399 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

That map leaves out the tunnel area that has a large loop and branch areas, and hides the fact that the connection I'd all the individual lump areas (Thaigs) by the tunnels creates a great deal of open exploration where transitions are managed from the overworld (underworld) map.

[Yrkoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

I don't know if I would call it a bug but more of a exploit. Since using the the bucket obstructs the NPC's sight so you can steal willy nilly.

But that comes with the territory of those games. Finding a some strange thing that the devs and QA team just never thought about or could of fixed. These sorts of things happen in games so large and diverse like Skyrim. I still remember in Daggerfall being able to wait inside a store till night and the shopkeep would leave. So I could take everything I wanted and then sell it back to him in the morning.

I'd still technically call it a bug but that will just turn into a semantic argument and doesn't do much.  I think we can agree it probably wasn't what the system designer envisioned.

I'm with Addiction21 here.  It's not a bug at all, especially since often times when you attempt to do what's on that video, the shopkeeper will usually be completely aware that you've got his bucket in your hands and he'll yell out "hey, put that down!"  or  "what are you doing that for?" 

 But sure,  it's probably not what the system designer envisioned.  But then again, that just makes it like a good D&D session.  Ask any DM if their sessions with Gamers go as they "planned" them to go.  100% of them will say:  NOPE.    Hardly ever.     Give players an inch of freedom  and they will  ALWAYS find a way to think outside the box.  That's what makes games like skyrim so friggin fun.   But to tie this into the thread subject,  Exploration, good exploration, has precisely that element of player freedom.   Example: you see a Castle in the distance.  Who says you have to use the front gate?  A good game will allow you to survey the surrounding area,  and perhaps notice that there's a boulder up against  the left-side wall of the castle.  So you decide to climb the boulder, scale the wall, and enter through the upstairs balcony.    I'm sure the designers  (and the story tellers) 'envisioned' you going through the front gate instead, but oh well, we made it inside anyway, using our own brand of smarts....

A good fantasy RPG should always let you do that kind of stuff.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2012 - 12:09 .

[Sidney]

simfamSP wrote...

Well, I see your point, but even you are saying that the concept of exploration can be done in ways *you* prefer. Weather BioWare would actually cater to that preference is debatable.

And no, TES and BG's exploration is not the same. BG1 gave you plot coherent areas to explore, while TES, the exploration *is* the plot.

And as for Skyrim, what I'm trying to say that a plot *can* be done. It doesn't matter if the story is crap, weak, or great. All that matters is that Skyrim managed to create a solid narrative through-out that huge world.

Yes BG1 gave you a reason to go to Firewine Bridge or Nashkell Mines while TES games almost never give you a reason to go anywhere other than "kill everything inside". You are correct. I think the original Fallout and FO2 did this even better - there was a plot pulling you forward and a plot you cared about.

The difference in FO1/2 and FO3 or TES games is that FO had plot "places" (cities) and not a lot in between other than random encounters. I don't know that it was exploration based as opposed to "open". I have no issue with an FO type games but I just don't want to see the plot get lost in a raft of generic dungeons that serve no point other than grinding. Heck, I'd rather lose all the fetch quests in favor of one decently devekoped side quest.

[Yrkoon]

Sidney wrote...


Yes BG1 gave you a reason to go to Firewine Bridge or Nashkell Mines while TES games almost never give you a reason to go anywhere other than "kill everything inside". You are correct. I think the original Fallout and FO2 did this even better - there was a plot pulling you forward and a plot you cared about.

Wait... what?  Not sure how you can say that ES games don't give you a reason to go exploring, but at the same time argue that BG1  does.     To illustrate the absurdity of such a claim, lets use your examples.    BG1's   Firewine Bridge. In fact, there's only ONE quest related to the Firewine bridge,   and it's given to you by the Mayor of a Halfling village  that you have absolutely no reason to visit in the first place. And that quest is... wait for it... to go and kill everything inside.

How is that different from how the elder scrolls does it? Oh yeah. It's NOT. It's literally the same. Exactly the same.

Ditto with the Naskell mines.  That's part of BG1's main plot, in the same way that Bleak Falls Barrow is part of  Skyrim's main plot.  In both cases you are  asked to go to the aforementioned dungeons and   kill the troublemaker(s) contained within.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2012 - 12:46 .

[slimgrin]

Two games I'd mention that would find the right balance for exploration in a Bioware game are Ego Draconis and Arkham City. Both nailed it while still being plot driven.

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[Yrkoon]

Bioware doesn't really need to look far  to find a good balance formula. They've *done* decent exploration in their games in the past while still maintaining a tight storyline. BG1, BG2, Neverwinter Nights.  The first two had fantastic stories.  And BG1's story  actually benefitted a great deal from exploration, because you got to travel the land and witness the results/effects of the Iron Shortage first hand. I don't understand what the problem is. Almost no one here is asking for Elder Scrolls-level free roam. We just want something a little more open than...well.. what we got for Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Exploration is an unfortunate blight on CRPGs. Well, it's OK in non-story based RPGs, though still pretty silly.

Exploration can be part of the story.  Ultima VII is a perfect example.  The plot opens with a murder mystery that needs to be solved, but the game offers no roadmap telling the player how to solve it.

Following up on clues and leads is one thing.  Randomly wandering the wilderness in the expectation that adventure will happen is another.

Absolutely.  Is anyone asking for random wandering?

BG wasn't great because you could wander randomly.  BG was great because virtually any reaction to plot events was supported by the game's design.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sidney wrote...
DAO had about the right level of having an "area" to visit but not being stuck just wandering about hoping to kill something random for no good reason.

Totally disagree. The Deep Roads were the only part of the game that had any decent exploration. The rest of the game wasn't really exploring.

Deep Roades weren't exploring, they were one long dungeon crawl.

The Brecillian Woods were exploration and then the temple was the dungeon to my mind to explain my thinking on things.

Your ADD kick in? You must have loved ME3 then with it's 5x5 mission zones.

[John Epler]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sidney wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sidney wrote...
DAO had about the right level of having an "area" to visit but not being stuck just wandering about hoping to kill something random for no good reason.

Totally disagree. The Deep Roads were the only part of the game that had any decent exploration. The rest of the game wasn't really exploring.

Deep Roades weren't exploring, they were one long dungeon crawl.

The Brecillian Woods were exploration and then the temple was the dungeon to my mind to explain my thinking on things.

Your ADD kick in? You must have loved ME3 then with it's 5x5 mission zones.

This? This is entirely unnecessary.

Others are allowed to have different opinions than you.

[DahliaLynn]

Personally I think the reason why the Deep Roads became such an issue is because once you got past a certain point, there was no turning back, so basically you were stuck there until you solved the quest. Had there been "side exits" or a way to leave and return easily, I doubt the deep roads would have been such a "drag".

I personally enjoyed the deep roads, loved being forced to complete a quest because it felt realistic. No metagaming escapes in between. I felt the anxiety of not being able to get out, having to move forward with whatever I had left. This for me, felt like a challenging adventure not to be forgotten.

What could have helped, was better level design for when you actually could go back to Orzammar, instead of running all the way back from where you came. Those were definitely long annoying hauls.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 16 avril 2012 - 05:18 .

[Sidney]

Yrkoon wrote...
Wait... what?  Not sure how you can say that ES games don't give you a reason to go exploring, but at the same time argue that BG1  does.     To illustrate the absurdity of such a claim, lets use your examples.    BG1's   Firewine Bridge. In fact, there's only ONE quest related to the Firewine bridge,   and it's given to you by the Mayor of a Halfling village  that you have absolutely no reason to visit in the first place. And that quest is... wait for it... to go and kill everything inside.

How is that different from how the elder scrolls does it? Oh yeah. It's NOT. It's literally the same. Exactly the same.

Ditto with the Naskell mines.  That's part of BG1's main plot, in the same way that Bleak Falls Barrow is part of  Skyrim's main plot.  In both cases you are  asked to go to the aforementioned dungeons and   kill the troublemaker(s) contained within.

The difference, mainly, being that there are 300 places in skyrim and 290 of them are worthless generic non-plot dungeons.  Yea, another drauger barrow! 

[Sidney]

simfamSP wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Sidney wrote...


Yes BG1 gave you a reason to go to Firewine Bridge or Nashkell Mines while TES games almost never give you a reason to go anywhere other than "kill everything inside". You are correct. I think the original Fallout and FO2 did this even better - there was a plot pulling you forward and a plot you cared about.

Wait... what?  Not sure how you can say that ES games don't give you a reason to go exploring, but at the same time argue that BG1  does.     To illustrate the absurdity of such a claim, lets use your examples.    BG1's   Firewine Bridge. In fact, there's only ONE quest related to the Firewine bridge,   and it's given to you by the Mayor of a Halfling village  that you have absolutely no reason to visit in the first place. And that quest is... wait for it... to go and kill everything inside.

How is that different from how the elder scrolls does it? Oh yeah. It's NOT. It's literally the same. Exactly the same.

Ditto with the Naskell mines.  That's part of BG1's main plot, in the same way that Bleak Falls Barrow is part of  Skyrim's main plot.  In both cases you are  asked to go to the aforementioned dungeons and   kill the troublemaker(s) contained within.

When a person hates TES because they think it's dumb, then there is no going back I'm afriad too bad, they're great games.

They're just lousy role playing games unless (and for soooooo many people here this is true and why they are loved) role playing is about character leveling/game mechanics and not story and world interaction - Skyrim for me is WoW for one person. Anytime I can play a game for dozens of hours w/o ever having character interaction it has missed the mark of developing a character - and in Skyrim you can just walk off into the woods and go on a massive killing spree for no reason.  The CoD types who play Skyrim but not DAO or ME all say the same thing about the differnece - in Skyrim you don't have to fiddle about with all that dialog. They're right and that is what makes the game wrong.

[Pzykozis]

Sidney wrote...
The difference, mainly, being that there are 300 places in skyrim and 290 of them are worthless generic non-plot dungeons.  Yea, another drauger barrow! 

I'm sorry you hate fun. I wish more games had as wide reaching exploration as a TES game, it's a shame.

[Sidney]

Pzykozis wrote...

Sidney wrote...
The difference, mainly, being that there are 300 places in skyrim and 290 of them are worthless generic non-plot dungeons.  Yea, another drauger barrow! 

I'm sorry you hate fun. I wish more games had as wide reaching exploration as a TES game, it's a shame.

Grinding <> fun. I don't like killing dozens of trash mobs over and over for no reason.

[SteveGarbage]

I enjoy exploration. I enjoy seeing something in the distance and going to check it out. I like that about Elder Scrolls and I bought the short game Dear Esther just for it.

However, I don't want a big zone that is 95 percent empty. I play Old Republic and one thing I hate about it is speedering or running across open expanses with nothing interesting or useful in them. Video gaming is by far my favorite hobby, but with a full time job and a wife, I don't get a lot of time to play. So if I have to spend 10 of my 60 minutes of play time moving within a zone that is needlessly large, that annoys me.

An environment should only be as big as needed to support the content within it. Obviously I don't want short, linear segments that are bland (Dragon Age 2), but likewise I don't want giant open plains of Voss (Old Republic) that are enormously devoid of useful stuff.

It's a balancing act. But I'd appreciate it if the next game doesn't have big environments for the sake of being big.

[Maria Caliban]

Sometimes size matters and bigger is better.

When Wrath of the Lich King came out, I decided to start a new character (n. elf druid because they have sneaking) and explore every zone and sub-zone. For me, that type of exploration is fun: sneaking past enemies that can one hit kill me, running naked in to Orgrimmar, figuring out how to make it into the harder to reach areas.

I also enjoyed that aspect in Morrowind, which was the first open-world game I'd played. The first time I played, I didn't realize there was a map, so I spent hours wander around. Searching various nooks and crannies or watching rain drops hit puddles of swamp water.

Neither Oblivion, Fallout: NV, or any other open-world game gave me that feeling until Skyrim came along.

To me, that feeling of expansiveness is worth the $60 price tag, whether or not it serves the greater needs of an RPG.

I totally get how others might find that boring. I love hiking in the woods. My friend hates nature and would rather spend her time at a spa. Different stokes.

Sidney wrote...

The CoD types who play Skyrim but not DAO or ME all say the same thing about the differnece - in Skyrim you don't have to fiddle about with all that dialog. They're right and that is what makes the game wrong.

I know 'CoD type' is the go to insult on the BioBoards, but at least use it in a way that makes sense. Call of Duty is a linear shooter where you follow a single predetermined path from one cutscene to the next, and the majority of people buy it as much for the multiplayer as the single player game. Skyrim is an open-world sandbox RPG where you can ignore the main quest for over 100 hours. And yes, there is dialogue.


The association of Skyrim with CoD types makes no sense.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

I don't like killing dozens of trash mobs over and over for no reason.

If there's no reason, then don't do it.

[TEWR]

slimgrin wrote...

Two games I'd mention that would find the right balance for exploration in a Bioware game are Ego Draconis and Arkham City. Both nailed it while still being plot driven.

I'd cite FFXII as a great one to look at, as the whole world is connected.

I actually think there's plenty the DA series can take from that game specifically, regarding gameplay/mechanics/environments.

*expects heavy amounts of "You suggest they look at a JRPG?!?! Keep that **** out of my games!! I'm not interested in whatever argument you put forth in support of such a claim"*

[HiroVoid]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Two games I'd mention that would find the right balance for exploration in a Bioware game are Ego Draconis and Arkham City. Both nailed it while still being plot driven.

I'd cite FFXII as a great one to look at, as the whole world is connected.

I actually think there's plenty the DA series can take from that game specifically, regarding gameplay/mechanics/environments.

*expects heavy amounts of "You suggest they look at a JRPG?!?! Keep that **** out of my games!! I'm not interested in whatever argument you put forth in support of such a claim"*

FFXII sucked!  I went outside, and I got killed in one hit by some dinosaur thing!  There's a difference between hard and impossible!!!

[Realmzmaster]

I would like someone to define for me what is a CoD type? Is there something inherently wrong with people who like to play that type of game and have fun especially the multi-player?

It is not my preference, but I have watch my son-in-law and daughter with friends engage in multi-player combat and they have a great deal of fun. They work as a team which involves intelligent thought last time I checked.
They also work offline improving their skills and their characters. If CoD type is meant as an insult (much like console player) it falls very flat. The gamers my son-in-law games with run the gamut from doctors to factory workers. All have one goal in mind that is having fun. Nothing wrong with that.

[Pzykozis]

Sidney wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

Sidney wrote...
The difference, mainly, being that there are 300 places in skyrim and 290 of them are worthless generic non-plot dungeons.  Yea, another drauger barrow! 

I'm sorry you hate fun. I wish more games had as wide reaching exploration as a TES game, it's a shame.

Grinding <> fun. I don't like killing dozens of trash mobs over and over for no reason.

Grinding != Exploration. But I was just playing. I love climbing up a mountain to look over the world mabye battle a dragon on top and then run around exploring dungeons, it's not about the enemies its about the world itself and in the game.