88391 réponses à ce sujet

[Steppenwolf]

They never implied it was open world. Just because you interpreted it that way doesn't make it so.

[Enigmatick]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

They clearly implied it was open world. We'll see at 1pm west coast time on the 10th. Spike tv. Plus you will be able to watch online.shrugs. Eeroll, no wait Aaryn, oh whatever Mr Flynn will apparently be doing the reveal as Mikey Laidlaw mysteriously will not be in attendance.rotfl.

They said they were looking at Skyrim's success. As they should - it is an RPG that has outsold the past three Bioware releases COMBINED. They would be insane not to look at why it was successful. They said nothing about making the game open world. 

Not that the game will or won't be... but people make these kind of wild assumptions off of one comment. You are simply repeating and regurgitating someone's interpretation of a line that you likely didnt even read yourself in the dirt place.  

Lol. I'm pretty damn sure that their defintion and intention of the phrase "open world" when pertaining to Dragon Age is BG2 explorability and nonlinearity. At least I hope it is.

Modifié par Enigmatick, 04 juin 2013 - 03:10 .

[Steppenwolf]

Enigmatick wrote...
I'm pretty damn sure that their defintion and intention of the phrase "open world" when pertaining to Dragon Age is BG2 explorability and nonlinearity. At least I hope it is.

You'll have to source that. Not calling you a liar, but 'Baldur's Gate' has practically been the 'f' word in relation to Dragon Age development since DA][ was announced. Dragon Age is nothing like BG any more so they seem to actively avoid comparisons.

[Angrywolves]

You like to argue fast jimmie as bassilik carbo. I refuse to indulge that idiocyncracy. We'll see on the 10th.shrugs.

[ElitePinecone]

Angrywolves wrote...

They clearly implied it was open world. We'll see at 1pm west coast time on the 10th. Spike tv. Plus you will be able to watch online.shrugs. Eeroll, no wait Aaryn, oh whatever Mr Flynn will apparently be doing the reveal as Mikey Laidlaw mysteriously will not be in attendance.rotfl.

They have never implied that it will be open world. Period. 

As people have said, larger environments for individual map areas does not equal an open world game. 

[Angrywolves]

have it your way elite. Not going to get into flame wars over different opinions over what Bioware said/didn't say and what open world means. We'll learn on the 10th. shrugs.

[ElitePinecone]

Having more open, nonlinear and 'explorable' levels is in a general sense what they're looking to return to in DA3, judging from some dev statements over the past year or so. Skyrim also does environmental storytelling and has unique places tucked away to discover and explore, and that appears to be part of what Bioware are looking at for inspiration.

Nobody's ever suggested one big gameworld where you can literally walk from Orlais to Ferelden (for example) on the same map.

[Firky]

I think the quest/narrative structure in DA (as well as BG) and Skyrim style games are totally different. I can't even image how you'd fuse the two.

I really liked BG2's world. It was halfway between open and corridor, to my mind, or maybe open until you start traveling down a corridor. DA:O became more corridor, except in some places like Denerim. DA2 was several instances of similar of the same corridors.

I can't picture it going all the way to BG2 style level design, but who knows?

[keightdee]

discosuperfly wrote...

keightdee wrote...

DW warrior?

Dual wield.

Ah, thanks.

[ElitePinecone]

I wonder if the difficulty introducing a dual wielding warrior is in the cost of animations or effects for the new skills they'd need to create? Plus I guess they'd need to design a new skill tree.

Can rogues dual wield swords? I was never a big rogue player.

[Steppenwolf]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I wonder if the difficulty introducing a dual wielding warrior is in the cost of animations or effects for the new skills they'd need to create? Plus I guess they'd need to design a new skill tree.

Can rogues dual wield swords? I was never a big rogue player.

Rogues can only use daggers and bows in DA][.

[Firky]

I dunno if you could technically say that stuff like DW warrior were "cut" because the systems are so different between the two games. Seems like warriors in DA2 were built from the ground up, if you get what I mean. I wonder if that's the case again for DA3, I'm guessing it probably is. (I quite like new systems to learn, personally. I did miss warrior archers, a lot, though.)

[Fredward]

Angrywolves wrote...

have it your way elite. Not going to get into flame wars over different opinions over what Bioware said/didn't say and what open world means. We'll learn on the 10th. shrugs.

you are just like wrong blatantly wrong dude rotfl.shrugs.


I'm really glad the preview is happening just as my exams are finishing otherwise I'd be even more distracted than usual.

[daffl5]

It on just before mine ^ i am screwed XD

Modifié par daffl5, 04 juin 2013 - 07:13 .

[Dave of Canada]

Dual-wield Warrior was always an afterthought in Dragon Age: Origins (or, technically, the entire rogue class was) and I didn't mind the fact that Archery and Dual Wield was associated to rogue in the sequel, it gave them more room to expand and create moves with an identity.

Assuming they'd reintroduce dual wield warrior, I wouldn't mind provided it's identity remains far away from the rogue class and both feel very distinct. Something I'm not too afraid of and I'd understand if they don't have the time to implement.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 juin 2013 - 08:07 .

[Dave of Canada]

Filament wrote...

Yes, I'd prefer for warriors to have heavy dual wielding more modeled after the Arishok's style of fighting.

Something about impaling people and holding them above you sounds amusing.

[Firky]

Filament wrote...

Firky wrote...

I dunno if you could technically say that stuff like DW warrior were "cut" because the systems are so different between the two games. Seems like warriors in DA2 were built from the ground up, if you get what I mean. I wonder if that's the case again for DA3, I'm guessing it probably is. (I quite like new systems to learn, personally. I did miss warrior archers, a lot, though.)

Technically maybe not, but I would say practically yes. These were things warriors could do (and mages and rogues), archetypes they could fill in DAO that weren't available in DA2 (another excuse- want a dual wielding warrior? play a rogue). Same kind of idea behind the lack of tactical camera and race choice. I've defended all of these things on technicality but I'm starting to sour with the understanding (or just perception) that the end result is just less, less, less.

I'm not defending the "more distinct classes" thing. I reckon making characters who can do whatever you want them to do is good, like a crossbowman warrior or a mage in plate - and I really, honestly miss some kind of ranged option for warriors. I've always played these kinds of games as optimally as possible; there are times when you don't want the warrior engaged so you want her peppering arrows (even if they don't do much damage.)

But, I think, seen wholistically, it probably made sense in DA2 to give these things to one class and those things to the other. In the context of stuff like cross class combos and companion choice/party makeup, as well as whether it may have been more expensive or whatever.

I think that if a designer says, "We want classes to play really differently to each other, hence no DW warrior," it's easy to think it's a money/resources issue or whatever. But I wonder if it's as simple as diverting money to, or finding extra money for these things. If it's decided that there's no DW warrior early, for example, I'm guessing that would influence how other things worked around that, mostly in combat but also for companions etc. (Or it should, IMO, or the game would get weird.)

I was vaguely worrying a few pages back about the game being announced etc. I think it's because, when a designer says, "There's no overhead camera because we wanted you to get closer to the action," I think that's the truth. (I know, I'm a goody-to-shoes to the death.) So, I played DA2 closer in, got used to the camera and did enjoy some of the animations etc. (I'd still prefer the higher view, but gee, the somersaulting was something.)

I think what makes me worry is that people sometimes jump to "person is lying because marketing and/or budget" when it doesn't seem so clear cut, in my mind. (But it could all be marketing and lying and spin. Maybe I'm naive. Actually people tell me I'm naive all the time. But, I know what I want from games; Baldur's Gate 2 forever, over and over again. I also know that I want some clever team of designers to make something I've never imagined that is internally consistent within itself, I guess. I really hope there's freedom to do that. But, I really have no idea what kind of pressure AAA devs work under.)

[Chanda]

Filament wrote...

I was gonna say except that part and the bull rush, but he doesn't have many moves left after that... FINE GOSH

I think the Arishok kept his best skills hidden. You know, his numchuck skills, his bow hunting skills, and don't forget his computer hacking skills.


...Because girl kossiths only want to breed with male kossiths who have great skills!