open worlds. But I don't like playing in them for the most parts. I enjoy big cities, but non-linear dungeons etc. not so much. I feel the need to explore every nook and cranny and that becomes tedious to me if there's a lot of it (especially since it's usually poorly rewarded). My gameplay "strategy" is usually to do everything possible in an area before moving to the next one/confronting boss. Going the "wrong" way first. If I start leaving stuff out, I soon stop caring about side stuff and just procede through the main quest half-angry and feeling somewhat unfulfilled after the credits roll.
On the other hand if I can only see an open world, but I cannot access it, it puts me off as I start thinking in meta-game mode (specailly if there's just some pebbles on the floor and the like blocking the way...)
Oh and maybe tied in with all of this; In DA2 (and couple of other rpgs for that matter) I sometimes caught myself only looking at the minimap (going towards a quest marker for example), paying little attention at all to the game itself.

Interactivity is a thing I'd like in moderation. I do not like sorting my inventory at all but at the same time I can't keep my grabby fingers to myself when it comes to shiny objects. It feels immersive that you can grab every apple around and poke through every thrashcan, but I really despise having my inventory full of things that I don't know what to do with/am forced to keep droping on the floor whenever I find a new shinier object.
How about - popup description text. You know, when I try to open every crate in a warehouse greet my efforts with a "These crates are full of leather shoesoles. Keep away from dogs." Not actual worthless things. Also an opportunity for some humor / mood / clues maybe.

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Fond memories.

Xenoblade has a very similiar vibe. Day/night cycle, variable weather, similiar structured enviroments. Game plays quite similiar too, except you cant program the AI in the same way and it's more skill/art based.

Wierd how after all the openess in FXII we went back to on rails XIII , overcompensating just like Bioware did with DA2.

Indeed. I enjoyed the story of FFXIII but the sheer linearity of it killed the game for me for a while. Then when I finally got to Gran Pulse, the open world seemed more like something that was added in at the last minute rather then something I had come to love about the FF series.

It was the story that dragged me through the game too. FFXIII-2 though I really like, strange that.

Highlight of FXIII was probably managing to land "death" on adamantoise.

Well XIII-2 actually had you exploring eras and revisiting areas repeatedly, much like Chrono Trigger did, back in the day. In terms of world presentation, XIII-2 was a huge step forward from XIII.

[the_one_54321]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

Picking up an object in first person, like the objects in Skyrim, looks really stupid. That's the kind of imagery that is suited to an FPS. Which, I would strongly argue that Skyrim is in first person and directly action based, just that you don't' have guns and do have a leveling system. Anyway, the appearance of a floating bucket is ridiculous.

Interactivity in environments should be levers you can pull that are used to solve puzzles for opening a new path in a dungeon. Maybe there are some obstacles that can be smashed with attacks, like the barricades in DA:O. Maybe pressing switches that will cause some kind of change in the local environment.

Also, environments that have direct effects on your characters. A dungeon that goes under a volcano has a set of areas that are near lava flows, and the places are so hot that being in them causes a certain amount of fire damage per second. Or the same thing in a cold area. Or a room where acid randomly drips from the ceiling.

That's the kind of interactivity that should be seen in the environments in the game.

................................

As FFXII has been brought up several times now, I'd like to point out one thing about it that was absolutely amazing; so long as your party is strong enough, you can literally walk from one end of the world to the other, without ever leaving gameplay, except on loading screens. And while doing this, every individual area will tailored to its theme or region, have its own appropriate set of monsters, and every new region you enter has some kind of importance in the game, either by containing a significant story area, or by having areas tied to optional side quests.

[Allan Schumacher]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Sorry Allan but what? I have to say I never played Ultima (do not know what it's all about) but throwing an orange to somebody's head? Ich weiss nicht ob du deutsch bisst aber, I notice subtle stuff and it will engage me in a game if implemented right. If I find some lore in an abondoned house I will gladly take it if I can enter the house. It adds to my gaming experience.  But there has to be some thought behind it. I for one do not intentially want to hurt another person. If I recognise it as a bug; sorry to say the dark side takes over but ingame normaly  NO.

Haha the orange example was mostly just there to illustrate that the game lets you interact and then responds to your player's action in a believable way.


EDIT:  And yeah I didn't expect that this would be something that is a deal breaker for anyone that's a fan of DA style games.  Just tossing out thoughts

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 avril 2012 - 03:40 .

[TEWR]

the_one_54321 wrote...

As FFXII has been brought up several times now, I'd like to point out one thing about it that was absolutely amazing; so long as your party is strong enough, you can literally walk from one end of the world to the other, without ever leaving gameplay, except on loading screens. And while doing this, every individual area will tailored to its theme or region, have its own appropriate set of monsters, and every new region you enter has some kind of importance in the game, either by containing a significant story area, or by having areas tied to optional side quests.

Also this.

[Maria Caliban]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

That sort of thing has no appeal to me.

[TEWR]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

I thought I had the strongest team but I had to go for the final summon 3! times before I got it. And I had to adjust all of the characters.

But this was also great about FFXII when a party member could not fight anymore/died the next in line would step in. Maybe that's an idea foe DA3.

It would require the combat system to be overhauled/refined to a sufficient degree that it wouldn't break the gameplay as a result.

As it stands, combat in DA is seriously unbalanced and broken.

First thing: Personally, I wouldn't mind a system where upon level up, the health and mana/stamina does automatically upgrade -- like in FFXII -- but the player can still invest points in Constitution or Willpower or whatever else they want. Of course, Willpower and Constitution would have to give more bonuses then just +5

Part of my problem with DA2's combat is that I have 300 health -- give or take -- but everyone else has a few thousand points of health. I like how the enemies have more health in battle, but I despise how unbalanced it is. Compounded by reports of what happens on Nightmare where you can one-shot your entire party, which seemed like a cheap way to try and make combat "tactical" IMO.

Second thing: Allies would need to stay unconscious in-game if they were rendered as such in battle. But, in order to do this we would need to stock up on items that can revive the characters or be given access to a few areas where we can rest and recuperate.

Third thing: The enemies need work. From animations to AI to abilities and anything else that's relevant.

Maybe other things. Combat in DAII was seriously broken. It's improving certainly, but it needs a lot of work to be balanced if not perfect entirely.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 avril 2012 - 04:33 .

[brushyourteeth]

I'd just be happy to see the areas that we do explore reflect what we're being told they're supposed to be.

A bustling market in Hightown? It ought to be bustling!
A dark sewer with refugees living in it? It ought to be dark and sewery!

There were times that I thought they did a great job of this, but just didn't carry it all the way. The people of Darktown are constantly coughing and complaining about their lot. The tiles are chinking away over time because High Town's fallen into disrepair (drove me crazy, but I get it). Walk up to the Gallows entrance to the courtyard you can't enter till Act 3 -- is that the sound of Templars training, or beating mages up? More of that please!

I thought the Bone Pit and the Wounded Coast were amazing -- but (like others have said) I just hated being teased with cave openings I wasn't allowed to explore.

[bEVEsthda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

This might be something better suited for an open sandbox game which BioWare's games really aren't, but I was having a talk with a co-worker about Skyrim and was postulating some ideas about what subtle stuff exists that players may not explicitly notice or recognize, but might help them feel more engaged in the game setting.

It's been a loooooooooong time since I last played it, but I was wondering this because I think it is something I enjoyed about the Ultima VII games (among everything else that exists in those games...)

I've never found much use for cutlery in TES, (or food, for that manner). At the most they make for personalizing your 'home', which gives a somewhat neat feeling in a sandbox. I remember in Morrowind, you had to place candles and lamps too, or you'd dwell in darkness. But generally, I mostly feel a bit annoyed about everything which isn't possible.

The sandbox's strength is that it allows for gameplay which the creators haven't even considered. The ability to manipulate objects is kinda a central mechanics in that. IMO though, Bethesda haven't gone far enough. For this to really come into its full, more mechanics and things need to be simulated. In particular, npcs should be more versatile. Hopefully Bethesda and consoles will come there one day. They have provided the toolset though.

Skyrim seem to have inherited some properties from Morrowind, despite having abolished a number of associated things. One result is that it's still possible to do mountaineering in Skyrim. In Morrowind the angle you could scale depended upon your agility. I don't know if anything of that is left, but even on rather steep mountain sides in Skyrim (PC version), there are spots, lines, where you can get traction. And there are transitions by which you can gain a slight amount of height. End result is that you can climb mountains. It is quite difficult, and takes a good many hours to figure out the various tricks. But to me, this is just as fun as anything else in the game. It's also useful for escape, detour, scouting, ambush (don't try it on mages, you're a sitting duck on that mountain wall). But this is a good example of how a sandbox can vastly expand the gaming experience.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

This might be something better suited for an open sandbox game which BioWare's games really aren't, but I was having a talk with a co-worker about Skyrim and was postulating some ideas about what subtle stuff exists that players may not explicitly notice or recognize, but might help them feel more engaged in the game setting.

It's been a loooooooooong time since I last played it, but I was wondering this because I think it is something I enjoyed about the Ultima VII games (among everything else that exists in those games...)

The fully interactive environments in TES games don't feel necessary, but they do cure an unfortunate gameplay habit that is promoted by BioWare's games.

In BioWare's games, everything that's interactive in important, or at least valuable.  You don't fill a house with things the player doesn't want or need.  As such, the player tends to collect everything he finds, because it's all stuff from which he can derive benefit.

In an Elder Scrolls game, the player cannot collect everything he finds because he can't carry everything he finds.  As such, a player soon stops investigating the place settings on a table because they're not relevant.  They're just flavour.

And that's what they should be.  Having the player view the entire world as lootable is a perverse consequence of BioWare's design.  I really like how Bethesda's games counter that.

[brushyourteeth]

Was anyone else irritated that you never got to go into your mother's room in the Hawke manor -never ever?

I felt like that was a seriously wasted opportunity. Would have made for a really touching scene before the final battle.

[TEWR]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Was anyone else irritated that you never got to go into your mother's room in the Hawke manor -never ever?

I felt like that was a seriously wasted opportunity. Would have made for a really touching scene before the final battle.

I thought the entire estate was a wasted opportunity, as it's incredibly small for an estate. It's only slightly bigger then Merrill's house, whereas noble houses like the Harimann Estate or the Dupuis Mansion are much bigger.

The Amell Manor was once home to one of Kirkwall's most prominent families. Which means they would've had a large estate.

That it isn't is something I took issue with.

[brushyourteeth]

^ It's pretty true. Even Fenris' crappy squatter house was bigger and grander than yours. Though when you're in the secret tunnels into Darktown, the map suggests that the upstairs is much bigger and you just never get to see all of it.

[Das Tentakel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Was anyone else irritated that you never got to go into your mother's room in the Hawke manor -never ever?

I felt like that was a seriously wasted opportunity. Would have made for a really touching scene before the final battle.

I thought the entire estate was a wasted opportunity, as it's incredibly small for an estate. It's only slightly bigger then Merrill's house, whereas noble houses like the Harimann Estate or the Dupuis Mansion are much bigger.

The Amell Manor was once home to one of Kirkwall's most prominent families. Which means they would've had a large estate.

That it isn't is something I took issue with.

Well, strictly speaking I wouldn´t even call it an estate (although I do know that English has a term like 'housing estate' ), it's really just a city mansion. And not a particularly impressive one either.

In Utrecht, where I studied and lived for quite some time, they still have some medieval noble mansions left from the medieval era. Maybe modest by the standards of the greater Venetian patrician families, but their masters, like the Zoudenbalch family (man, we Dutch do have some funny surnames), wouldn't have been found dead in the Amell ' estate' if they had anything to say about it.

That came out snootier than I meant to, but please, next time our PC's get an estate, manor, castle, whatever: make it big and impressive and nice and above all distinctive. It felt very claustrophobic, more like an apartment than a mansion.
All the mansions in DA2 (and frankly, DA:O too) had that, probably an effect of their 'tile-like'  structure.
Possibly an engine thing.<_<

It makes for very unnatural-feeling architecture. Apart from the size, it's an immersion thing. And it would have been nice if the mansion had some architectural ' layers', i.e. visible traces of several building phases.
That was something that Kirkwall was severely lacking, greatly adding to its 'dead'  impression.

Explorable stuff like cellars, dungeons, hidden rooms, ice cellars, a huge attic etc.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 18 avril 2012 - 09:35 .

[BioFan (Official)]

i think it would be cool if at the "camp" there was a harry potter tent/tardis kind of situation where you had a house with lots of room that you and your companions live in. but on the outside it's a portable small tent or something. so u have the travel ability of the camp like in DA:O, but the stability and characterization of party location like in DA:2

[Mike_Neel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

This might be something better suited for an open sandbox game which BioWare's games really aren't, but I was having a talk with a co-worker about Skyrim and was postulating some ideas about what subtle stuff exists that players may not explicitly notice or recognize, but might help them feel more engaged in the game setting.

It's been a loooooooooong time since I last played it, but I was wondering this because I think it is something I enjoyed about the Ultima VII games (among everything else that exists in those games...)

A great way Bioware uses environment interactivity is with the vistas. Where you get a vista or viewpoint or object and you click on it and you and your companions have a short discussion/scene discussing it. Like in Legacy you had several viewpoints where the camera would show the tower and you and your companions would have a short talk about it. Similar in ME2 where every world hub had a unique point where your companions would mention something about that area, and if you had another companion with you they might say something about it as well to that original character. 

[ZtalkerRM]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What are people's thoughts on interactivity with the environment?

I'm not the biggest fan of the Elder Scroll games, but it seems like part of what a lot of people like is simply that everything is interactive (spoons, forks, etc.), and when they grab that orange and throw it at the guy's head and he goes "Hey" they laugh and maybe think "cool."

This might be something better suited for an open sandbox game which BioWare's games really aren't, but I was having a talk with a co-worker about Skyrim and was postulating some ideas about what subtle stuff exists that players may not explicitly notice or recognize, but might help them feel more engaged in the game setting.

It's been a loooooooooong time since I last played it, but I was wondering this because I think it is something I enjoyed about the Ultima VII games (among everything else that exists in those games...)

Freedom is nice, but it comes at a price, especially with the Bethesda games. If you look closely, you'll see every object is slightly 'floating' above it's place. Also, you could walk into a court room, jump on the table, make a total mess of the buffet, without anyone noticing. That's fun. But when you're in a serious mood and come back a few days (real life) later, you'll see it's still a mess.
I enjoy their games very, very much and I have them all lying next to me. However, I start playing them and eventually lose interest. It's very hard to return after that. More players have that problem.

Freedom is good, but it shouldn't be 'all freedom.' Games like Littlebigplanet and Modnation are reliant on player-made content but don't sell that well. Not as well as a triple a brainless action shooter anyway.
You guys missed the point with DA:2. There was no freedom in that game. Same for ME:3. But that doesn't mean you should go 'Skyrim.' Perhaps more like Kotor, with exploration zones.

I think the middle ground is the sweet spot. Maybe you could try Kingdoms of Amalur. It's (imo) one of the best RPG experiences of the past years, mostly because the fighting system is shockingly good. Never experienced everything like it.

[Arppis]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Kingdoms of Amalur.

Exploration and open-world, but still small and focused enough that the main plot never falls by the wayside.

I'm usualy fan of the combat system that lets me play the character I created and not being fully in charge of group of jackasses. But I didn't actualy like the combat system of this game, what I saw of it in the demo.

[Yrkoon]

ZtalkerRM wrote...

Freedom is nice, but it comes at a price, especially with the Bethesda games. If you look closely, you'll see every object is slightly 'floating' above it's place.

Eh?  That's some strange bug in your game.  Doesn't happen in mine.

Anyway:

Also, you could walk into a court room, jump on the table, make a total mess of the buffet, without anyone noticing.

Except for the kids!

Like the Jarl's son in Whiterun.  Jump up  and start walking on the buffet table while he's watching and he'll say  "hmph, *I'm* not allowed to walk on the furniture!"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[AkiKishi]

Arppis wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Kingdoms of Amalur.

Exploration and open-world, but still small and focused enough that the main plot never falls by the wayside.

I'm usualy fan of the combat system that lets me play the character I created and not being fully in charge of group of jackasses. But I didn't actualy like the combat system of this game, what I saw of it in the demo.

That's because in the demo you don't have the skills to round it out.

[Arppis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Kingdoms of Amalur.

Exploration and open-world, but still small and focused enough that the main plot never falls by the wayside.

I'm usualy fan of the combat system that lets me play the character I created and not being fully in charge of group of jackasses. But I didn't actualy like the combat system of this game, what I saw of it in the demo.

That's because in the demo you don't have the skills to round it out.

That might be!