179 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

JCAP wrote...

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;

All this. If I wanted to play an open world game I'd play Skyrim, but I don't. Or maybe I just got really bored with the lack of plot after one agonizing run-through of Oblivion.

My problem with TES games is that they rely far too much on player imagination than plot. Players get their kicks out of, essentially, LARPing a schedule for the PC; going to sleep every night, waking up after 8 hours, bathing, and eating 3 meals a day. Far too many people were bored to tears by Oblivion until they modded it to death. If someone wants to spend their $60 pretending their characters are doing something that isn't plot-driven and adding a bunch of crap just to make it replayable, then fine, buy a TES game. I play RPGs, in part, to accomplish an objective. So far, Bioware does one of the best jobs of providing that experience for me. The last thing I want to see in a Bioware game is a giant sandbox.

[Tiguaje]

so if we got a lot of more freedom in the next game, i would want an environment to interact. where i can knock down a tree... and stuff like this!

[Rawgrim]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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).

You could go everywhere in Ultima 7. Deffinatly. I explored the entire map on that one. Krondor let you wander around the entire map too. Not counting certain areas that were closed off for story reasons in a chapter here and there. But I explored around 70 percent of the map in chapter 1-2. I agree with you on wizardry and MM, though.

Ishtar. That one is party based and open world. Some of the companions that don`t go well together actually assassinate eachother too. Don`t think a game has ever implemented that bit since Ishtar.

[Tiguaje]

Nizaris1 wrote...

DA3 no need to be open world, just make it living world is enough.

I mean, no need for us to control the PC to walk miles away from Kirwall to Sundermount for example. The map system is ok, but just need a living atmosphere on each places, for example the Dalish camp is not look like a robotic festival but living one

i support this... lets the living world begins!  

[Monica21]

Nizaris1 wrote...

DA3 no need to be open world, just make it living world is enough.

I mean, no need for us to control the PC to walk miles away from Kirwall to Sundermount for example. The map system is ok, but just need a living atmosphere on each places, for example the Dalish camp is not look like a robotic festival but living one

I know this keeps getting brought up, but it really is harder than it seems. If you want an example of "living" NPCs then load up Oblivion and really pay attention. NPCs are doing the strangest things. Some are staring at walls for 30 minutes. Others pull a rake out of thin air, walk to a patch of ground and rake for 45 seconds, and then disappear back inside their houses. It's not realistic and the NPCs don't appear to be "living" at all.

The reason I'm picking on Oblivion is because it was the first time Bethesda tried AI on their NPCs and it was ended up being a test for how to do it better next time. I have no idea if it's better in Skyrim, but I don't pay enough attention to unnecessary NPCs to care about what they're doing.

[Tiguaje]

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

[Rawgrim]

Monica21 wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

DA3 no need to be open world, just make it living world is enough.

I mean, no need for us to control the PC to walk miles away from Kirwall to Sundermount for example. The map system is ok, but just need a living atmosphere on each places, for example the Dalish camp is not look like a robotic festival but living one

I know this keeps getting brought up, but it really is harder than it seems. If you want an example of "living" NPCs then load up Oblivion and really pay attention. NPCs are doing the strangest things. Some are staring at walls for 30 minutes. Others pull a rake out of thin air, walk to a patch of ground and rake for 45 seconds, and then disappear back inside their houses. It's not realistic and the NPCs don't appear to be "living" at all.

The reason I'm picking on Oblivion is because it was the first time Bethesda tried AI on their NPCs and it was ended up being a test for how to do it better next time. I have no idea if it's better in Skyrim, but I don't pay enough attention to unnecessary NPCs to care about what they're doing.

I got hit by a horse once, in Oblivion. Was walking west of Bruma. Some bridges and such high up in the mountains there. I was trotting around. A horse aparantly fell from a path above. Hit me. Bumped me off the road, and i fell to my death. Some fellow I was looking for to finish a quest was standing under water, as well. Saw the top of his head sticking out of the lake around the imperial city. Not that I complained. it was rather funny.

[Monica21]

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? Does it expand the plot? Unlikely.  If it's going to take resources from another development area then I'd just as soon not have it, especially since it's very difficult to get right. Same thing with interactive environments and areas to explore. I'm not interested in a bunch of bandit caves just to have bandit caves. If it's not plot-driven and not part of completing an objective, then no, I don't want it.

I want a strong story and choices and consequences that matter. I want branching paths of questlines. I want to be able to finish questlines and the end of the game in different ways. A living world and exploration takes away dev time.

[Persephone]

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? Does it expand the plot? Unlikely.  If it's going to take resources from another development area then I'd just as soon not have it, especially since it's very difficult to get right. Same thing with interactive environments and areas to explore. I'm not interested in a bunch of bandit caves just to have bandit caves. If it's not plot-driven and not part of completing an objective, then no, I don't want it.

I want a strong story and choices and consequences that matter. I want branching paths of questlines. I want to be able to finish questlines and the end of the game in different ways. A living world and exploration takes away dev time.

^ THIS

[Realmzmaster]

Rawgrim wrote...

You could go everywhere in Ultima 7. Deffinatly. I explored the entire map on that one. Krondor let you wander around the entire map too. Not counting certain areas that were closed off for story reasons in a chapter here and there. But I explored around 70 percent of the map in chapter 1-2. I agree with you on wizardry and MM, though.

Ishtar. That one is party based and open world. Some of the companions that don`t go well together actually assassinate eachother too. Don`t think a game has ever implemented that bit since Ishtar.

I think you mean Ishar. Actually in BG2 several of the companions will come to blows and challenge each other to fights. Keldorn will try to kill Viconia. Anomen can also attack Keldorn or Aerie if he fails his test. 

[Knight of Dane]

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? Does it expand the plot? Unlikely.  If it's going to take resources from another development area then I'd just as soon not have it, especially since it's very difficult to get right. Same thing with interactive environments and areas to explore. I'm not interested in a bunch of bandit caves just to have bandit caves. If it's not plot-driven and not part of completing an objective, then no, I don't want it.

I want a strong story and choices and consequences that matter. I want branching paths of questlines. I want to be able to finish questlines and the end of the game in different ways. A living world and exploration takes away dev time.

Agree and disagree.

The living world helps a lot with immersion, but I think Dragon Age does that quite okay already. In this regard the low poly npc that you could walk through does nothing. Real character models walking around and talking about stuff would help. Much like they did with the guardsmen and the priest on the docks. A few npc's walked around, but not alot.
I never felt a super need for anything more.

Bandit Cave=/=The Bone Pit? It has no relevance to the main plot and only offers a small sidestory that ends in Hawke killing a Dragon and getting his/her pwnArmor.
^
But I agree mostly, Dragon Age is a much more storydriven game than Skyrim or Oblivion and I wouldn't want any resourses that could go into more writing, dialogue or animation, to go into random caves with just a few more battles.

[Rawgrim]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

You could go everywhere in Ultima 7. Deffinatly. I explored the entire map on that one. Krondor let you wander around the entire map too. Not counting certain areas that were closed off for story reasons in a chapter here and there. But I explored around 70 percent of the map in chapter 1-2. I agree with you on wizardry and MM, though.

Ishtar. That one is party based and open world. Some of the companions that don`t go well together actually assassinate eachother too. Don`t think a game has ever implemented that bit since Ishtar.

I think you mean Ishar. Actually in BG2 several of the companions will come to blows and challenge each other to fights. Keldorn will try to kill Viconia. Anomen can also attack Keldorn or Aerie if he fails his test. 

Ishar, yes. thats the one. i remember one of my companions poisoning another.

Yeah, fights breaks out in the BG games alot. Korgan makes Aerie leave, as well, I think. Forces her out of the group. I think she toughens up abit in the expansion pack though, and tells him to f off. Wich leads to him respecting her instead. Fun times.

[Tiguaje]

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? Does it expand the plot? Unlikely.  If it's going to take resources from another development area then I'd just as soon not have it, especially since it's very difficult to get right. Same thing with interactive environments and areas to explore. I'm not interested in a bunch of bandit caves just to have bandit caves. If it's not plot-driven and not part of completing an objective, then no, I don't want it.

I want a strong story and choices and consequences that matter. I want branching paths of questlines. I want to be able to finish questlines and the end of the game in different ways. A living world and exploration takes away dev time.

I like the way you think! you are right in some things, but what about a mix of all this...? less the living world thing! I would like to see how my character interact with the environment...

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? 

a hundred billion dollars in sales and still selling at full price almost a year after release like Skyrim

[Monica21]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? Does it expand the plot? Unlikely.  If it's going to take resources from another development area then I'd just as soon not have it, especially since it's very difficult to get right. Same thing with interactive environments and areas to explore. I'm not interested in a bunch of bandit caves just to have bandit caves. If it's not plot-driven and not part of completing an objective, then no, I don't want it.

I want a strong story and choices and consequences that matter. I want branching paths of questlines. I want to be able to finish questlines and the end of the game in different ways. A living world and exploration takes away dev time.

Agree and disagree.

The living world helps a lot with immersion, but I think Dragon Age does that quite okay already. In this regard the low poly npc that you could walk through does nothing. Real character models walking around and talking about stuff would help. Much like they did with the guardsmen and the priest on the docks. A few npc's walked around, but not alot.
I never felt a super need for anything more.

Bandit Cave=/=The Bone Pit? It has no relevance to the main plot and only offers a small sidestory that ends in Hawke killing a Dragon and getting his/her pwnArmor.
^
But I agree mostly, Dragon Age is a much more storydriven game than Skyrim or Oblivion and I wouldn't want any resourses that could go into more writing, dialogue or animation, to go into random caves with just a few more battles.

Well, this is Bethesda's thing though. You can talk to every NPC. Sometimes you'll get information and sometimes you won't. If you're going to create a game like that, then I guess it sort of is necessary to create some sort of AI for the NPCs. Although, my opinion is that all the attempts at AI made the world less immersive because there was always a glitch in the matrix. That's not Dragon Age though. Unnecessary NPCs are unnecessary. They're window dressing. Why spend resources on window dressing?

And yes, the Bone Pit is sort of the equivalent of a bandit cave, but the difference is you didn't run across 12 bandit caves on your way to the Bone Pit, kill the dragon, and run across the same 12 bandit caves (now repopulated with bandits in full Daedric... er, Dragonbone armor) just to kill all the bandits again. That's what I mean by bandit caves just for the sake of bandit caves. Yes, there are side quests in DAO and DA2 to kill bandits, but those bandits don't come back.

[Monica21]

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? 

a hundred billion dollars in sales and still selling at full price almost a year after release like Skyrim

You really think Bioware can shift focus like that and create a DA3 that sells as well as Skyrim?

There's a reason I stopped playing TES games. Well, there are a lot, but the focus on graphics and interactivity over plot, quests, and story are just a few.

[Wrathion]

[quote]marshalleck wrote...


[/quote] still selling at full price almost a year after release like Skyrim
[/quote]

For really really real?

No way, I'm tired of bears jumping out of the cut and mauling me to death. Not having forced companions and their stupid catty banter is lonely. Having whatever companions I scrounge up through hours of gameplay, die after I've already gotten used to them is not fun. Completing the main quest and wandering around for 5 hours trying to find a quest because it doesn't helpfully appear in my journal. Is time consuming and I have other things to do...usually.
(Considering this i'm sure you can tell how my time with Oblivion is going.)
Open world is good for TES because...that's what it does and it's good at it. 
Dragon Age...noooooooot so much.

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? 

a hundred billion dollars in sales and still selling at full price almost a year after release like Skyrim

You really think Bioware can shift focus like that and create a DA3 that sells as well as Skyrim?

There's a reason I stopped playing TES games. Well, there are a lot, but the focus on graphics and interactivity over plot, quests, and story are just a few.

You can have your opinion of course but it's clear which games have more longevity and appeal. 

Edit: same goes for Alexandrine. 

Bioware added multiplayer to ME3 despite floods of tears on the forum and it was a resounding success. Expect more diversification in the future.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:51 .

[Tiguaje]

From: http://en.wikipedia....II:_Inquisition

Ray Muzyka, BioWare's CEO, said in an interview with Wired.com that Dragon Age III would be influenced by more open world games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which BioWare is "checking out aggressively." Also, the developers promised their fans that they will no longer reuse environments, which was considered a main issue in Dragon Age II.

[Monica21]

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

so we all agreed that we don't want an open world for DAIII: Inquisition...??? we will prefer a living world, an enviroment to interact and extensive areas to explore... this is right...???

What would be the purpose of a living world? 

a hundred billion dollars in sales and still selling at full price almost a year after release like Skyrim

You really think Bioware can shift focus like that and create a DA3 that sells as well as Skyrim?

There's a reason I stopped playing TES games. Well, there are a lot, but the focus on graphics and interactivity over plot, quests, and story are just a few.

You can have your opinion of course but it's clear which games have more longevity and appeal. 

Edit: same goes for Alexandrine. 

Bioware added multiplayer to ME3 despite floods of tears on the forum and it was a resounding success. Expect more diversification in the future.

The lowest common denominator is always going to have the most appeal.

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

The lowest common denominator is always going to have the most appeal.

I'm not sure how "lowest common denominator" can apply to open world style gameplay versus a closed narrative, but I'm sure you can dream up a rationale.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:55 .

[Monica21]

Tiguaje wrote...

From: http://en.wikipedia....II:_Inquisition

Ray Muzyka, BioWare's CEO, said in an interview with Wired.com that Dragon Age III would be influenced by more open world games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which BioWare is "checking out aggressively." Also, the developers promised their fans that they will no longer reuse environments, which was considered a main issue in Dragon Age II.

So, in the not too distant future I'll be longing for the days of re-used environments because there was once a time when, even with its faults, Bioware paid attention to the story. Got it. Thanks, Ray.

[marshalleck]

Monica21 wrote...

Tiguaje wrote...

From: http://en.wikipedia....II:_Inquisition

Ray Muzyka, BioWare's CEO, said in an interview with Wired.com that Dragon Age III would be influenced by more open world games, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which BioWare is "checking out aggressively." Also, the developers promised their fans that they will no longer reuse environments, which was considered a main issue in Dragon Age II.

So, in the not too distant future I'll be longing for the days of re-used environments because there was once a time when, even with its faults, Bioware paid attention to the story. Got it. Thanks, Ray.

They're just trying to give gamers what the market shows gamers enjoy, and that's freedom.