311 réponses à ce sujet

[ajbry]

Despite being hopeful for (any) news at E3, it appears that there's still some room for brainstorming. Given that DA3 is likely to span across many territories in Thedas, some lengthy outdoor exploration would be appropriate and fun. Picture this: you need to traverse a mass expanse of land and there's no cutscene or implied loading screen that accomplishes it. I would love for it to resemble the role of the Deep Roads in Origins -- a long, arduous journey that forces you to stockpile supplies beforehand and bring along your strongest party.

You could pass through a forest (doesn't have to be exceptionally large, like Brecilian Forest) and end up in a more open area (such as the desert in Legacy). You may find a highway of sorts, navigate through some hills, walk along the shores of a sea, stumble through a treacherous marsh, and so forth. Basically, the terrain can be constituted in any number of ways.

Some of my favorite moments in games have been the result of feeling stranded, or knowing that you've got to trudge along and reach civilization for your mission to continue. There are plenty of interesting outdoor environments in the DA universe, and the dearth of these trips in DA2 was disappointing.

[Wulfram]

Eh, no thanks. I quite like walking through the countryside in real life, but not so much in computer games

[ajbry]

That's an oversimplification, and it's not a leisurely stroll. Integrate the journey into the main quest -- it'll be a good opportunity for the game to split up the repetition of urban questing and grant the player some agency in actually reaching their next destination.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

There maybe more locations but I don't think DA 3 would have that some lengthy outdoor exploration. The only reason you get to "explore" is when the plot demand you to do so. Even so, you're limited to walking along the corridor completely railroaded to a destination specified by the plot. You are not free to venture freely like in Skyrim. Even the villages and cities would barely populated with people. You may get few npcs doing their daily tasks but much of them just stand there for display. BioWare current engine simply doesn't support a lot of activities in a location.

[AkiKishi]

I enjoyed walking around KOA just because I could. When I walk through Faria in WKC I can almost smell the sakura.

Not sure how I'd feel about trudging through combat encounters. If it's a bleak featureless sort of place it could get quite tedious.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Less wandering around randomly, more go to places purposefully, ok, thanks, bye.

[Dakota Strider]

Yes to much more outdoors. Every open glade does not need to be a place for a battle. We spent far too much time in the city and in dungeons already. And the outdoor maps in DA2 were little more than dungeouns, since you could not leave the paths. I liked how the first Baldur's Gate broke up the region in segments, and let you explore each one, and when you looked at the worldview map, you could see what parts of the world you had travelled through and explored.

[MichaelStuart]

I would prefer having to walk everywhere. Makes the game more interesting.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer having to walk everywhere. Makes the game more interesting.

You mean walk as opposed to run or walk as opposed to quick travel ? 

I think it really depends on the design of the game. While you could walk from one end of the world to the other in Final FantasyXII,Xenoblade and WKC to actually do so without ever using quick travel would be VERY time consuming indeed. You would also level out far too quickly and break the curve simply by hacking your way through the stuff along your path.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 juin 2012 - 07:07 .

[ajbry]

@sjpelkessjpeler: I agree with your overall point, and you're right to note the distinction between DA and open-world games. However -- and perhaps I didn't make this clear in my initial post -- I don't want to conflate open-world exploration with outdoor exploration. What I'd ideally like to see is a quest that is based on you and your party trekking through the world itself, with the purpose of reaching the next urban hub. In that format, you'd be able to enclose a number of the environments and retain the survival element and the feeling that nature is inescapable.

Maybe the best way I can put it: You've completed the first stage of the game and to move the story forward, you must get to Orlais. So, the journey itself becomes a quest. Think of the Deep Roads and the various sections within it -- it'd be the same concept. You first enter a forest, then a more open area perhaps with a highway, and then the last location is on the shores. Or, of course, any variation of that. Not open-world, but simply the need to grapple with the world and its landscape.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Less wandering around randomly, more go to places purposefully, ok, thanks, bye.

All places are places we can go purposefully.  But I'd like to decide which places I visit and for what purpose.

You'd only be wandering randomly if you chose to wander randomly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ajbry wrote...

@sjpelkessjpeler: I agree with your overall point, and you're right to note the distinction between DA and open-world games. However -- and perhaps I didn't make this clear in my initial post -- I don't want to conflate open-world exploration with outdoor exploration. What I'd ideally like to see is a quest that is based on you and your party trekking through the world itself, with the purpose of reaching the next urban hub. In that format, you'd be able to enclose a number of the environments and retain the survival element and the feeling that nature is inescapable.

This is important, and I agree entirely.  To get from point A to point B, we should have to travel from point A to point B, not just select our destination from a map and magically appear there.

DAO did this well with the Deep Roads.  Even though there was only one path to follow, we still had to follow it.  DAO also did this badly above ground - to go to Denerim you just selected Denerim from the map and were suddenly there.

Let us stumble upon content on the way to somewhere else, and I don't mean you should script encounters to interrupt a journey.  Let us take the journey, and if we find something interesting along the way we can stop.

[Wulfram]

I'd prefer to "magically" appear at our destination, personally. With perhaps a brief cutscene and/or indiana jones map thingy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I'd prefer to "magically" appear at our destination, personally. With perhaps a brief cutscene and/or indiana jones map thingy.

I wouldn't object to being able to do that once we've visited that place before, but I'd like to have the option to walk the route every time.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

So, with your reply I think that you agree on my point that there has to be more exploration in DA overall?

I would like exploration content throughout the game world, yes. 

And that you should get the chance to walk the area yourself or that you can fasttravel if you as a player do not want that?

If the player can fasttravel even the first time, and never walk the path manually, then the devs won't put any meaningful content along that path.  They won't make content most players won't see.

So, no, I don't think the game should allow us to frasttravel to a location the first time we travel there.

The deep roads are roads made in the rocks, connected by underground caves so the 'open feel' is much lesser than the world above. There could have been more of a maze like map that led you to more areas f.e.
Since the darkspawn do/did some digging of their own and they overtook most of the deep roads there can be much more tunnels that split from the dwarven made roads. There are some already but it felt limited for me.

Certainly the Deep Roads could have been even better, but they were the best open exporation content in the game.

The only comparable above-ground exploration was in the Korcari Wilds.

[AkiKishi]

ajbry wrote...

@sjpelkessjpeler: I agree with your overall point, and you're right to note the distinction between DA and open-world games. However -- and perhaps I didn't make this clear in my initial post -- I don't want to conflate open-world exploration with outdoor exploration. What I'd ideally like to see is a quest that is based on you and your party trekking through the world itself, with the purpose of reaching the next urban hub. In that format, you'd be able to enclose a number of the environments and retain the survival element and the feeling that nature is inescapable.

Maybe the best way I can put it: You've completed the first stage of the game and to move the story forward, you must get to Orlais. So, the journey itself becomes a quest. Think of the Deep Roads and the various sections within it -- it'd be the same concept. You first enter a forest, then a more open area perhaps with a highway, and then the last location is on the shores. Or, of course, any variation of that. Not open-world, but simply the need to grapple with the world and its landscape.

Way point system should work. You need to get there to activate it before it can be used. Likewise you can easily block access for story moments. Game developers will be wary of anything that may trap the part though. Players hate that kind of stuff if they have to reload right from the very start of the trek because they saved themselves into a corner.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I'd prefer to "magically" appear at our destination, personally. With perhaps a brief cutscene and/or indiana jones map thingy.

See your point of view. To each his own I guess. You want to get there fast; I would like to explore a bit and take a stroll along the countryside.

Would be great if both things would be possible.

Not really a problem as long as you don't mind passing up whatever goodies/xp were on offer.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 juin 2012 - 10:03 .

[deuce985]

Nah. I've seen this formula used a lot in older games and it doesn't work well for the most part. This is where you end up going through multiple areas without interruption with a cinematic and it causes major pacing problems, especially focused so heavily on story like Dragon Age. JRPGs use this formula a lot and it's annoying. They'll have a scene for the main story, then you end up going through a giant forest, then to the coast, then to sea without much story along the way. It's several hours of gameplay that's tedious and causes MAJOR pacing issues.

Open world games like Skyrim also suffer this problem. Skyrim has very little story and it's about exploration., If this is what you're implying the game to be more like, it's likely wishful thinking. This franchise will not be going in that direction anytime soon, IMO.

Now if you said something like Witcher 2, which has a hub and everything is spread out around the hub, that might work. Witcher 2 was open enough but never was it big enough to take away from the story. It felt open world, yet everything was compact too. Does that make sense?

Modifié par deuce985, 01 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

Nah. I've seen this formula used a lot in order games and it doesn't work well for the most part. This is where you end up going through multiple areas without interruption with a cinematic and it causes major pacing problems, especially a focused so heavily on story like Dragon Age. JRPGs use this formula a lot and it's annoying. They'll have scene for the main story, then you end up going through a giant forest, then to the coast, then to sea without much story along the way. It's several hours of gameplay that's tedious and causes MAJOR pacing issues.

Pacing isn't something with which the developers should ever be concerned.  Pacing is the player's job.

[deuce985]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Nah. I've seen this formula used a lot in order games and it doesn't work well for the most part. This is where you end up going through multiple areas without interruption with a cinematic and it causes major pacing problems, especially a focused so heavily on story like Dragon Age. JRPGs use this formula a lot and it's annoying. They'll have scene for the main story, then you end up going through a giant forest, then to the coast, then to sea without much story along the way. It's several hours of gameplay that's tedious and causes MAJOR pacing issues.

Pacing isn't something with which the developers should ever be concerned.  Pacing is the player's job.

I don't believe that to be true in a story game. Pacing is a major part of a game like Dragon Age's development. They had many parts in DA:O that felt unecessary and they felt like your feet were being dragged. You need to continue your story. What the OP proposes is a game having you go through several areas without much interaction in the story. That forces people to get sidetracked on the main plot and causes pacing problems.

Which I could discuss game length and too much filler content as being a pacing problem too but that's another topic.

Now, if a game is like DA:O and you have all these massive side-quests that add 100+ hours to gameplay, then you get sidetracked, yea. That's on the player. A big victim to this is Final Fantasy games.

Modifié par deuce985, 01 juin 2012 - 10:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

@sjpelkessjpeler

So the idea of "magically appearing" at the Brecillian Forest is okay with you, with the Brecillian Forest having a bunch of smaller areas (like the Dalish Elf camp, etc) that are explorable once you arrive at the Forest is what you're looking for?

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

I don't believe that to be true in a story game. Pacing is a major part of a game like Dragon Age's development.

BioWare's concern with pacing badly damanged DA2.

They had many parts in DA:O that felt unecessary and they felt like your feet were being dragged. You need to continue your story.

I am continuing my story.  But my story and BioWare's story are different things.

If my PC thinks the exploration is an important part of what he's doing, then he'll do it, and the pacing of the story will work well.  if my PC thinks the exploration is pointless, then he won't do it, and the pacing of the story will work well.

The pacing only suffers when the player plays content without paying any heed to his character's own story.  Or when the player chooses to experience only BioWare's story, but then doesn't follow along with it.

If you don't see why your character would do something, then don't do it.  If the only motives for action you'll accept at the ones BioWare writes for you, then you shouldn't be doing any sidequests at all.

[AkiKishi]

deuce985 wrote...
I don't believe that to be true in a story game. Pacing is a major part of a game like Dragon Age's development. They had many parts in DA:O that felt unecessary and they felt like your feet were being dragged. You need to continue your story. What the OP proposes is a game having you go through several areas without much interaction in the story. That forces people to get sidetracked on the main plot and causes pacing problems.

Which I could discuss game length and too much filler content as being a pacing problem too but that's another topic.

Now, if a game is like DA:O and you have all these massive side-quests that add 100+ hours to gameplay, then you get sidetracked, yea. That's on the player. A big victim to this is Final Fantasy games.

Kind of agree with that. First time I played FFX (my first new JRPG too) I literally lost the plot once I got to the Calm Lands and the game opened up. Completely overloaded with weapon quests, blitzball, that thing with the merchants,hunting mosters for the arena. By the time I got back to the plot I think I'd wracked up 100 hours of non plot stuff. I'd almost forgotten what I was doing.

Final Fantasy XIII is very similiar when you hit Pulse and FFXII was even more open. While I totally agree it does the story no real favours, it's still good in it's own right.

[deuce985]

I think Baldur's Gate 2 is a great example of how you can traverse through multiple areas and still have that interaction in the main plot.

Me, personally, if I'm going through several areas just because without much direction, it gets tedious. I want my story to continue. I want those interactions with everyone around me. So going through 3-4 different zones without breaking it up in the story makes it monotonous to me.

I like how Bioware sets a path, you follow it and the story continues in a linear fashion. Now if this was a different kind of RPG, I wouldn't accept that formula. If what the OP proposed was as you traverse each area you get tons of interactions and story progression, then I'm fine by that formula...

IMO, the weakest part of Bioware development right now in their games is better balance of exploration+story. I'd like to see their games opened up a little more for all these sprawling environments I read about in lore but not big enough to sidetrack me. Atmosphere is also lacking in some parts, like city design. It doesn't feel alive enough to me. This might seem like minor things but when they're added together, it really feeds off the universe/story/lore. When they're all done well it makes the world more alive and vibrant. It makes all my companions feel more genuine to me. Running around Kirkwall and seeing people just standing around really didn't help flesh out that culture I read about in the city...

Modifié par deuce985, 01 juin 2012 - 10:36 .