399 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I was referring to the thread title, though it irritates me in general.

Thread titl... oh, so it is. My appologies, then. Forget I said anything.

[rolson00]

In terms of emploration stay away from TES V it was really boring the only reason it got game of the year waqs because me3 was released this year!

[John Epler]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

I love exploring and feeling like an adventurer.

DA3 doesn't need to feel like an Elder Scrolls game, but I would like to be able to visit multiple cities and not just pick them from a map, but actually travel there on foot (or horse). Perhaps have some towns in between or dungeons to raid. A good rpg doesn't have to be 100% story.

I also spent a good portion of my FFX gametime on blitzball.

I think STALKER (take a shot) does it well. It's not strictly open world, but it's a series of fairly open zones. It allows the designers to have more tightly-crafted experiences, while at the same time allowing the player to explore and discover on their own. Skyrim is brilliant - it's one of three games where I've purchased a console version after owning the PC version, simply so I could play it on the ocuch - but the problem with Thedas is that, if we want you to be able to visit more than just a single region in the world, we'd have to either compress the entire thing unrealistically (hey, why is Orlais half an hour's walk from Ferelden), or limit you to a single area.

It also allows you to create themes and a fairly wide variety in architecture, biosphere, etc. Which, if we were to go towards a greater focus on exploration, is something I think we'd want to do.

[AkiKishi]

John Epler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Deep Roads in DA:O weren't there for exploration.

1. You could only go there after you started a quest.
2. You had to go there for that quest
3. They mostly consisted of straight tunnels you walked along, slaying critters.

More Deep Roads would be a horrible thing.

I don't know, I think that the Deep Roads envisioned a little more like the Mines of Moria in LOTRO would be neat. I think the Deep Roads in DA:O suffered from being in a sort of middle-ground - they were too big to serve as a straightforward plot area, but too small to truly feel 'epic'. Though I still did enjoy them - I love underground areas more than most, especially the 'forgotten architecture' feeling.

Without hub locations to strike out from the Deep Roads just feel like a slog. Having a hub and series of quests and a larger area would get rid of that feeling. Even better if you can see some positive changes from the things you are doing down there. A bit like climbing a mountain you would need camps as you get deeper.

[Maria Caliban]

John Epler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Deep Roads in DA:O weren't there for exploration.

1. You could only go there after you started a quest.
2. You had to go there for that quest
3. They mostly consisted of straight tunnels you walked along, slaying critters.

More Deep Roads would be a horrible thing.

I don't know, I think that the Deep Roads envisioned a little more like the Mines of Moria in LOTRO would be neat. I think the Deep Roads in DA:O suffered from being in a sort of middle-ground - they were too big to serve as a straightforward plot area, but too small to truly feel 'epic'. Though I still did enjoy them - I love underground areas more than most, especially the 'forgotten architecture' feeling.

I've never played LotRO so I don't get the reference. In general, underground cave systems have never appealed to me. The Feywild version of the Underdark would be the only exception as it has its own vivid ecology.

If implemented a different way, I can see the Deep Roads being much more interesting, but as-is, they were the part of DA:O I liked the least. It might be due to them being a middle ground of sorts in size. That's not something that would register with me.

[CENIC]

Skyrim is pretty to look at, but it bothered me that once I memorized where scripted events happened all the magic was gone. Oh, a vampire jumped out at you from behind that rock? If you go down the same road later, a bandit ambushes you from the exact spot. I don't want an open world that is predictable.

[happy_daiz]

John Epler wrote...

I think STALKER (take a shot) does it well. It's not strictly open world, but it's a series of fairly open zones. It allows the designers to have more tightly-crafted experiences, while at the same time allowing the player to explore and discover on their own. Skyrim is brilliant - it's one of three games where I've purchased a console version after owning the PC version, simply so I could play it on the ocuch - but the problem with Thedas is that, if we want you to be able to visit more than just a single region in the world, we'd have to either compress the entire thing unrealistically (hey, why is Orlais half an hour's walk from Ferelden), or limit you to a single area.

It also allows you to create themes and a fairly wide variety in architecture, biosphere, etc. Which, if we were to go towards a greater focus on exploration, is something I think we'd want to do.

You played Skyrim on a console (after PC)? That's awesome. What were the other two games you bought for console, if I might ask? You mentioned Infamous, what was the other one? Let me guess...Demon's Souls? I'm probably wrong, but I love guessing games.

You know...in regard to getting places quickly, you could always incorporate boat travel. I'm sure Isabela (and the great swashbuckler, Cutlass Jack) would be in favor of that...and it would help with immersion.  Maybe just coming up with a way to initially get to a location (then allowing fast travel later) would help with this.

Have you ever taken a look at RAGE? I always enjoyed the town/city environments in it. I'm not sure how to adequately describe it, but it was one game where towns felt alive. The people moved around, their attitudes changed toward the PC based on actions taken, etc. And OMG, side note, you got to drive around a buggy. Seriously, games need more buggies.

[FedericoV]

John Epler wrote...

Does that make sense? 

It does make sense.

One of the best game I've played in the last couple of years is Red Dead Redemption. The game has a tight and focused narrative. It's well written and it captures the spirit of the game and the genre really well (I love spaghetti western). It's not perfect, off course, but it's still very good in my opinion, better than most games. Still, the exploriation of the big and beautifull world, the feeling of getting lost while hunting coughars or bears, was good too. Both part of the experience felt complementary to each other.

Just to say, exploration and storytelling are not at odds. You can have a beautifull storyline and meaningfull exploration. In the better gamea I've played, exploration helps storytelling and viceversa.

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 avril 2012 - 05:53 .

[CENIC]

happy_daiz wrote...

You know...in regard to getting places quickly, you could always incorporate boat travel. I'm sure Isabela (and the great swashbuckler, Cutlass Jack) would be in favor of that...and it would help with immersion.  Maybe just coming up with a way to initially get to a location (then allowing fast travel later) would help with this.

THIS! Especially if it was a way to introduce water-dwelling creatures.

[LolaLei]

Oh man I'd love to be able to travel by boat somewhere! Epic sea battle ahoy!

[Maria Caliban]

John Epler wrote...

It also allows you to create themes and a fairly wide variety in architecture, biosphere, etc. Which, if we were to go towards a greater focus on exploration, is something I think we'd want to do.

Yes. One of the things I liked about Mass Effect 3 was that each of the main planets (Earth, Tuchanka, Thesia, and the Salarian homeworld) had very different architecture and... feel. They did a much better job of conveying each race's style than in previous games.

[PsychoBlonde]

 I think the biggest step you need to take in making the exploration more fun/rewarding/worthwhile/interesting, is to FIX THE MAP.

The hollow silhouette map with its odd, lumpy-shaped rooms that shows you *exactly* the extents of the passable area is terrible for this.  There are a LOT of potential improvements that could be made, from leaving it blacked out until you actually explore that part of the area, to showing the overland in color so it's not immediately obvious where you can go.

Although, sometimes that's helpful, because some of the side paths look exactly like areas of the terrain that are impassible due to invisible walls.

Get rid of the invisible walls, too, and don't have SOME bushes you can walk through and some IDENTICAL bushes that you CANNOT.  By all means take advantage of narrow switchbacks and so forth to hide stuff if that's what you want to do, but you should be able to tell whether something is an obstacle or not just by looking at it.

[AkiKishi]

LolaLei wrote...

Oh man I'd love to be able to travel by boat somewhere! Epic sea battle ahoy!

It's a long way from boat travel to epic sea battles.

[AkiKishi]

PurebredCorn wrote...
Orzammar was the hub. You could return any time after finishing a section. I can see why many people found it tiresome though for the very reasons Mr. Epler suggested. I enjoyed it but I would have found it more enjoyable if there had been some places of beauty like a spectacular view of an intact taig ruin from far away or something similar.

That was the point I was making. You don't return to base camp every time you climb a bit of a mountain. By having to return to base camp it robs you of a sense of progress and makes it a slog.

[LolaLei]

BobSmith101 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Oh man I'd love to be able to travel by boat somewhere! Epic sea battle ahoy!

It's a long way from boat travel to epic sea battles.

I can head canon that part lol. But either way, a cut scene of them travelling by boat (kinda like in the beginning of DA2) would work.

[Dragoonlordz]

FedericoV wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Does that make sense? 

It does make sense.

One of the best game I've played in the last couple of years is Red Dead Redemption. The game has a tight and focused narrative. It's well written and it captures the spirit of the game and the genre really well (I love spaghetti western). It's not perfect, off course, but it's still very good in my opinion, better than most games. Still, the exploriation of the big and beautifull world, the feeling of getting lost while hunting coughars or bears, was good too. Each part of the experience felt complementary to each other.

Just to say, exploration and storytelling are not at odds. You can have a beautifull storyline and meaningfull exploration.

I agree. Also good example to use was RDR. They had created a enjoyable open world which also kept rich and quality scripted story elements. I also enjoyed DA:O approach and thought was good even if could of been done better. Areas that for the most part were open in the locations which allowed for some exploration yet also had an impact on where you go in which order (small impact which is the part where mean't could of been done better having a larger impact). In the end such things have an impact on whether I wish to replay the game. If you use tunnel vision and focus only on the story element using A>B>C approach what I am let with is no desire to play it again. There is nothing more to see, a character personality choice witin a linear story does not appeal to me and was the largest downfall of DA2 for me personally. Though there were many other elements which played a part too.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 avril 2012 - 06:03 .

[TheLion36]

hmmm find this a difficult topic... Exploration always sounds like fun but usually tends to bore me pretty quickly. Open-World games usually annoy me pretty quickly, most of them just feel empty most of the time or you have to travel long distances to get to your quest and you encounter mobs that just slow you down.

I love Skyrim for example when I'm actually on a quest but I hate the long treks required to get there and back again. I am always relieved when I finally discover a place so I can fast-travel there when I need to be in the vacinity and always curse when I have to go somewhere that I can't yet fast-travel to.

I played the demo of Kingdoms of Amalur and it was too big for a single player RPG imho, the first quests sent me all over the map and after walking for aimlessly 15 minutes I gave up on it.

So far I've always enjoyed single player RPGs which had a limited world more than the ones who had large free roam areas. Its personal though and I can imagine people having great fun just roaming around. For me exploration in a single-player RPG has always been limited to checking every room, every corner and every lootable chest for me.

[AkiKishi]

TheLion36 wrote...

I played the demo of Kingdoms of Amalur and it was too big for a single player RPG imho, the first quests sent me all over the map and after walking for aimlessly 15 minutes I gave up on it.

You can always use fast travel. I really liked walking through the brightly coloured areas though, found it relaxing

[CENIC]

BobSmith101 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Oh man I'd love to be able to travel by boat somewhere! Epic sea battle ahoy!

It's a long way from boat travel to epic sea battles.

Sea battles could be another way to introduce a new approach to combat (like the Stealth portion of MotA)

[SeanMurphy2]

Also is there a practical way to improve the sense of exploration within an urban area like Hightown, Denerim or Redcliffe? Or do even Skyrim cities get boring after a while. And eventually you still get bored of looking at the architecture, dynamic npcs, vendors and quest content.



I always wondered how Bioware are so great at creating emotions and attachment to your companion characters and bring them to life. But not as effective in creating emotional feelngs towards a location.

Redcliffe was good. It felt like a functioning community, I cared about the people there and it was a beautiful setting next to the lake.

But also Alistair had his childhood there. So I suppose I could look out onto the lake and imagine him fishing or swimming there as a kid. Or a funny story of him interacting with one of the current townspeople. Or him hiding in the tree after an argument with the Arl's wife.

But it is not feasible to have companions tell endless stories about each location. Or lore dump using codex entries or books.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 11 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Fraevar]

John Epler wrote...

I don't know, I think that the Deep Roads envisioned a little more like the Mines of Moria in LOTRO would be neat. I think the Deep Roads in DA:O suffered from being in a sort of middle-ground - they were too big to serve as a straightforward plot area, but too small to truly feel 'epic'. Though I still did enjoy them - I love underground areas more than most, especially the 'forgotten architecture' feeling.

I think the Deep Roads were great in thematic and story design, actually. But the straight-line gamedesign did do that section a massive disservice. There were a few moments, like at the Gates of Bowzammar where you can stand on the bridge looking into the abyss that felt really profound when I was playing, though. I suppose if you worked more on making the architecture more visible (more detailed texturing, for example) such areas would be more welcome than if it were just tunnels in the rock.