83 réponses à ce sujet

[mybudgee]

Dragon Age Origins was a great game, but it was still not as "free" or open feeling as Skyrim. I am ignorant as to the other TES games, but Skyrim is incredible. Not even mentioning the TURD that was DA:II...

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
Open "world" is not "open levels", because if they were, then TW2 counts on that front alone. This isn't even mincing words - it's just comparing unlike things.

TW2's levels are pretty linear.  There's a spectrum here.  I'm talking about the player experience.  Devs for both games, Bioshock and Dishonored, even said that they valued letting players choose how to play the levels and not be handheld, because player freedom is a high value.  The Thief games would be another example.

Using the heart in Dishonoured doesn't depend on exploration. It either gives you a fixed message in a particular area, or you have to point it to an important character, and all those characters are fixed in place.

You have to find those people and places first.  The Heart also points you to obscure locations to collect runes and bone charms.  It's very much an exploration tool.

The closest you get to a parallel is between the recordings in Bioshock and the books in Bestheda, except that the records in Bioshock are actually allow about the narrow plot that you're playing instead of the massive lore.

What?  This sentence doesn't make sense.  The recordings in Bioshock fill in the world as well as talk about the main story and personal side stories.  Just like Bethesda games.

If you don't see the parallels, fine.  To me they're clear, and I know when I'm playing a game where the dev just wants me to jump through hoops and enforce an authorial point of view versus letting the player experience the story at their own pace or even take the chance that they miss entire pieces of it if they're not paying attention.  The sheer number of cutscenes in Bioware games is a clue that they're emphasizing authorial (dev) point of view and a scripted experience.

[slimgrin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Because you're talking about inventing reasons for your character that are never part of the game that the game never reacts to. That's fan-fiction.

Or, that the game never lets you express, too. Going and killing a guard because your backstory is that you grew up an orphan and the guards used to pick on you is...the same thing as just killing a guard, as far as the game is concerned. There's no way to explain your actions.

I can think of one: the side quests. Bethesda's games have some of the most involved and elaborate sidequests of any RPG's I've played.

[AngryFrozenWater]

slimgrin wrote...

I can think of one: the side quests. Bethesda's games have some of the most involved and elaborate sidequests of any RPG's I've played.

Agreed.

Also, the creatures and NPCs are not really random. They have their own little schedules and lifes. Most NPCs are also used in quests and side quests or are "backups" incase another NPC dies. Shopkeepers, for an example, have at least one such backup NPC, who take over when the original dies.

When you travel you can also encounter NPCs which can lead to a new quest. Or you can ecounter NPCs as foes in a quest, which had or have quests of their own. So killing them can have consequences.

Mechanisms like that create little stories on their own. These are not explicitely told. It's not like fan fiction. You just happen to become part of it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 28 juillet 2013 - 07:37 .

[blaidfiste]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I can think of one: the side quests. Bethesda's games have some of the most involved and elaborate sidequests of any RPG's I've played.

Agreed.

Also, the creatures and NPCs are not really random. They have their own little schedules and lifes. Most NPCs are also used in quests and side quests or are "backups" incase another NPC dies. Shopkeepers, for an example, have at least one such backup NPC, who take over when the original dies.

When you travel you can also encounter NPCs which can lead to a new quest. Or you can ecounter NPCs as foes in a quest, which had or have quests of their own. So killing them can have consequences.

Mechanisms like that create little stories on their own. These are not explicitely told. It's not like fan fiction. You just happen to become part of it.

Take a Bosmer abiding by the Green Pact, Some sidequests are now off limits while others turn into fantastic roleplaying experiences.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Nothing other than the empty open world.

Role-playing wise it sucks. People here are speaking of consequences when there are none. In fact the whole "NPC's who die are replaced thing" is just another example about how Skyrim holds you by the hand and doesn't contain any real consequence. Plot cannot be impacted in any real way and there's absolutely no way to fail a quest or suffer negative actions as a result. Meanwhile you still can't kill main quest NPC's which is as though Bethesda is trying to dictate what we can and can't do in their "free live your life in another world" game and as though they think we're too dumb to live with our consequences.

The main plot is as linear as hell with the only choice being an aesthetic one realistically which again leads down the same path. The result (regardless of your choice) is that you end up in the same place doing the same thing with the climax being an unsatisfying battle.

Reminds me of DA:2 tbh as far as the choices and role-playing is concerned. I don't need to mention Skyrim's poor writing for the plot and characters too do I?

I'll give Bethesda one thing. At least they know how to create a good art-style and remain consistent with it but that's about it.

You might ask then why I like Dragon's Dogma, a game where there are few choices to make in side quests and where the only choices in the main plot are illusionary ones. Well I like it because it's not pretending to be a traditional RPG. Player dialogue occurs only occasionally with most other responses being a simple "Yes" or "No" thing. The real emphasis on the game is the exploration, combat, customization and loot which Dragon's Dogma does exceptionally well. The story - while not amazing - is at least original and the twists add some level of uniqueness to the game.

Skyrim is the same old thing just like Oblivion. You know what to expect after a few hours of gameplay and nothing changes from then on.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 28 juillet 2013 - 02:39 .

[bEVEsthda]

In Exile wrote...
No. It doesn't.   

I'm sorry, but I can't do anything with this.  ...Other than: - Yes it does!

And it's not at all the same a different character experiences. I really don't see how you can be so confused about that? Also, I find the words "on rails" incredibly contrieved, for an incredibly contrieved "point", when used in the context of Skyrim. If you experience yourself being "on rails" in Skyrim, that's entirely you, I would say. I suppose you run off chasing everything that looks like a "quest" then?

The game isn't reactive. It doesn't nothing with what you do. Compare it to TW2 - that's a game that has an emergent story that reacts to your choices. Your actions directly change the world around you, from the start of the game. Nothing is more powerful than seeing the difference in Floatsam between letting Iorveth go and capturing him. 

TW2 is brilliant, and has emergent gameplay that creates a personal story. 

Skyrim is a wasteland with worker ants, and while I can come up with lots of creative reasons for my killing, looting corpses and grave-robbing, the game never reacts to anything that I do in terms of my killing or my grave robbing. 

To make an effort at understand what you're about, I think there are three things to say about this:

1: It's not true. Skyrim is reactive. It's about as reactive as it's reasonable to expect from the state of the art sandbox game, at this point in time.

2: TW2 is a railroad with bifurbications. As such it's a totally different type of gamedesign. This has it's ups and downs. The ups for people like you, is that you see a lot more definition. The 'story' is more defined, in greater detail. This is something I don't really seem to need. It would have been cool with more definition in Skyrim, but it's not something I need to experience the role-play game or my emergent story. The problem with the higher definition that comes with the 'Cinematic'/'story-driven' railroads with bifurbications -type of games, is that it's not really the outcome of your character's personality, actions and choices. It's just a few scripted, alternative scenes, triggered by some limited choices you have at some point. It's an interactive movie, actually. It's not reasonable to expect anything more, of course. But in the storydriven approach, the futures are limited and already fixed. They have to fit. If you have a sort of movie-watcher approach to "role-play", it's guaranteed to. Otherwise, it could at worst be the sort of annoying POS that DA2 amounted to. A simulation, a simulated world, a sandbox, is an approach that ultimately offers so much more flexibility. It does however, for now, require you to fill in the definition details in your head. This is not something new. It's something gamers have always done, with all games. All the way since Space Invaders and Collossal Caves.

3: What game reacts to your killing, looting, and grave robbing? If you care to satisfy my curiosity? Certainly not DA2? Or are you considering companions reactions here? Well, they seem more concerned about other things...
TES does react to crimes. But very mildly. This, I'm sure, is intentional. There's lots of younger gamers who think the coolest thing is murdering, stealing, robbing, with a minimum of repercussions. They want it that way. Just look at the success of GTA. And before you tell me GTA has other positive sides, I have to say it sure ain't the shooting game or the driving game, because those two aspect sucks horse manure through straw in GTA. I've never seen a worse implementation. Anyway, TES is a sort of software toy. To be used in any way. TW2, DA2 are stories. But that doesn't mean you can't have a story in Skyrim.

Reasons are absolutely significant. That's why saying that Skyrim allows you to have reasons is absurd. It doesn't. It demands that you make them up, and then never reacts to them, because otherwise the game world has no purpose beyond being populated with AI worker ants.

Another statement that I find hard to make sense of. If my character has a personality, then reasons emerge naturally. I don't have to make them up. I have to make up the personality. But that is a thing I want to do.

It's the reasoning and feelings of my character, that I have defined, and how those have evolved by events, which form the motives for anything that my character does. And, no, I do not chase away after each thing that looks like a quest. I do not lift every stone. I do not look into every barrel. I do not rob every house. I do not steal everything. I do not venture into every dungeon. I don't enjoy playing games like that. TES gives me the freedom to not.

Every game gives you the "freedom" not to play it. That's not freedom. 

But that's not really a response to what I said. At all.
Unless, of course, you're so confused about Skyrim that you assume 'playing' the game is about doing everything and doing everything that is in front of your nose now. In that case I can tell you it's not. Playing Skyrim is about freely choosing what to do.

Because you're talking about inventing reasons for your character that are never part of the game that the game never reacts to. That's fan-fiction.

No. And no.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:15 .

[spirosz]

I feel like I can roleplay to a much better degree, compared to DA, but that is subjective at best. Also, just the whole open world experience, so amazing.

[Elhanan]

DA: Better storytelling, AI, and pathing.

Skyrim (have not played prior games): Exploration is key, as well as CC freedom.

Am so looking forward to the best of both in the future.

[Steelcan]

Lots more dragons

[themonty72]

Elton John is dead wrote....

Nothing other than the empty open world.

Role-playing wise it sucks. People here are speaking of consequences when there are none. In fact the whole "NPC's who die are replaced thing" is just another example about how Skyrim holds you by the hand and doesn't contain any real consequence. Plot cannot be impacted in any real way and there's absolutely no way to fail a quest or suffer negative actions as a result. Meanwhile you still can't kill main quest NPC's which is as though Bethesda is trying to dictate what we can and can't do in their "free live your life in another world" game and as though they think we're too dumb to live with our consequences.

The main plot is as linear as hell with the only choice being an aesthetic one realistically which again leads down the same path. The result (regardless of your choice) is that you end up in the same place doing the same thing with the climax being an unsatisfying battle.

Reminds me of DA:2 tbh as far as the choices and role-playing is concerned. I don't need to mention Skyrim's poor writing for the plot and characters too do I?

I'll give Bethesda one thing. At least they know how to create a good art-style and remain consistent with it but that's about it.

You might ask then why I like Dragon's Dogma, a game where there are few choices to make in side quests and where the only choices in the main plot are illusionary ones. Well I like it because it's not pretending to be a traditional RPG. Player dialogue occurs only occasionally with most other responses being a simple "Yes" or "No" thing. The real emphasis on the game is the exploration, combat, customization and loot which Dragon's Dogma does exceptionally well. The story - while not amazing - is at least original and the twists add some level of uniqueness to the game.

Skyrim is the same old thing just like Oblivion. You know what to expect after a few hours of gameplay and nothing changes from then on. me

I agree with you 100%. Another thing this game lack is depth. Fans treat Skyrim as if it was the messiah to rpg and the best Elder Scrolls game ever. Game is so dumbdown. It kind of sucks without mods.

Modifié par themonty72, 28 juillet 2013 - 09:46 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
TW2's levels are pretty linear.  There's a spectrum here.  I'm talking about the player experience.  Devs for both games, Bioshock and Dishonored, even said that they valued letting players choose how to play the levels and not be handheld, because player freedom is a high value.  The Thief games would be another example.

The old Theif games, sure. And like Deus Ex, I'd say that Dishonoured certainly lets players have multiple paths toa  single goal. But TW2 is "open level" in any meaningful comparison re: exploration. And if we talk about multiple paths, then Skyrim doesn't give you any ,unless you're talking about the varied number of ways you can murder things for all of the quests that require to murder things (i.e., the vast majority). 

You have to find those people and places first. The Heart also points you to obscure locations to collect runes and bone charms.  It's very much an exploration tool.

The levels are either a line or a circle. Sometimes you find bone charms off the beaten path, but for example you run into Granny Rags even if you skip her earlier, and the heart readings do not change very much. All of the major NPCs are in your path, and the Outsider speaks to you directly. All the moments with the Outsider are cutscenes. 

What?  This sentence doesn't make sense.  The recordings in Bioshock fill in the world as well as talk about the main story and personal side stories.  Just like Bethesda games.

The recordings in Bioshock aren't about the life of the average viking in Vinland, or the reign of King Henry the IV, which is what the books are in the Bestheda story. There are very few books that address the subject of the game - like the Nevarine in Morrowind or the Dragonborn in Skyrim. But that is a small, small proportion of the 

If you don't see the parallels, fine.  To me they're clear, and I know when I'm playing a game where the dev just wants me to jump through hoops and enforce an authorial point of view versus letting the player experience the story at their own pace or even take the chance that they miss entire pieces of it if they're not paying attention.  The sheer number of cutscenes in Bioware games is a clue that they're emphasizing authorial (dev) point of view and a scripted experience.

Bioshock is the epitome of a game that makes you jump through hoops to enforce an authorial point of view. Bioshock 2 ends with a stream of consciousness rant by Elizabeth about parallel worlds that's almost all cutscene (after the hautingly beautiful level when you're chasing after her in time and end up in NY) and Bioshock 1's plotline is literally about how you're on rails at Fontaine's command. 

Like I said in my first post: games like Bioshock and Dishonoured don't rely on "freezing the player out of control" cutscenes, but they're nothing like an open-world sandbox game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 28 juillet 2013 - 08:16 .

[In Exile]

simfamSP wrote..

Then don't loot, don't rob graves, don't murder.

 

You mean, don't play the game? How about we list 10 quests that don't involve either robbing graves or murder? 

The ES games at least allow almost full control of your environment, the gameplay is part of the narrative in this way. Unlike most RPGs where gameplay/story segregation is essential for roleplaying.  

Gameplay/story segregation is the absolute core of a TES game. The best example of that is how self-contained all of the factions are. 

Because I see no difference in the murder of an NPC in Skyrim to that of a murder of an NPC in Dragon Age. The reasons behind said murder are perfectly valid.

It's not about the reasons. It's about how the game reacts to those reasons. And whether it does. 

I see where you're getting at, and your right in this instance. But reactivity is part of the game mechanics. There is no way an open world could amount to so much of it. It would be like the Legion finally assaulting Hoover's Dam because you wandered around aimlessly for hours. Unless the Witcher 3 proves me wrong (which I hope it does) this is a macrocosmic event which is hindered by the game's need for stability. This is why the ES games can be *played* as RPGs, they aren't really telling you to do so.

I am aware of what the design limitations are: I am saying that those design limitations are the very thing that make it impossible to call the game a meaningful RPG, and just make it about fan-fiction with virtual legos. 

But if it's reactivity you're looking, there's plenty to find in the ES games. That one example is akin to not getting any real response from the choice you make at Reddcliffe, that thrice-damned "get out of jail free" card I hate so much. Even so, we can't really dismiss DA:O as an RPG because of *that.*

Let's have a list. What does an ES game react to? 

There is a possibility of no fruther growth, yes, but the character belongs to the choice, not the consequence.  

If I imagine my character is a shapeshifting alien from the Planet Xorblxax 22, who reproduces by implanting organics with its spawn and waiting for its larva to explode, and the game (and my playstyle) support this character as much as any other design I come up with, then there's a problem with my playstyle.

Well, that's a strawman isn't it? But I understand where you're coming from (I think) and it's not what I'm trying to say. I can create motives, I can imagine a voice, but I limit myself to the setting's laws.  

I'm not trying to say that's your position. I'm just trying to illustrate why it is that I can't consider TES as being either deep or, really, much of an RPG. 

What I'm saying is that if the only thing that sets your PC apart from my shapeshifting alien or bleeting goat is the arbitrary rules you've created limiting the qualities you give your PC, then there's a kind of emptiness about the game that strips it of all the qualities that make a game meaningful as an RPG. 

Your example reminds me of the one guy in any DnD group who decides he's a homosexual rabbit turned into a human by a Drow Sorcerer who happens to enjoy futa.

I made the horrible, horrible mistake of googling the words I didn't know. 

[In Exile]

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...
I'm sorry, but I can't do anything with this.  ...Other than: - Yes it does!
[/quote]

You can totally guess what my response is. 


[quote]1: It's not true. Skyrim is reactive. It's about as reactive as it's reasonable to expect from the state of the art sandbox game, at this point in time. [/quote]

You mean, it doesn't react to absolutely anything. It's about as reactive as Halo 4 is. 

[quote]2: TW2 is a railroad with bifurbications. [/quote]

It has branches, which is exactly what Obsidian did with both Fallout NV and Alpha Protocol. It's how any quest design with multiple outcomes words. The game can only react to what its pre-programmed to react to, but TW2 (plot-wise) goes by far the furthest of any modern RPG in reacting to those choices. Alpha Protocol (in contrast) goes the furtherst in reacting to your small choices. 

A rich RPG would blend both approaches, instead of giving you a box of legos and saying go. 

[quote]The ups for people like you, is that you see a lot more definition. The 'story' is more defined, in greater detail. [/quote]

You're completely wrong. It's not about the story. It's about the reaction. If we're going to use an open world example, it's what Fallout NV tries to do when it (sometimes) recognizes the way you've completed a quest (e.g. via stealth). You don't need anything to be coupled with the story to make it reactive. 

I have lots of complaints about NV that make it not my style of game. But it's a masterpiece of reactivity compared to the unchaging block of wood that is Skyrim. 

[quote]The problem with the higher definition that comes with the 'Cinematic'/'story-driven' railroads with bifurbications -type of games, is that it's not really the outcome of your character's personality, actions and choices. It's just a few scripted, alternative scenes, triggered by some limited choices you have at some point. [/quote]

That's the only way a game reacts to your choices. Unless you want to say is that a game "reacting" to your choices is just the cause and effect of physical actions in the game, because in this case COD is a masterpiece RPG with destructible environments. Look! My desire to make things go BOOM in all sorts of ways is shown in-game. RPG masterpiece! 

[quote]It does however, for now, require you to fill in the definition details in your head. This is not something new. It's something gamers have always done, with all games. All the way since Space Invaders and Collossal Caves. [/quote]

It's fan fiction. Pretending like an arcade game made in the 80s on the budget of a thimble and with less advanced technology that my alarm clock is somehow an ideal to strive for is just absurd. 

[quote]3: What game reacts to your killing, looting, and grave robbing?[/quote]

That's not where I was going with that, actually. Instead, my point was that this is the exhaustive list of gameplay in Skyrim, aside from crafting minigames. Pretending as if it's this rich simulation when 90% of the gameplay that isn't walk is grave robbing and boot stealing is silly. 

[quote]If you care to satisfy my curiosity? Certainly not DA2? Or are you considering companions reactions here? Well, they seem more concerned about other things... [/quote]

You need to get the idea out of your head that I think DA2 is actually good at any of these things. 

[quote]Anyway, TES is a sort of software toy. To be used in any way. TW2, DA2 are stories. But that doesn't mean you can't have a story in Skyrim. [/quote]

Are legos RPGs now?

[quote]Another statement that I find hard to make sense of. If my character has a personality, then reasons emerge naturally. I don't have to make them up. I have to make up the personality. But that is a thing I want to do.[/quote]

Except when the game doesn't actually led you do anything with those reasons other than graverob and murder. You can come up with the most brilliant backstory ever, but you're still limited in Skyrim to buying homes, robbing graves, becoming a faction leader that has 0 consequences in-game. 

That's the sandbox element of the game. 
[quote]But that's not really a response to what I said. At all.

Unless, of course, you're so confused about Skyrim that you assume 'playing' the game is about doing everything and doing everything that is in front of your nose now. In that case I can tell you it's not. Playing Skyrim is about freely choosing what to do.[/quote]
Let's take Sylvius' favourite moment in DA:O. He has a character who - for a variety of reasons - is confronted by Sten at Haven and fights in the duel. He then lets Sten win - because his character is a coward - and that character is then killed by Sten and game over. 

This kind of refusal to play the game for some reason that exists only in your head is possible in every single game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 28 juillet 2013 - 08:12 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
The levels are either a line or a circle. Sometimes you find bone charms off the beaten path, but for example you run into Granny Rags even if you skip her earlier, and the heart readings do not change very much. All of the major NPCs are in your path, and the Outsider speaks to you directly. All the moments with the Outsider are cutscenes.

Cutscenes which you only trigger if you've fully explored and found his shrines.  You could easily miss them if you're not using the Heart.  And again, the idea is that you have multiple paths to approach the level, both geographically and gameplay wise.  You're not guided from one corridor to the next.

The recordings in Bioshock aren't about the life of the average viking in Vinland, or the reign of King Henry the IV, which is what the books are in the Bestheda story. There are very few books that address the subject of the game - like the Nevarine in Morrowind or the Dragonborn in Skyrim. But that is a small, small proportion of the

It's obvious that you'll miss the real meaning of the story in Bethesda games if you don't pay attention to world details and books.  Obvious, because I've had enough discussions with people who don't even know who Alduin is.

At this point I don't even know what you're arguing about. 

Bioshock is the epitome of a game that makes you jump through hoops to enforce an authorial point of view. Bioshock 2 ends with a stream of consciousness rant by Elizabeth about parallel worlds that's almost all cutscene (after the hautingly beautiful level when you're chasing after her in time and end up in NY) and Bioshock 1's plotline is literally about how you're on rails at Fontaine's command.

Infinite is the third game.  And yes, it had more cutscenes and was more linear than I like.  "Epitome" is a bit hyperbolic, however.  Maybe you need to play more corridor shooters if you think that.  Regardless, the games are first person perspective and aren't all about getting you to the next cutscene, so they do relate to Bethesda's design values.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 juillet 2013 - 10:24 .

[HoonDing]

They have Lydia.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
What I'm saying is that if the only thing that sets your PC apart from my shapeshifting alien or bleeting goat is the arbitrary rules you've created limiting the qualities you give your PC, then there's a kind of emptiness about the game that strips it of all the qualities that make a game meaningful as an RPG. 
 

I'm sure you meant to insert an "in my opinion" somewhere here.  Or more pertinently, an "in my experience."  Because this is not the play experience of some, if not most, of the fans of Skyrim.

[LTD]

TES handles storytelling in ways I always hope to see in games: Player gets thrown in this pool where it is up to him to decide just how deep the pool is and what, if anything, to make out of it all. The Civil War of Skyrim and the Empire falling apart in background can be chains of quests that offer bare bones skeleton of the story and little else. Should player feel like getting more involved, he is free to dive deeper to the setting via the few hundred books one finds all over the place.

It isn't entirely accurate to say this is something TES has and DA:O does not have; Codex in DA:O pursues the very same thing. However, I feel Codex is way more abstract and separate entity. It feels bit like reading a Wikipedia article while playing. Books of TES series on the other hand are very much an integral part of the game; You see them, you pick them up, you toss em around. You collect them, arrange them, turn their pages. It is more rewarding. They are more present to and in the world around them. It makes a big deal.

Also, TES games are typically quite free of the narrow tunnels and pipes DA:O's zones were full of; thusly stories in TES have more room to come alive in your head.
In Skyrim, you occasionally stumble upon something. In DA:O you inevitably walk into something. Related sense of discovery or lack of there-of counts in field of storytelling as well.

Modifié par LTD, 29 juillet 2013 - 09:00 .

[Elhanan]

LTD wrote...

TES handles storytelling in ways I always hope to see in games: Player gets thrown in this pool where it is up to him to decide just how deep the pool is and what, if anything, to make out of it all. The Civil War of Skyrim and the Empire falling apart in background can be chains of quests that offer bare bones skeleton of the story and little else. Should player feel like getting more involved, he is free to dive deeper to the setting via the few hundred books one finds all over the place.

It isn't entirely accurate to say this is something TES has and DA:O does not have; Codex in DA:O pursues the very same thing. However, I feel Codex is way more abstract and separate entity. It feels bit like reading a Wikipedia article while playing. Books of TES series on the other hand are very much an integral part of the game; You see them, you pick them up, you toss em around. You collect them, arrange them, turn their pages. It is more rewarding. They are more present to and in the world around them. It makes a big deal.

Also, TES games are typically quite free of the narrow tunnels and pipes DA:O's zones were full of; thusly stories in TES have more room to come alive in your head.
In Skyrim, you occasionally stumble upon something. In DA:O you inevitably walk into something. Related sense of discovery or lack of there-of counts in field of storytelling as well.

My experience is different. Have spent untold hours in DA discovering new lines of dialogue between team members, smiled in pleasure at finding rare random encounters by taking a different route, and discovered differing takes on lore because of a varied follower choice.

Love both games; have spent thousands of hrs playing both. And I look forward to discovering that the next game has a bit of the other included.

But in the final tally, while I would be willing to play older Bioware titles for entertainment, I am not so inclined to acquire older TES games due to reported annoyance over various things. Perhaps if SkyWind becomes a smoother, approved reality, I would be willing to play it, but am unwilling to do so on the older game engine.

[blaidfiste]

renjility wrote...

Race options for the player character.

They're bringing race options back for DA:I.  I'll be following it again.

http://www.forbes.co...tails-revealed/

Modifié par blaidfiste, 08 août 2013 - 12:14 .

[mickey111]

Role playing.

And mods like requiem and Interesting NPCs can fix most of the other problems.\\

Graphics can be beatiful too if you've got a good PC.

My game looks a bit like this: http://skyrim.nexusm...05&user=1&pUp=1

On top of Sharpshooters ENB, I also have the hi res-DLC, improved static mesh, W.A.T.E.R, improved blood interior lighting overhaul, climates of tamriel, and some other minor enhancements.

And the sneak tools mod (which allows me to play as if I'm Garret, master thief) is only the cherry on top.

So far, this game is a dream come true.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Well, Skyrim has a much better modding community. That's why I splurged and bought the Legendary Edition when I already owned the game on console. I personally enjoy games like Skyrim because they give me the freedom to fill in my own story and motives, whereas more driven games, like DA:O and ME don't. I'm never really forced to like certain characters and (once again, with mods) I can theoretically eliminate anyone I want.

It really all comes down to mods, though. Modded Skyrim is quite probably the best game I've ever played, and has a rather impressive immersion factor.

I still remember my trek to Ustengrav where I decided to cut through the plains and encountered the remnants of an Imperial battalion engaged in battle with a dragon. After we slayed it, I forged north to Labyrinthian where a haggard troop of Stormcloaks were battling a horde of undead and trolls. I was rather ill-equipped to deal with such a situation, so I fled to one of the ruin's crypts, only to find myself set upon by yet more undead. After battling my way through the tomb and barely escaping with my life and some precious loot, I emerged only to find my horse dead and a troll bearing down upon me. I ran to a small structure in the center of the complex with the hope of being able to better fight the brutish beast in the enclosed space, where I discovered a mysterious mask that, when worn, transported me to a time long forgotten...

You don't really get a "tell your own story" experience like that with DA, do you?