134 réponses à ce sujet

[dutch_gamer]

But from what I can remember(been a while since I've played DAO) It felt very big at times, especially in the deep roads. The size of DAI is not much a big to me as much as how much content is in it. If DAI has twice the amount of Content than DAO then I would be impressed. But to say that its just bigger doesnt say much to me because thats almost like filler content at that point. TES Daggerfall was one of the biggest games ever created, but there wasnt much content in the game itself which lead to a terribly paced and tedious experience.

I have to disagree, that at least for me, a bigger game leads to a terrible paced experience. I believe it is Bethesda's way of telling stories which does. I don't think it should matter if there is stuff between point A and B as long as you can get from point A to B in a timely manner for anyone who doesn't really like to explore. I just can't see making the world bigger really affect the pacing dramatically with good forms of travel.

 

I would love for DAI to not take the same approach as Bethesda tends to take with their games by designing all areas in such a way you trip over actual content around every corner, although I do believe Bioware is still trying to fill every corner with actual content. I prefer my game worlds to make sense, even if this means "pacing" is affected although I don't believe it is as long as you can easily continue the main story, which one can with mounts and fast travel nodes.

 

 

Next-gen is here baby. The Witcher 3 is supposedly 35% bigger than Skyrim so I wouldn't be surprised if DA:I is a pretty "big" game. I'm thinking it'll be bigger than KoA.

 

Hopefully the restricted health regen and healing isn't a padding ploy to make the game longer than it seems.

The Witcher 3 is actually much bigger than just 35 % bigger than Skyrim. A month or two ago CD Projekt Red had a presentation about the technology used for the game and the slides showed the game is actually going to be a few times (3.5 times at least) bigger than Skyrim. This was also later confirmed to be true by a developer. There are three regions for the Witcher 3 and the city region plus the islands region are 52 square miles whereas Skyrim is about 14 square miles.

[DanielCofour]

They said that about the size of playable areas in the game. Meaning the square meters you can interact with/be on is 4-5X more than in Origins. But that's just because this game is open-world(sort of), unlike DAO and DA2, which followed narrow corridors. 

 

I would take this "fact" with a pinch of salt. It seems to me that's it's just PR hype, and not something necessarily significant in terms of gameplay or story content. 

[Mockingword]

I'm less concerned with how much space there will be as opposed to what they fill it with.

[AlanC9]

 

The Witcher 3 is actually much bigger than just 35 % bigger than Skyrim. A month or two ago CD Projekt Red had a presentation about the technology used for the game and the slides showed the game is actually going to be a few times (3.5 times at least) bigger than Skyrim. This was also later confirmed to be true by a developer. There are three regions for the Witcher 3 and the city region plus the islands region are 52 square miles whereas Skyrim is about 14 square miles.

 

On a related topic, how is it that games are getting so much bigger? Have they found automated solutions, or is everyone just throwing more bodies at building terrain?

[DanielCofour]

The Witcher 3 is actually much bigger than just 35 % bigger than Skyrim. A month or two ago CD Projekt Red had a presentation about the technology used for the game and the slides showed the game is actually going to be a few times (3.5 times at least) bigger than Skyrim. This was also later confirmed to be true by a developer. There are three regions for the Witcher 3 and the city region plus the islands region are 52 square miles whereas Skyrim is about 14 square miles.

 

3.5 times bigger?? What planet have you dreamed up that figure on? With the texture detail present in Witcher games, that is not possible. It isn't. Do you have any idea how much work that would require?? Skyrim was huge.. I mean huugee.Bottom line, the game might be a bit bigger than Skyrim... but that's it. Not multiple times bigger. 

[Fishy]

3.5 times bigger?? What planet have you dreamed up that figure on? With the texture detail present in Witcher games, that is not possible. It isn't. Do you have any idea how much work that would require?? Skyrim was huge.. I mean huugee.Bottom line, the game might be a bit bigger than Skyrim... but that's it. Not multiple times bigger. 

 

 

It will be multi-region. So it's actually quite possible.

[slimgrin]

On a related topic, how is it that games are getting so much bigger? Have they found automated solutions, or is everyone just throwing more bodies at building terrain?

The devs haven't been specific about playable area size. It has got bigger than they originally anticipated ( 20% bigger than Skyrim), but saying it's 3.5 times bigger than Skyrim seems highly unlikely to me. People need to remember total map size does not equal playable area size, which can be full of bodies of water, impassable mountains etc.

[Pateu]

Whereas I spent about 90 hours on DAO alone.

Different play styles equals different rates of return.

 

Unless you died a lot, there's no way you can reach that number.

 

That, or you are referring to playing 90 hours combined, on all characters.

[L. Han]

Size isn't everything 

 

Although on the serious note, I don't recommend getting hyped up about tiny bits of information. Be glad and happy, but don't be too enthusiastic. 

[Gtdef]

I wouldn't put much stock in "40-100 hours depending on playstyle" even if it came from the project leader. If I had to draw a conclusion from that I'd say 30 hours to do everything in the game without rushing, based on past experiences. DAO was like that too, 40+ hours, and it takes about 30 to do everything and watch the dialogues etc. So the question is, will we spend most of our time running around the VAST landscapes to reach the destination, or we will actually have something to do most of the time?

 

Comparing DA games to Skyrim is hard cause it's not only about the landscape and the incredible amount of quests. It's about the gameplay. I had to learn how to shoot, how to use the weapons. I actually had to train so I spent a lot of time learning the velocity and reach of the arrows, how to use the timeslowing exploit and how hard I had to draw the string against various situations. In DA and most turn based rpgs you only have to learn how to use the abilities which is pretty easy to do since it doesn't require any physical ability and hand to eye coordination. Its a living and breathing world and you are as good as your skill set. If you are a stealth character, you have to figure out how to take out the guys by stealth, make sure that your weapons are capable of 1shotting by sneak attack, cause if the leader guy with the 2 hander hits you in higher difficulties, you will die oneshot.

 

Bioware guys have to outdo themselves in every possible way to make this huge world living and breathing. I believe they can do but I'm anxious to see how.

[thats1evildude]

Unless you died a lot, there's no way you can reach that number.

That, or you are referring to playing 90 hours combined, on all characters.

It was with one character, and I didn't die that often. Although that play through did include Warden's Keep, The Stone Prisoner and Return to Ostagar.

[TacticalAce]

I have to disagree, that at least for me, a bigger game leads to a terrible paced experience. I believe it is Bethesda's way of telling stories which does. I don't think it should matter if there is stuff between point A and B as long as you can get from point A to B in a timely manner for anyone who doesn't really like to explore. I just can't see making the world bigger really affect the pacing dramatically with good forms of travel.

 

I would love for DAI to not take the same approach as Bethesda tends to take with their games by designing all areas in such a way you trip over actual content around every corner, although I do believe Bioware is still trying to fill every corner with actual content. I prefer my game worlds to make sense, even if this means "pacing" is affected although I don't believe it is as long as you can easily continue the main story, which one can with mounts and fast travel nodes.

 

 

The Witcher 3 is actually much bigger than just 35 % bigger than Skyrim. A month or two ago CD Projekt Red had a presentation about the technology used for the game and the slides showed the game is actually going to be a few times (3.5 times at least) bigger than Skyrim. This was also later confirmed to be true by a developer. There are three regions for the Witcher 3 and the city region plus the islands region are 52 square miles whereas Skyrim is about 14 square miles.

Yes that was the point I was getting at, I dont mind getting lost with exploration. But I just dont like it when you go way out of your way to explore something and its an underwhelming experience. Heck I would even be happy if I walked away with just an epic battle, I dont always need to be rewarded with that uber sword or the Epic Armor. Its more about the experiences you are having while you are doing it.

 

Now as far as Wicher 3, no one seems to confirm that info and the presentation video is nowhere to be found. I would love it to be expansive like that, Skyrim was big but it was not that big. Everything still felt a bit too close or too short of an expereience. For example, in skyrim a quest giver would tell you to go to this mountaintop for a quest and in your mind you think its going to be a nice long trek and journey like in Lord of the Rings but it only takes you 5 minutes or less to reach the top. Also the journey from small towns to citys felt just right around the corner from each other. The "City's" were very small as well, and this is coming from someone who loves Skyrim. So in order for you to really feel like you are on a epic journey to whatever it is, whether it be tracking down a monster, making your way to a City, or getting lost in the Wilds it should always take time to get there, so when you finally get there it is appreciated much more.

 

This applies to DAI as well. I'm against Huge worlds in fact I welcome it, my only concern is when you finally reach the content was that long Journey worth it. Now as far as travelling goes, I think its time to think of other creative means to travel other then horses. Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, and even Witcher are all Fantasy Settings, I'm pretty sure there are faster means to travel then just horses with so many different things existing in the world. Heck it could be as simple as, here is this new cool creature that is twice as fast as horses.

[TacticalAce]

Since I cant find the edit button " I'm not against Huge Worlds" lol

[Gtdef]

You need to refresh the page to see the edit button. Kinda dumb.

[Al Foley]

I think the size of the game being so much bigger, but the size of the game play being that much smaller compartively...we have a four to five time increase in geographic space but only a 2-3 time increase in game play time...could come from almost any number of ways.  For instance, while the area of each map is larger, the time to complete certain quests could be drastically smaller.  For some of the quests in DA 2, even though the game was 'small' they had you running all over Kirkwall and fighting enemies in each location and really doing a lot which increased the play time dramatically.  Which then brings us to enemies and from what it looks likes we will be getting fewer enemies per engagement this time around.

[TacticalAce]

I think the size of the game being so much bigger, but the size of the game play being that much smaller compartively...we have a four to five time increase in geographic space but only a 2-3 time increase in game play time...could come from almost any number of ways.  For instance, while the area of each map is larger, the time to complete certain quests could be drastically smaller.  For some of the quests in DA 2, even though the game was 'small' they had you running all over Kirkwall and fighting enemies in each location and really doing a lot which increased the play time dramatically.  Which then brings us to enemies and from what it looks likes we will be getting fewer enemies per engagement this time around.

Thats a good point, I actually liked the long quest in DA2 as well. There were times that I thought a quest was done because it was the "traditional" thing to do in RPG's which is one and done quest. But the fact that it kept on going made it feel like its own individual fleshed out story beggining middle and end. With DAI I think its still possible to do quest like that for city locations. But it would become tedious if a quest had you bouncing back and forth in the middle of nowhere.

[Eternal Phoenix]

They are talking about the size of the game not the length. In other words they have added a lot more empty space between A and B. I don't think it will work since the game will run out of steam. That type of games needs to be quite tight unlike something like Skyrim. 

 

If they try that on something similiar to the deep roads the reaction won't be pretty. 

 

They did fine with Baldur's Gate. If they can make the regions as worth exploring as they did back then, then everything will be fine.

[TKavatar]

3.5 times bigger?? What planet have you dreamed up that figure on? With the texture detail present in Witcher games, that is not possible. It isn't. Do you have any idea how much work that would require?? Skyrim was huge.. I mean huugee.Bottom line, the game might be a bit bigger than Skyrim... but that's it. Not multiple times bigger.

It is possible because TW3 is not cross-gen. It's not limited by ancient 8 year old hardware unlike DAI or Skyrim.

[JeffZero]

Gameplay hour estimates are terribly imprecise anyway. I usually clock 65 before I finish ME2 and ME3. Most people call me crazy for this; my ex clocks 80.

[Al Foley]

Gameplay hour estimates are terribly imprecise anyway. I usually clock 65 before I finish ME2 and ME3. Most people call me crazy for this; my ex clocks 80.

I know someone who just logged 123 for DA O and that is not including all the 'post game DLC'.

[Vandicus]

If they meant map size, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. After all, we do have mounts in this game.

[Volus Warlord]

Gameplay hour estimates are terribly imprecise anyway. I usually clock 65 before I finish ME2 and ME3. Most people call me crazy for this; my ex clocks 80.

 

 

Do you make frequent trips out of the house for beverages while the game is on? Those two, even on "completionist" runs, rarely take longer than 30 hours for me and generally more like 20.

 

On topic, we'll see. DA:O was extremely corridor-ey so odds are it wouldn't be TOO hard to beat it with surface area.