179 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiguaje]

@Mike_Laidlaw Hi friend, could you tell us if DAIII will have an open world to explore...??? please any hint would be appreciated


@Erick_Ordonez We are pushing for a lot more freedom this time around, but I can't go into specifics beyond that.
@Mike_Laidlaw ok, so give me a date,? any date? are you understand? thanks for answering, have a nice day! Sorry for My "English"


@Erick_Ordonez Sorry, can’t really commit to when we’ll say more. Trust me, I’d love to talk more about the game.


@Mike_Laidlaw I understand, Keep doing the great work you've done so far, I know that you will not disappoint us! #DA3rules

An open world is coming soon... i think this is one thing that they brought from TES:Skyrim... what do you think...?

[Rawgrim]

He didn`t say open World. He said More freedom.

[Tiguaje]

Rawgrim wrote...

He didn`t say open World. He said More freedom.

you are right, but would you like an open world for the next game...???  

[Rawgrim]

Not sure. I would rather they made alot more areas, like they did in Baldur`s Gate. And maybe let you explore each area completely, instead of following paths like you do in the previous DA games. Or they could just stick with how they did it in the previous ones. Both are fine with me. I have trouble seeing how a party based rpg would work well in an open world game.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

I don't think I'd like open world for these games, as the story and characters would likely take a massive hit.

I love skyrim, but it's not a game I play for story or characters. I only play it so I can sneak around shooting arrows into people's faces.

[JCAP]

Tiguaje wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

He didn`t say open World. He said More freedom.

you are right, but would you like an open world for the next game...???  

If Bioware worked with Bethesda, then that would be very likely.

But Bioware is with EA, open worlds requires very long time of work, and EA wants games for yeasterday...

[JCAP]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I don't think I'd like open world for these games, as the story and characters would likely take a massive hit.

I love skyrim, but it's not a game I play for story or characters. I only play it so I can sneak around shooting arrows into people's faces.

this

(and i play because I want to turn every npc's to guards XD)

[AmaneSaiko]

I am fine with the way it is. Although a larger scope and more places to visit is extremely welcome. I would rather they add more areas than try to make it open world. I can live without open world.

[Tiguaje]

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

[Potato Cat]

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Well...open worlds usually have a lot of depth. Could work well for a world like Thedas which already has a lot of depth that could be explored further. However, they take up a lot of resources that could be better spent on other areas of the game and costs a fair bit of money, which EA isn't really keen on.

[AdmiralDavidAnderson]

Thumbs down. It's Dragon Age not Elder Scrolls.

[unbentbuzzkill]

pro. more freedom to explore and more in depth game play

con. way to easy to get lost and enemies might not scale to your level so prepare for lots of deaths.

[TCBC_Freak]

I like the way DA:O did it. It had hubs and you traveled between them and they had random encounters which are one of the main points of open worlds, having the ability to have random encounters.

[Rawgrim]

Followers also gets stuck alot in open world games. Not cool if you finally reach the Tevinter Imperium, and Alistair is still stuck behind a rock in Ferelden.

[Realmzmaster]

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Most open world games are lacking in the main story. The story tends to be secondary to the exploration. That is fine if exploration is what you wish to engage in, but if you want a compelling story then open world falls short in that area. I will pick on the Elder Scroll games.

In my opinion the last good story in an Elder Scroll game was Morrowind (that was still not as good as most Bioware stories.). The next two games in the series lack a great deal in the story and fleshing out of companions. In fact Skyrim is the first Elder Scroll game to have companions. Basically the companions in Skyrim act as meat shields and very little else.

Elder Scroll is superior in allowing the gamer to explore the world with the PC. Unfortuaely the dungeons and everything start to look the same. Think DA2 repeating environments but on a grander scale especially Oblivion with its towers. 

I also have yet to see a western rpg that combines open world with party based mechanics.
Also open world take time to develop. Skyrim was in development for 5 years. Most of that I believe was constructing the world and not the story. DAO was also in development roughly 5 years. Five years of development takes a considerable amount of resources and not every company wants or can devote that many resources to a project.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[Rawgrim]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Most open world games are lacking in the main story. The story tends to be secondary to the exploration. That is fine if exploration is what you wish to engage in, but if you want a compelling story then open world falls short in that area. I will pick on the Elder Scroll games.

In my opinion the last good story in an Elder Scroll game was Morrowind (that was still not as good as most Bioware stories.). The next two games in the series lack a great deal in the story and fleshing out of companions. In fact Skyrim is the first Elder Scroll game to have companions. Basically the companions in Skyrim act as meat shields and very little else.

Elder Scroll is superior in allowing the gamer to explore the world with the PC. Unfortuaely the dungeons and everything start to look the same. Think DA2 repeating environments but on a grander scale especially Oblivion with its towers. 

I also have yet to see a western rpg that combines open world with party based mechanics.

Might and Magic 1-9. Ultima 1-7, Betrayal at Krondor. Wizardry 1-....something.

[Wulfram]

Something like BG2 would be good.  Which really isn't open world, but allows a good degree of freedom without getting bogged down in all the unnecessary stuff.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 octobre 2012 - 12:28 .

[naughty99]

Rawgrim wrote...

He didn`t say open World. He said More freedom.

Yep, and more freedom sounds great to me!

Looking forward to more info about this "freedom" 

[Persephone]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Most open world games are lacking in the main story. The story tends to be secondary to the exploration. That is fine if exploration is what you wish to engage in, but if you want a compelling story then open world falls short in that area. I will pick on the Elder Scroll games.

Agreed. IMHO the only series that found a somewhat sweet spot between Sandbox and Fixed Setting is the Fable series. Fable II especially.

*Ducks out before she gets hated on for loving Fable II* 

[Tiguaje]

Rawgrim wrote...

Followers also gets stuck alot in open world games. Not cool if you finally reach the Tevinter Imperium, and Alistair is still stuck behind a rock in Ferelden.

hahaha! you are right!

so, i'll prefer the way that DAO did... but i want an extendable areas to explore!

[Rawgrim]

Tiguaje wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Followers also gets stuck alot in open world games. Not cool if you finally reach the Tevinter Imperium, and Alistair is still stuck behind a rock in Ferelden.

hahaha! you are right!

so, i'll prefer the way that DAO did... but i want an extendable areas to explore!

The way Baldur`s Gate did it might be a good idea. Loads of areas on the map, and able to explore each and every one of those completely. No set paths to follow. Cool way to add secrets in the game and things like that too. Maybe if you bring a certain follower to an area and he or she might reveal something about it. Or you might encounter someone that has it in for that character. Would add tons to the replayability of the game.

[JCAP]

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Pros: - more quests;
          - more liberty;
          - more hours of gaming;
          - more exploration (if the scenarios are well worked AND if the player like exploring)
          - it's open world!!! 

cons: - less plot (and that is very bad, because one of Bioware focus is this);
          - it consumes too much time and resources (npc's voice acting, scripts, etc... and EA...)
          - bugs everywhere;
          - if the Bioware want's that the options we make matters in the following games, open world would be a terrible idea (too much branchs);
          - many would accuse Dragon Age copying Elder Scrolls;

[andar91]

More freedom is great. Open world would be out of place, I think. I really don't think they'll do that in a story-based game.

[Tiguaje]

@BioMarkDarrah EP of the Dragon Age Franchise. Game industry veteran since 1997.Will I reveal DA secrets?...Likely... any clue for today?
@Erick_Ordonez there will be dragons.
@BioMarkDarrah oh! and an Inquisitor too! LOL/Thanks! Nice job the one do you have! congrats! i'll be pending the news from DA3 Inquisition!

[Realmzmaster]

Rawgrim wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so! what are the pros and cons in an open world...??? somebody tell me

Most open world games are lacking in the main story. The story tends to be secondary to the exploration. That is fine if exploration is what you wish to engage in, but if you want a compelling story then open world falls short in that area. I will pick on the Elder Scroll games.

In my opinion the last good story in an Elder Scroll game was Morrowind (that was still not as good as most Bioware stories.). The next two games in the series lack a great deal in the story and fleshing out of companions. In fact Skyrim is the first Elder Scroll game to have companions. Basically the companions in Skyrim act as meat shields and very little else.

Elder Scroll is superior in allowing the gamer to explore the world with the PC. Unfortuaely the dungeons and everything start to look the same. Think DA2 repeating environments but on a grander scale especially Oblivion with its towers. 

I also have yet to see a western rpg that combines open world with party based mechanics.

Might and Magic 1-9. Ultima 1-7, Betrayal at Krondor. Wizardry 1-....something.

Actually all those games you mention are a lot more linear than you imply. Only certain parts were revealed at any given time. You could not go anywhere you wanted in those games. Wizardy 1-3 were basically a dungeon with many levels. The only way to go was down. The other Wizardry's started at one point and you could only go to points that had been mentioned in conversation.
Ultima I to III were not party based. Ultima did not become party based until Ultima IV. Lord British (Richard Garriot) was inspired by Wizardry to create a party based Ultima.  The party still was not allowed to go everywhere.

Betrayal of Krondor only allowed the party to travel within one or two areas during each act. Now if you wish to say the party could go any where within those two regions I will agree with you. The party could not go everywhere in the world. The areas opened were act dependent. Cetain locations were locked to the party.

The Might and Magic series is the closest to open world with a party, but not like Biowares games. The games are played in the first person perspective and turn based (The later games allowed for realtime combat).