7 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

This probably does not need to be said... but when have I ever let that stop me?

If the game involves an actual war than we should be able to track the armies via the world map. We should see when a city falls to which side, see when and where key battles are fought and generally always be aware of which side is losing or gaining ground.

Why? Well other than playing to the military nerd in a few of us it also gives the war a feeling of versimitude.

I bring this up because while there was a war and indeed a Blight in Origins we never feel (or at least I never did) that the Blight was a moving thing. It felt like Ostagar happened..... and then much later Redcliffe is hit. Sure download Shale and another small town falls to the Blight before you eyes but the Blight isn't a moving threat. It isn't growing more and more out of control. It isn't wrecking the bannorn.

It's just not happening. I guess that creeping rot in the middle of the map is supposed to symbolize it, and it did a decent enough job as a symbol. But it doesn't match the threat of the Blight. We only hear about losses to the Blight right at the tail end of the game where a few nobles are talking about how their lands have been overrun.

This worked well enough, and god knows Origins had plenty on its plate. But I wouldn't like to see this happen again.

For one there are few RPGs or games period that even track this sort of thing. Take Skyrim's civil war which only changes two of three cities cosmetically and then has a few city guards get replaced by either faceless Imperial troops or Stormcloak troops.

The forts remain, the camps remain, and despite certain holds falling for a side those camps and troops still spawn. Nothing really changes.

Mass Effect 3 had a massive war with the Reapers but there's no battle lines. I get that they were aiming for a "Reapers are everywhere" feeling but all I got was a "We only go where Reapers attack" feeling. There was no sense of them attacking systems and us losing ground to a ceaseless imposing villain. We just go wherever Reapers are and fly around there collecting tokens for people on the Citadel.

The only game in recent memory to even attempt this was Fallout: New Vegas. The different fractions all had their own stomping grounds. These areas could be expanded upon or lost depending on the player's actions. Example being Caesar's Legion expanding into Nipton or being kicked all the way back behind the Colorado River depending on what you the player did.

This doesn't mean I require these changing battlelines to move solely by the power of the player (they are two sides full of men and women why can't they do something without me having to do it for them) but it's the only example in recent memory I have.

....I guess kinda The Witcher 2 since Act 2's victor changes a whole region.... but that's a stalemate until the big battle.

Of course if the game doesn't take place during a great world war.... and say it's about stopping a war from happening or something. Then this suggestion means next to nothing. If we globetrot around to different nations and cities their different designs and themes will tell you at a glance where you are and who/what's in control.

But if there's a war... I think you'd gain much more if we could see how the war goes. And that the war affects the world.

Just my random notion.

[Orian Tabris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I bring this up because while there was a war and indeed a Blight in Origins we never feel (or at least I never did) that the Blight was a moving thing.

Well, the map does get like a dark shade that slowly covers the map, to represent where the blight has reached. Was that not satisfying enough for you?

Overall, I think this is a good idea, but if 90% of the game is set in Orlais, then it would be a little pointless.

[Wulfram]

If the game includes the sort of war where territory is won or lost, that would make sense.

Though generally it's pretty obvious that Bioware either doesn't understand or simply doesn't care much about military strategy, so they probably shouldn't go into too much detail about it.

[Foolsfolly]

Wulfram wrote...

If the game includes the sort of war where territory is won or lost, that would make sense.

Though generally it's pretty obvious that Bioware either doesn't understand or simply doesn't care much about military strategy, so they probably shouldn't go into too much detail about it.

I don't require them to be generals or anything... but yeah. A little more military knowledge wouldn't hurt. Or lacking that draw from a few of the more interesting battles from history. We all have our favorites of course but I'd suggest the next time some fortress is under siege instead of borrowing from Helm's Deep why not borrow from the Battle of Alesia instead? Not only is it more interesting because the attackers are out numbered and out-flanked but it's success is nothing short of genius.

[Chipaway111]

I like this idea very much, in ME3 I didn't feel the 'giant losses' that everyone was taking because it just meant a system I hadn't visited got a giant bug sitting over it on a digitally projected map. It all sounded very impressive when Hackett spoke of it but then... nothing.

If you go deep enough into the plot of Halo (yes I know, ha-ha) there's a constant war happening and humans are only saving one planet for every ten they lose (this happens mostly off-screen and in books) but I still felt those more than anything Mass Effect did.

[Foolsfolly]

If you go deep enough into the plot of Halo (yes I know, ha-ha)

Halo has a story. I mean it. I'm being serious here. I know a lot of guys on these boards don't like to think that shooters have any merit (they especially love picking on CoD) but Halo has a story. It was big enough to get a webseries directed by David ****ing Fincher, numerous books, numerous comic books, an anime anthology and has spawned what 7 games now?

And its fans are deeply engrossed by the lore. Hell I was a fan until Halo 3... and Halo 4 has begun singing to me "Remember your misspent high school days? We can relive those...."

So don't apologize for that.

And yeah, humanity in that series feels like they're on the losing end of a galactic war. Something ME3 didn't properly feel like. Probably because despite the so-called losses and supposed scale of the threat Shepard's still able to gather the single largest fleet in the ME universe's history.

Nothing about that smells of 'against the ropes.' Other than the game constantly telling you the Reapers cannot be defeated. Which is an informed ability much like turian military strength or asari superiority.

In truth ME3 really needed a front line. As the game continued losing systems would mean something. Instead as the game goes on and the universe is being destroyed... more areas open up for us.

[Herr Uhl]

I could see this working if it is side content opening up if you manage to get friendly with a faction or are able to defeat them. If we use Origins as an example (sans blight) getting friendly with Bhelen or Harrowmont opened up the passage to the deep roads, more things like that that aren't plot essential would be nice to make the world feel more vast (and they're aiming at a vast world).

From what I guess as the Inquisition plot, the area shouldn't shrink as you go through the game logically, as with a blight or a reaper invasion, but instead expand as you gain influence.

Edit: One game that did this well that I recall was Combat Flight Simulator 3, (at least IIRC) where you won or lost ground depending on your spending and mission performance. Granted, instantly losing as the Germans once you conquered all of Europe was always a kick in the balls.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 10 novembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[Foolsfolly]

From what I guess as the Inquisition plot, the area shouldn't shrink as you go through the game logically, as with a blight or a reaper invasion, but instead expand as you gain influence.

From my own conjecture (which is dangerous no doubt) we'd be a third party to the war. Perhaps not welcomed with open arms by either side but not actively hostile with them either. So battle lines and the like could shape the world while we pick up the pieces and shift through the ashes for clues and leads.

In case there's a side we join than the battle lines make sense since it's showing you the affects you're having on the world.