399 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

John Epler wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Since DA isn't final fantasy, exploration can be tricky...there's no need for grinding and there's a smaller bestiary than in games with lots of places to kill things for the sake of killing things...So, there'd need to be a real reason for the exploration or you're just wasting time running from here to there for a sword that's likely not as good as the one you're already slaying things with...

I wouldn't mind if I chose to go to this optional location and there was a side quest...one that wouldn't penalize the game for lack of doing it, but enriches it if I did.

Well, ideally, exploration should be its own reward. In FO3/FO:NV, I still found myself exploring long after I had no more need for any kind of resources (guns, ammo, caps, etc.), because I loved the little stories that I'd find in the various buildings, bunkers and caves. If you make exploration narratively interesting (even if it's no more than a few journal/codex entries and a couple of tableaus suggesting a story), then people will want to do it even if they may not need the experience.

And, of course, if you -do- want to do more exploration, you can certainly build systems that take that into consideration and provide appropriate, non-XP rewards for doing so. Not every cave or dungeon has to be the same level of content, either - Blackreach is an excellent example, as it was significantly more massive than most other caverns. Variety is good, and it helps keep the player engaged.

I totally agree that it doesn't need to be for XP or loot...I actually prefer finding out more lore. I just don't want to take eight minutes to reach a little cabin in the woods, open the door, and find...nothing. Or...a pair of torn pantaloons.

I put weeks of my life into various Civ games and I'd play the largest maps, and uncover every inch of it. Sometimes, you found huts or ruins or resources or little wander nomadic tribes wanting to join you or got a bit of knowledge. I liked that. There was always a point to it, after all. 

I just don't want a lot of places to explore with the only reward being...crappy loot. I guess, that's my point.

[John Epler]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Just started on the Witcher myself today. I love it .
Great graphics, all the little sounds you hear around you and little stuff like pigeons flying up when you approuch them.

But that aside in terms of exploration it doesn't have to mean "to explore 1000 square miles" but when you are in the deep roads for example; in a thaig just being able to enter all the houses there would be nice.
I missed that kind of thing in DA. In kirkwall f.e. there were only a few buildings you could enter (and I know it's been told a thousend times over but) and it was the same layout over and over again.

See, personally, I'd rather a larger space with some 'nonexplorable' houses than a smaller space where I can go into every house. I know what a house looks like - even if it's a different layout, it's still a house. Particularly when it's a house inside of a village or city, the amount of ambient narrative you can do there is going to be a bit limited.

Compared to, say, the countryside of Ferelden. Certainly, I may know where the villages and cities are - but what about those ruins that, when I solved a puzzle, opened to show me a tomb? Even if the tomb is the same size as one of those houses, and contains nothing more than a couple of codex entries and some treasure, I'd still find that more satisfying than 'oh, a house. With people.'

Now, I'm not an artist or level designer, so take this with a grain of salt, but that would be my preferred focus of resources, honestly.

[Takamori The Templar]

Darth Krytie wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Since DA isn't final fantasy, exploration can be tricky...there's no need for grinding and there's a smaller bestiary than in games with lots of places to kill things for the sake of killing things...So, there'd need to be a real reason for the exploration or you're just wasting time running from here to there for a sword that's likely not as good as the one you're already slaying things with...

I wouldn't mind if I chose to go to this optional location and there was a side quest...one that wouldn't penalize the game for lack of doing it, but enriches it if I did.

Well, ideally, exploration should be its own reward. In FO3/FO:NV, I still found myself exploring long after I had no more need for any kind of resources (guns, ammo, caps, etc.), because I loved the little stories that I'd find in the various buildings, bunkers and caves. If you make exploration narratively interesting (even if it's no more than a few journal/codex entries and a couple of tableaus suggesting a story), then people will want to do it even if they may not need the experience.

And, of course, if you -do- want to do more exploration, you can certainly build systems that take that into consideration and provide appropriate, non-XP rewards for doing so. Not every cave or dungeon has to be the same level of content, either - Blackreach is an excellent example, as it was significantly more massive than most other caverns. Variety is good, and it helps keep the player engaged.

I totally agree that it doesn't need to be for XP or loot...I actually prefer finding out more lore. I just don't want to take eight minutes to reach a little cabin in the woods, open the door, and find...nothing. Or...a pair of torn pantaloons.

I put weeks of my life into various Civ games and I'd play the largest maps, and uncover every inch of it. Sometimes, you found huts or ruins or resources or little wander nomadic tribes wanting to join you or got a bit of knowledge. I liked that. There was always a point to it, after all. 

I just don't want a lot of places to explore with the only reward being...crappy loot. I guess, that's my point.

Having crappy loot in a area with new knowledge I see no problem.
It happens that the adventurer instead of finding a Holy Avenger , he will find a smelly boot with a rat inside.

[Darth Krytie]

Takamori The Templar wrote...

Having crappy loot in a area with new knowledge I see no problem.
It happens that the adventurer instead of finding a Holy Avenger , he will find a smelly boot with a rat inside.

As long as it wasn't solely crappy loot, I'm a happy girl. I just like things to be interesting.

[Mmw04014]

I'm not really concerned with if a zone is large or small, but rather that it's interesting and varied.

My main problem with the deep roads in DA2 was that they didn't feel as grand as the deep roads in Origins, which I think was mostly because of all the low ceilings. I didn't particularly like the cave-y feel that the thaigs had in Origins, but at least they were big (not terribly big, but still). Caridan's Cross was perfect in my opinion. It looked dwarven, had big ceilings, and didn't have as much of a cave vibe. I also think Origins was better at tricking me into thinking the map wasn't linear. I don't expect open spaces in story RPGs and I don't really want them. I understand that there is going to be a point A and a point B in any given zone. I just want varied ways to get there. In DA2, there was one way to go and it usually followed a singular, narrow path. Bringing up Cariden's Cross again, there were three or four different pathways that led to Ortan thaig.

So that's really my gripe. Not that any given zone is small or large, but that it has variety and looks like it makes sense.

Modifié par Mmw04014, 11 avril 2012 - 09:39 .

[Fraevar]

John Epler wrote...

See, personally, I'd rather a larger space with some 'nonexplorable' houses than a smaller space where I can go into every house. I know what a house looks like - even if it's a different layout, it's still a house. Particularly when it's a house inside of a village or city, the amount of ambient narrative you can do there is going to be a bit limited.

Compared to, say, the countryside of Ferelden. Certainly, I may know where the villages and cities are - but what about those ruins that, when I solved a puzzle, opened to show me a tomb? Even if the tomb is the same size as one of those houses, and contains nothing more than a couple of codex entries and some treasure, I'd still find that more satisfying than 'oh, a house. With people.'

Now, I'm not an artist or level designer, so take this with a grain of salt, but that would be my preferred focus of resources, honestly.

I think the key to making the larger space with 'nonexplorable' houses work is to simply maintain story momentum on either primary or secondary plotlines. People generally won't feel like they're "missing" the ability to enter every single place if there's enough content to keep sending them to the places they need to go. The trick is disguising the context of whatever quest the player is presented with so they don't automatically assume it's a trap/demon ambush whenever they do get to enter a house, as was the case with most of the DA2 sidequests.

[Blight Nug]

If DA wants to add exploration, I hope they focus on making a handful of areas that have a good level of detail and interesting things to pick up. If they try to imitate skyrim's vast world they will likely fail and give us a huge souless map that doesn't have nearly the amount of detail and back-story that skyrim has.

[AngryFrozenWater]

John Epler wrote...

See, personally, I'd rather a larger space with some 'nonexplorable' houses than a smaller space where I can go into every house. I know what a house looks like - even if it's a different layout, it's still a house. Particularly when it's a house inside of a village or city, the amount of ambient narrative you can do there is going to be a bit limited.

Compared to, say, the countryside of Ferelden. Certainly, I may know where the villages and cities are - but what about those ruins that, when I solved a puzzle, opened to show me a tomb? Even if the tomb is the same size as one of those houses, and contains nothing more than a couple of codex entries and some treasure, I'd still find that more satisfying than 'oh, a house. With people.'

It depends on the game. In Oblivion and Skyrim nearly all houses are explorable. But that was a side effect of two other game features. One has to do with the idea that in TES games NPCs have their own little lives. They eat, sleep, travel, etc. To sleep they need a bed and thus all of them have one, usually in a house. This is supposed to give the illusion of a living world.  The other has to do with allowing thieves to steal. Having lots of houses gives the thief class opportunities. So in TES games that also allows you to explore houses, but that is obviously not its main purpose. Just my two cents.

Edit: Maybe there is another difference between TES and BW games. In TES games the open world is the stage on which the stories play. The world also allows Radient AI/Radient Story. In BW games the stages are specifically build for each story and thus these do not have to accomodate anything else.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[NedPepper]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

I agree.  I think what worked in Origins is that you had a number of HUBs you where you could explore, talk to NPCs, etc.  I do think once you're starting a mission, so to speak, the exploration should't be overelaborate.  You end up losing focus on the plot and the mission itself.  One thing Origins did well is that it had, between all the missions, areas you could explore.   Orzamaar, the Dalish Camp, Denerim, Ostagar, Lothering.  It gave you a chance to interact with the world, do the mission, and then go back to ineracting again.  It's a fine line, but I think Origins got the closest to it.  The problem with Kirkwall is that ulitmately is that it was just too limiting.  (I get the rationale behind it, but going forward, to see more of Thedas, we need to be able to roam a bit around all these wonderful different cities and cultures.

Just not in a sandbox, lose the plot way.

[the_one_54321]

If you explore a very large underground network, and cannot exit it unless you go all the way through or turn back, one of the easiest (and I'd argue one of the best) ways to break up monotony, and encourage players to fully explore, is to set up minor plot triggers in various places. So, when you enter a certain tomb (or whatever), you cut to dialogs or cut scenes that happen only in this place.

[esper]

I have come to the conclusion that I would have liked the deep road a lot better if I could have accessed the camp map from the Deep Road mini-map. As it were I felt that I would cheat if I went out in the world map and camped after all I was suppossed to go deeper and and deeper into the deep roads and such it felt like and eternally long quest that became the one where I often lost interest.

And I don't think we should be able to barge into every house in a city. After all we do not have the option to be regular thieves like we have in the sandbox games, so bargain in to every house would feel weird. With the way things are in Thedas, I would assume that most have the sense to at least attempt to lock their door.

[Sylvius the Mad]

John Epler wrote...

See, personally, I'd rather a larger space with some 'nonexplorable' houses than a smaller space where I can go into every house. I know what a house looks like - even if it's a different layout, it's still a house. Particularly when it's a house inside of a village or city, the amount of ambient narrative you can do there is going to be a bit limited.

I'm inclined to agree.  If there are 12 houses in a row, I don't need to be able to enter 12 houses and find most of them empty.  But if I can enter three of them, and in those three find a significant NPC, an item that opens a quest, and a minor encounter, that would be great.

That abstracts repetitive exploration and distills it down to the interesting buits, while still allowing the player to explore areas where he doesn't know what he's going to find.

Something BioWare has done recently (especially in DA2) is only allow the party to enter a house if the player knows exctly why they're going there and what the expect to find.  A door doesn't become openable until there's a relevant journal entry telling the player to open it.  And that's no good at all.

The player should not simply be following the game's instructions and going where the game tells him to go.  The player should be able to have his character investigate things for his own reasons, even if the game doesn't know what those reasons are.

[John Epler]

esper wrote...

I have come to the conclusion that I would have liked the deep road a lot better if I could have accessed the camp map from the Deep Road mini-map. As it were I felt that I would cheat if I went out in the world map and camped after all I was suppossed to go deeper and and deeper into the deep roads and such it felt like and eternally long quest that became the one where I often lost interest.

And I don't think we should be able to barge into every house in a city. After all we do not have the option to be regular thieves like we have in the sandbox games, so bargain in to every house would feel weird. With the way things are in Thedas, I would assume that most have the sense to at least attempt to lock their door.

It works well in Skyrim and similar games (for many of the reasons that AFW stated), but it always felt a little odd in JRPGs when I'd just start breaking into every house in town, stealing their items and having them tell me the very personal problems that were afflicting them at that moment. It's a genre convention, and it works for the genre - but I always wanted someone to tell me off for doing it.

I liked the way Earthbound handled it - you couldn't go into every house, but you could knock on the door and they'd have a line. Still, the overall style of the game worked for it in that regard, as it really did enjoy playing with the fact that it was a video game, and some of the characters even seemed to be aware of this fact.

[Takamori The Templar]

Oh observation that I would like to add.
No bloody arrow pointing where I should go, I know how to read for god sake -.-

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If you explore a very large underground network, and cannot exit it unless you go all the way through or turn back, one of the easiest (and I'd argue one of the best) ways to break up monotony, and encourage players to fully explore, is to set up minor plot triggers in various places. So, when you enter a certain tomb (or whatever), you cut to dialogs or cut scenes that happen only in this place.

I'd suggest that you allow the party to leave part way through.

Now, games tend to offer a big dungeon where all the minor plots get wrapped up before the big plot, and the big plot is completed by a large event at the end of the dungeon, and once you've done that you've done everything in the dungeon.

Why?

Instead, have the big plot get wrapped up part way through the dungeon, and offer an easy exit from there, rendering the rest of the dungeon optional.  But some minor quests - even quests that started in that very dungeon - might require visits to the rest of the dungeon, the bit the player who is nly doing the main plot won't ever see.

A good example of this is the dungeon Hythloth in Ultima IX.  The main reason to be there goes away right before an available exit, but just before that there are plot hooks for the rest of the dungeon (which doesn't strictly need to be visited at all, but it's still there if you want to look around).

[the_one_54321]

John Epler wrote...
It works well in Skyrim and similar games (for many of the reasons that AFW stated), but it always felt a little odd in JRPGs when I'd just start breaking into every house in town, stealing their items and having them tell me the very personal problems that were afflicting them at that moment. It's a genre convention, and it works for the genre - but I always wanted someone to tell me off for doing it.

I agree that the "I can go into any stranger's house without consequence" approach has played out its usefulness in games. Not that you shouldn't be allowed to enter all places, but the world should react or restrict in a way that makes sense.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 11 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'd suggest that you allow the party to leave part way through.

Now, games tend to offer a big dungeon where all the minor plots get wrapped up before the big plot, and the big plot is completed by a large event at the end of the dungeon, and once you've done that you've done everything in the dungeon.

Why?

Why not both? A game should have more than one sub-quest.

[John Epler]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

If you explore a very large underground network, and cannot exit it unless you go all the way through or turn back, one of the easiest (and I'd argue one of the best) ways to break up monotony, and encourage players to fully explore, is to set up minor plot triggers in various places. So, when you enter a certain tomb (or whatever), you cut to dialogs or cut scenes that happen only in this place.

I'd suggest that you allow the party to leave part way through.

Now, games tend to offer a big dungeon where all the minor plots get wrapped up before the big plot, and the big plot is completed by a large event at the end of the dungeon, and once you've done that you've done everything in the dungeon.

Why?

Instead, have the big plot get wrapped up part way through the dungeon, and offer an easy exit from there, rendering the rest of the dungeon optional.  But some minor quests - even quests that started in that very dungeon - might require visits to the rest of the dungeon, the bit the player who is nly doing the main plot won't ever see.

A good example of this is the dungeon Hythloth in Ultima IX.  The main reason to be there goes away right before an available exit, but just before that there are plot hooks for the rest of the dungeon (which doesn't strictly need to be visited at all, but it's still there if you want to look around).

To be fair, Hythloth was that way because people found it to be too difficult - so they let you skip out halfway through. Originally, you would've needed to do the whole thing. Which doesn't really negate your point, of course. And, I may be misremembering - it's been a while since I read that article.

[Brockololly]

John Epler wrote...
The problem with the Deep Roads is that, if we did them the same way as we did in DA:O, making them longer wouldn't really solve anything. However, there's certainly room for unique spaces, just like out on the surface. I admit to bias, though - since I read the Ted the Caver stories a long time ago, the idea of 'what do we -really- know about what happens underground' has intrigued me. Particularly since the Deep Roads have been, in parts, lost for a lengthy period of time - if you keep it from being repetitive corridors and you make it narratively interesting (Skyrim does this very well in some of their 'non-plot' caves, as does STALKER), you can make it fun. And you can, of course, have opportunities to rest/recuperate or return to the surface, but done logically (something Fallout:NV does very well)

Agreed. I know people like to moan about how long the Deep Roads in Origins were, but a.) you could leave at anytime and b.) Its supposed to be long! Especially being a Warden, the Deep Roads are supposed to a bit of a grind as you descend into the heart of darkness basically. So the actual gameplay experience matched what we had heard about the Deep Roads from the lore and narrative- thats good!

The problem I had with DA2's Deep Roads was that the whole expedition was hyped up as some big deal and you're in and out in about 30 minutes. The narrative build up didn't match the actual gameplay experience.

Beyond that, I think a more realistic and dynamic lighting system would make the Deep Roads (and the whole game) about 100000X more atmospheric and immersive. In Origins and DA2, the Deep Roads feel more like a Disney theme park version of a cave, not an actual ruined cave system. Its too damn bright. Dark buildings and the tunnel systems in STALKER are terrifying because its genuinely dark and you can't see. Let us use torches or Mage lights like you can in Skyrim.

John Epler wrote...
Not every cave or dungeon has to be the same level of  content, either - Blackreach is an excellent example, as it was  significantly more massive than most other caverns. Variety is good, and it helps keep the player engaged.

Blackreach is awesome for many reasons, but most of the dungeons in Skyrim are great, especially coming off of Oblivion. I recall Todd Howard saying in some interview that their goal was to have every dungeon have one "hook" that people would remember. And thats been my experience with Skyrim- I love exploring because  I know that each dungeon I 'll find is going to be new and unique, even if its not some massive dungeon. I remember some Skyrim dungeons were just one or two rooms, but each one had something memorable, whether via ambient storytelling or the design of the dungeon itself.

John Epler wrote...
See, personally, I'd rather a larger space with some 'nonexplorable' houses  than a smaller space where I can go into every house. I know what a  house looks like - even if it's a different layout, it's still a house.  Particularly when it's a house inside of a village or city, the amount  of ambient narrative you can do there is going to be a bit limited.

Eh...yes and no. Having lots of houses to go in makes the world feel more real. So maybe some of the houses are mundane but you can still do plenty of ambient storytelling in a house with the people living there, especially if you give the inhabitants actual routines and lives. Like one house in Skyrim in Markarth: seems like a normal house but then you realize its got a Daedric shrine down below and next thing you know you've got a Daedric prince talking to you and objects flying all over the place. If every house or location had some big huge thing in them like that, it doesn't feel as special. Like Skyrim's dungeons, locations just need to have something memorable, but that need not be anything super resource intensive. Like one shack you can find in Skyrim with a lone dog and a dead guy laying on the bed. You read the journal by his bed and it chronicles the guy's slow illness with Rockjoint and how he's worried his dog will be all alone. I probably felt more emotion in that one little bit of ambient storytelling than most entire games.

John Epler wrote...
Compared to, say, the countryside of Ferelden. Certainly, I may know where the  villages and cities are - but what about those ruins that, when I solved a puzzle, opened to show me a tomb? Even if the tomb is the same size  as one of those houses, and contains nothing more than a couple of codex entries and some treasure, I'd still find that more satisfying than  'oh, a house. With people.'

Again, have the tomb hidden underneath the house with people! Exploration in a city should be just as satisfying as exploring the countryside.

Modifié par Brockololly, 11 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[esper]

John Epler wrote...

esper wrote...

I have come to the conclusion that I would have liked the deep road a lot better if I could have accessed the camp map from the Deep Road mini-map. As it were I felt that I would cheat if I went out in the world map and camped after all I was suppossed to go deeper and and deeper into the deep roads and such it felt like and eternally long quest that became the one where I often lost interest.

And I don't think we should be able to barge into every house in a city. After all we do not have the option to be regular thieves like we have in the sandbox games, so bargain in to every house would feel weird. With the way things are in Thedas, I would assume that most have the sense to at least attempt to lock their door.

It works well in Skyrim and similar games (for many of the reasons that AFW stated), but it always felt a little odd in JRPGs when I'd just start breaking into every house in town, stealing their items and having them tell me the very personal problems that were afflicting them at that moment. It's a genre convention, and it works for the genre - but I always wanted someone to tell me off for doing it.

I liked the way Earthbound handled it - you couldn't go into every house, but you could knock on the door and they'd have a line. Still, the overall style of the game worked for it in that regard, as it really did enjoy playing with the fact that it was a video game, and some of the characters even seemed to be aware of this fact.

Nothing like going through someones dresser and taking their jewely or even clothes and then being told how awesome your are because you gave them a weed (Which only cost you one 1 currency)...

[the_one_54321]

esper wrote...
Nothing like going through someones dresser and taking their jewely or even clothes and then being told how awesome your are because you gave them a weed (Which only cost you one 1 currency)...

I ripped off every list object of value in Redcliff castle. Eamon still insisted on making me the champion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

John Epler wrote...

To be fair, Hythloth was that way because people found it to be too difficult - so they let you skip out halfway through. Originally, you would've needed to do the whole thing. Which doesn't really negate your point, of course. And, I may be misremembering - it's been a while since I read that article.

The puzzle to get to the second half of the dungeon was diabolically challenging, I'll admit.  That wasn't a good feature.

Regardless of why they built the dungeon like that, they ended up with a terrific dungeon.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 avril 2012 - 10:04 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Painting a picture of a door on a wall, without the ability to open or close it is still just a wall and not a door. This kind or irritates me slightly in games. Feels like a lack of effort. If they could be knocked on and someone answers even if does not let you in, while every few doors knock on one will open would be fine but when every single door bar a couple per area is just painting on a wall or nothing happens, it gets very annoying... Again it goes back to this, part of the immersion within the world vs limitation to some characters within that world. The former is good the latter is the biggest downside to Biowares recent titles.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 avril 2012 - 10:11 .