53 réponses à ce sujet

[Brass_Buckles]

In DA:O, there were always a set number of enemies in a given location, and once you cleared them they were gone forever.  That's actually fairly realistic.

 

In DA2, enemies spawned every quest, often in the same areas (due to the limited scope of the map), although they still didn't really respawn.

 

I'm wondering if DA:I will have enemies that don't respawn, or enemies that do.

 

Before anyone yells about dragons and other boss type enemies, I'm not referring to them.  Once you take one of those bosses down, optional or not, that should be it.  You're done with that boss.

 

No, I'm talking about, since we've been told we can keep playing post-campaign in some way, shape, or form, the standard, run-of-the-mill enemies eventually repopulating, in part to give us something to do, aside from maybe completing quests we didn't get to earlier in our playthrough and of course, playing any DLC.

 

And an edit:  I would like to see this with harvestable plants.  If they could regrow after X amount of days, I'd like that.  I'm fairly neutral on the enemies and wildlife respawning, though it would make the world look nicer to remain populated.

 

The pros of doing this:

 

• There's something to do after the main storyline, even if you run out of quests.
• You don't run out of potential crafting material, but you may have to wait and do a lot of traveling to find it.
• The world doesn't become emptier as you progress.  You'll still see enemies, other people, and wildlife.
• It follows through with what we're told in Lothering in DA:O:  there will just be more bandits to take their place.  (Or more Red Lyrium Templars, unless you killed them all.)

 

The cons:

 

• If all you have left to do is kill random lower-level enemies, you might have more fun starting up a new game.
• Crafting resources should be limited or at least difficult to come by.  It forces players to manage their resources wisely if there will be no more deer.
• You risk making the game monotonous, fighting the same enemies over and over.
• Even though in Lothering you're told that there will always be more bandits, and we know there will be more darkspawn, there is something satisfying about knowing you have truly cleared an area.

 

I didn't want to put this in Feedback and Suggestions, because it isn't feedback or a suggestion.  While I'd love to hear back from a developer on this question, for now I'd be interested to see what others think.

[JeffZero]

I feel like BioWare has long since committed to a set experience threshold in their games and it would kind of surprise me to see them break it. But then again, in the post-Skyrim age of fantasy RPGs, I wouldn't be floored to realize they've bucked that trend of theirs, especially given we know there's post-campaign play in some manner.

[smoke and mirrors]

I like the your pro`s .  Something like Skyrim  would be good , after a couple of days enemies should respawn .

[KaiserShep]

I feel like BioWare has long since committed to a set experience threshold in their games and it would kind of surprise me to see them break it. But then again, in the post-Skyrim age of fantasy RPGs, I wouldn't be floored to realize they've bucked that trend of theirs, especially given we know there's post-campaign play in some manner.

To be fair, this wouldn't be the first time BioWare's put post-campaign play in a game. Mass Effect 2 had this as well.

[JeffZero]

Of course, but I feel like ME2 mainly did it so that LOTSB and Arrival (or whatever those were in the writers' minds at launch) could be ran postgame.

That said, I'm not convinced that isn't the rationale for this too. There could be an Inquisition: Awakening being considered already.

[caradoc2000]

No respawning enemies, TYVM.

 

Sacred 2 is fun, but it is Sacred 2.

[KaiserShep]

Well yeah, there's that. I imagine there'd be some story-driven DLC's down the road that can be played post-game without having to backtrack like DA:O and 2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not really a fan of respawning. If I clear an area, I want that area to be clear.

[Brass_Buckles]

I like the your pro`s .  Something like Skyrim  would be good , after a couple of days enemies should respawn .

 

As much as I enjoy Skyrim, I do see the point of not having an endless supply of certain enemies.  Once defeated, the Stormcloaks or the Imperials should have packed up and gone home.  I think Bioware will handle that sort of thing a bit better, but again, I'm pretty neutral on that issue.

 

The only thing I definitely want to respawn after a week or so is the harvestable plants.  In the gameplay demo there appeared to be lots of them, but if they don't respawn you'll have to resort to buying them or scouring the land and making all the plants go extinct (shame on you).

 

I also feel as if the areas are probably representative of an actually much larger area, so even if enemies don't respawn, maybe wildlife should (unless we want the consequence of "you made moose extinct in Ferelden" to be an actual thing...).

 

As for capping out experience, after you reach the maximum level, experience doesn't cause any level gain anyway.  And I suppose if you still needed to do crafting, you could go kill bandits for gold to buy crafting/potion materials.  Still, I agree, they've always leaned toward the end of "nothing respawns, once it's dead it's gone" line of thinking.  That's actually wonderful when I need to backtrack, and it eliminates a lot of level-grinding that other games have.    But, at the same time, empty worlds are kind of boring.

[Hrungr]

They have mentioned area are meant to be returned to and you will see higher level content.

[smoke and mirrors]

 

 

The only thing I definitely want to respawn after a week or so is the harvestable plants.

 

Good point about the plants for crafting , i had forgotten about that .

[Xerxes52]

I have nothing against enemies respawning when I leave an area and come back later (around three in-game days or so would be fine). I don't even mind when non-story bosses respawn.

I just don't like it when enemies respawn while I'm still in the same map, which is what happened in Borderlands.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I think respawning enemies should depend on the level cap, if they stick to how they did it in DAO and DA2 respawning enemies would be silly as you could max your cap pretty quickly.

[milena87]

I prefer mostly no respawn for this type of game. In a game like Skyrim or Torchlight I actually welcome the respawning enemies, but in a story-driven game I'd like to see most of the encounters having a reason to be there, at least those with humans and most of the monsters.

 

However, it makes sense that some wild animals or particular monsters would respawn in a place: after all, that nice place that I just cleared might look inviting to someone else.

[Divine Justinia V]

I'm not really a fan of respawning. If I clear an area, I want that area to be clear.

Basically this. Otherwise it's annoying.

[EmissaryofLies]

Enemies everywhere!

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Remember in older jrpgs you couldn't take 4 steps without having to fight.

[rlwelch4646]

I wish with this new generation there would be an expansion on many of these things we expect from games. Why wouldn't we view this topic from a new standpoint... not black and white but grey. By that I mean there should be respawning with a reason.

 

For instance, if an area is controlled by an opposing faction and you destroy one of their patrols they are probably going to send out another scouting party or just re-deploy soldiers. Now if you completely wipe out the opposing faction in that larger area (i.e. including any leaders and taking over strongholds) then they wouldn't respawn in the same fashion. They would either enter from a bordering zone (where they have a presence) or wildlife/bandits would slowly start populating the area. You saw this in Skyrim where you would wipe out a stronghold full of bandits only to see it populated with Stormcloaks later. This was fairly basic in its approach but I think we need to start seeing smarter systems... not just respawn or no respawn. It feels more alive that way.

 

I would love it if an opposing faction started moving in again on an ignored region and you would have to either send more troops or go in and wipe out their new attempt at intrusion. This way endgame is viable and during the game it gives you just another reason to revisit old areas as supply chains would be broken or soldiers would be lost or morale would go down or there would be some other consequence.

[Wulfram]

Filler combat is annoying enough the first time through.

[metatheurgist]

I like the your pro`s .  Something like Skyrim  would be good , after a couple of days enemies should respawn .

Skyrim's system blows. The exact same creatures end up repopulating the area. What should happen is the area should be restocked in a sensible way. I kill the bear in the cave, later it's filled with wolves, I kill the wolves, later it's used by a hunter as a camp, I trade with him, later I find the cave empty. Months down the track maybe another bear's back, or maybe I did such a good job of killing the wildlife, the only thing left are happy peasants or angry hunters (that have turned to banditry). That would be more in line with "emergent gameplay".

[CybAnt1]

Respawning makes sense (and is basically essential) in MMOs. 

 

In SRPGs, where chances are you are returning to an outdoor/etc. area only because you forgot to get or do something there, well, no, I don't want to fight the same trash-mob-mooks I fought the first time, which is how it usually works. 

[Vapaa]

Yes for respawing wildlife (since their presence is confirmaed).

 

No for unique ennemies (dragons) and ennemy factions that have no business if you chase them out of an area.

[FilthyPlebianN7]

Skyrim's system blows. The exact same creatures end up repopulating the area. What should happen is the area should be restocked in a sensible way. I kill the bear in the cave, later it's filled with wolves, I kill the wolves, later it's used by a hunter as a camp, I trade with him, later I find the cave empty. Months down the track maybe another bear's back, or maybe I did such a good job of killing the wildlife, the only thing left are happy peasants or angry hunters (that have turned to banditry). That would be more in line with "emergent gameplay".

Well said, it would make the world feel more "alive".

[Navasha]

Personally, I despise respawning enemies.    Mostly I view respawning as a console hack to avoid save game bloat by 'forgetting' you ever did an area.   To this day I haven't completed games like Borderlands 2 because the constant repopulation of areas you have cleared is just too unbearably frustrating.  

 

I wouldn't mind seeing new things move into cleared out caves given some time, but for the exact same creatures/mobs to pop up as if you never even were there is agonizingly bad gameplay.    

 

However, as an explorer I will have sought out everything I can possibly find from an area before leaving it, and once gone, I wouldn't return to it anyway, so I wouldn't have to deal with the respawning anyway.   If they put it in at least make it so we don't have to keep crossing that area for quests, so we can at least avoid seeing that our actions had no effect.   

[rlwelch4646]

 

Skyrim's system blows. The exact same creatures end up repopulating the area. What should happen is the area should be restocked in a sensible way. I kill the bear in the cave, later it's filled with wolves, I kill the wolves, later it's used by a hunter as a camp, I trade with him, later I find the cave empty. Months down the track maybe another bear's back, or maybe I did such a good job of killing the wildlife, the only thing left are happy peasants or angry hunters (that have turned to banditry). That would be more in line with "emergent gameplay".

 

+1 

 

This is the type of innovative system I would appreciate. Intelligent respawning... the living world truly evolving according to your actions, even the subtle ones.