117 réponses à ce sujet

[Karlone123]

I found Skyrim to be really fun if you turn the music off, crank up the difficulty and turn off the hud and crossairs, I imagine DAI to be open world in the sense the Witcher 2 had large areas.

[Beerfish]

I think the open world and the inclusion of quests or storylines not directly tied to the main plot is what they were after.  Exploration.

[Urazz]

I hope not. I thought Skyrim was unbelievably tedious. I think I lasted about 2 hours before I gave up due to a lack of coherent plot, annoying combat mechanics, horrible wooden voiceacting, and an overall lack of fun; I don't know if it got better with a bunch of mods, but I thought it sucked in its vanilla form. I really hope that a more open explorable world is the only similarity between the two.

I think when people say look to Skyrim for inspiration, they mean the things Skyrim did well.  Skyrim's story and companions are not it's strong points.  If anything story is one of the weakest things in the Elder Scrolls series in my opinion.  Bioware's strength lies in it's storytelling and companions so I'm expecting Bioware to not lose focus on that respect to their game.

 

I myself feel Skyrim didn't live up to it's hype.  Sure it had beautiful landscape and a ton of exploring but other than that, I felt the game was pretty bland.  Luckily I played it on PC so mods helped liven it up a bit.

[teenparty]

Well Skyrim was THE big thing back in 2011. Additionally it was the game that showed all those executives up in their conference rooms that a game doesn't have to have multiplayer to be successfull and that investing a lot of money into a game to make it as good as possible can yield much more profit than just throwing it out there as fast as possible. 

I wouldn't be surprised if skyrim was the reason Inquisition got as much budget to work with as it got, of course coupled with the reason that DA 2 sold pretty poor. 

As allready said they took the larger environments from skyrim as an "inspiration", but i would guess that statements was more marketing than anything else. The marketing department always things it's good to be compared to something popular.

How do you explain the MMO, Mister?

[frankf43]

The Skyhold is a somewhat analagous to the houses you acquire in Skyrim, you can fit them out and craft potions etc. Rifts are a little like the Oblivion gates in some ways, although that wasn't Skyrim. Perhaps they also mean they looked at Elder Scrolls games as a whole.

 

It's possible they looked at Skyrim for the crafting and modifications of weapons along with basic skill tree structure.

 

I'm also thinking that having the world actually react to what you have done was part of Skyrim. In DA3 different creatures will be present based on your previous actions a little like Skyrim does it with characters and areas.

 

Personally from what we have seen of the crafting it reminds me more of KoA:R than Skyrim. The way you take this kind of Pommel add another type of blade and you can produce blades with different attributes. Of course in KoA:R you had rivets and wrappings as well. You could also salvage equipment into its different components too.

[Lebanese Dude]

Honestly, I think the "inspiration" they took from Skyrim was "don't make lame dragon fights". 

 

I actually enjoyed Skyrim, so don't take this as a me trolling, but the dragon fights were disappointing to me. I'm looking forward to a challenge in DAI.

Mods.

 

Over 100 of them.

 

They turn Skyrim from an average game to the most fun non-party based RPG I've ever played.

[Lebanese Dude]

I found Skyrim to be really fun if you turn the music off, crank up the difficulty and turn off the hud and crossairs, I imagine DAI to be open world in the sense the Witcher 2 had large areas.

 

I'm currently playing an archer without the crosshair (iHud) as well as realistic gravity.

 
It turns a deer hunt into an adrenaline pumping encounter.

[katerinafm]

Pretty sure they've only taken inspiration about how an open world can work (finding hidden areas, how the layouts can be, etc). I mean, what other inspiration could they take, really? They are very different games and I wouldn't want DA to be more similar to Skyrim anyway. I don't think many would.

[dch2404]

Can it really just be the concept of the open world, because I mean, it's not like BioWare were ignorant of the concept themselves. All they have to do is look back at their own critically acclaimed games like BG1 and BG2, which were very open world. You might argue NWN in there too, maybe a semi-open world. Heck it is a bit strange to think that the last BW game to feature mounted horses was Shadows of Undrentide.

 

TES5 has terrible storylines (e.g. I found a book and became a bard), virtually no character development (Serana was the only one who came close) and no continuity. These are the antithesis of what BioWare games stand for. Despite my personal criticisms of TES5, don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed TES5 for what it is and it is the sole reason I learn 3DS Max in my spare time.

 

However, I do believe Skyrim's success just boils down to one simple concept. Bethesda concentrates on giving their audience what they want: first/third person combat with lots of customisation in an open, living world. They also took their time, 5 years since TES4. Exposing themselves on Steam (I know it won't happen with DAI) and releasing mods also helped them reach the status of best selling WRPG in 2013 (though this might change now that Diablo 3 is out on consoles).

[Iakus]

Mods.

 

Over 100 of them.

 

They turn Skyrim from an average game to the most fun non-party based RPG I've ever played.

Not to mention dramatically increases the life expectancy of the game.

 

Far more than being dependant on EA's servers for MP

[DanielCofour]

A lot of people misunderstand entirely what Skyrim represented and why it became so big. It wasn't because combat was good, not because story, graphics, or any particular feature. Most of those were mediocre, some of them were bad.

 

What made Skyrim so big was the fact that it was so big. It was a giant game with endless possibilities and thousands of hours worth of content. It didn't take itself too seriously and let the player do whatever they want.

 

I think when Bioware made the comment, it was about the scope of Skyrim, rather than the features themselves. And if that's really what they're shooting for, then I'm all for it. 

[wicked cool]

They seem to take their lore very seriously. The dungeons maybe easy to navigate but name console games that have done them better

They dont have a good bug catching dept but that maybe due to size of game.

Im hoping da3 can capture some of the dungeon delving fun i had along with discovering new areas

The inquisitors special ability is also maybe a slight nod to the dragonborn

[Elhanan]

I went further , and did some side quest . Modded Skyrim with 270+ mods , and nope . It is still boring . The whole 'Go explore' get boring after a time IF you are the kind of person who like a story that drive you to do something . 
Fighting dragons , vampires even become a werewolf . Did the Collége of Mage and the fighter guild and both were a let down . 
Sure the scenery was beautiful , sure some view were breathtaking , sure following a river and roaming in a forest and seeing snow fall on you was amazing . 
But to me the real meat of a game is a story . And that was lacking in Skryim . It isn't a bad game , it just a style of games some peoples will like and some won't .

Cannot recall any Fighter's Guild for Skyrim.

While some Factions were more lackluster than others, the Dark Brotherhood, Thieves Guild, and Dawnguard storylines were quite enjoyable for me, and I like the Main quest line, too. Plus, what was implemented for the Civil War was nicely designed; still debated on the Skyrim forums.

But I do empathize over following a story, as this is also my favorite motivation. My first character did everything (not recommended), so the overall tale made little sense. It was after this when I allowed my own imagination to tell the stories, and weave what was available together to form a basis for my characters, as well as add some simple themes.

* Orc - Noble heart, and would not take much guff off of anyone. I would RP guard sleights as encounters to be met with intimidation (ie; "What did you say?"), then give them three tries to become friendly or change the subject; never had to kill one guard that way. Did kill Nazir, though. And used an Elder Scroll to go back in time (ie; load prior Save), and switch from assisting the Stormckoaks to side with the Empire. This remains my fave playthrough.

* Argonian - would not use a horse, but travelled using the waterways of Skyrim.

* Dark Elf - imprisoned Mage eventually became a Vampiric Lord, as well as the adjunct Archmage.

* Nord - amnesiac avatar of Talos; would attempt to side with those things that seemed to best apply to Tiber Septum.

* Khajiit - would attempt to use the night as much as possible, nap a lot, and was apathetic to most everything.

Had something for every race except Imperial, and used a Breton predominantly to cover most events.

That all said, I still find the AI for Followers lacking, and prefer to play solo if possible. While mods help, they still are annoying for me. This is one area where Bioware excels; only games where I prefer to make Companions and take them along for the banter.

[veeia]

A lot of people misunderstand entirely what Skyrim represented and why it became so big. It wasn't because combat was good, not because story, graphics, or any particular feature. Most of those were mediocre, some of them were bad.

What made Skyrim so big was the fact that it was so big. It was a giant game with endless possibilities and thousands of hours worth of content. It didn't take itself too seriously and let the player do whatever they want.

I think when Bioware made the comment, it was about the scope of Skyrim, rather than the features themselves. And if that's really what they're shooting for, then I'm all for it.

I agree. Bioware already knows how to tell a story, so why would they look at an IP widely known to have a weak narrative? Bioware has completely different combat, so why would they look at Skyrim's?

When people say "like Skyrim" these days, it means "big, sprawling world with lots of things to discover and nonessential quests/NPCs" . Because that's the series strength and draw, and it's the best selling fantasy rpg game that has those features, so people immediately know what they mean.

[thats1evildude]

In the end, I think Inquisition draws more inspiration from Assassin's Creed than Skyrim.

[wicked cool]

So why did they make the comnent?

[Elhanan]

So why did they make the comnent?

My best guess is that at an estimated 150 hrs, DAI will present the largest Bioware solo game extant. That is a lot of time and room for RP and exploration.

[AlanC9]

Can it really just be the concept of the open world, because I mean, it's not like BioWare were ignorant of the concept themselves. All they have to do is look back at their own critically acclaimed games like BG1 and BG2, which were very open world.

I wouldn't say that BG2 is any more open-world than DAO is.

[AlanC9]

Cannot recall any Fighter's Guild for Skyrim.

The Companions, presumably.
 

But I do empathize over following a story, as this is also my favorite motivation. My first character did everything (not recommended), so the overall tale made little sense. It was after this when I allowed my own imagination to tell the stories, and weave what was available together to form a basis for my characters, as well as add some simple themes.

This is exactly why TES games always fall a little flat for me. By definition this requires me to go outside my character's perspective and use my imagination. Trying to shape the story myself is the sort of approach I take in the fourth or fifth play of a Bio game, where there's nothing left to do but metagame your way to a new experience. So in effect a TES game feels a bit used up to me on the initial run.

But I don't think it's realistic to worry about Bio deliberately choosing to emulate this aspect of TES games anyway. Though I'm a little worried that they might get there by accident.

[Jester]

The ability to explore a given area seems to be enough for me, though I would have enjoyed Archery also being implemented due to greater control. And taking the story off the rails as much as any game I have seen in a Bioware title may be another.

Skyrim had a story?

Damn, must've missed it.

 

It's possible they looked at Skyrim for the crafting and modifications of weapons along with basic skill tree structure.

 

Looking to Skyrim to crafting? What?

Skyrim's crafting was "gain a perk, make new weapon, upgrade it so it does x% more damage and don't feel the damn difference, because in the meantime all enemies leveled up and gained more HP". DA:I actually allows you to mix different effects that weapons have, and it's crafting system in general (at first glance) seems superior to everything we've seen in an RPG so far.

 

Vanilla game isnt perfect but us playable and outshines da1&2 in many ways except acting, npcs, romance and story

 

You mean DA:O was better in like... everything?

Skyrim had better exploration and far larger map. That's it.

 

• Skyrim's story is nonexistant.
• It's NPCs are all bland and uninteresting - they barely have any personality at all.
• Locations are numerous, but they lack character - every Nord ruin is the same. When exploring first 2 I was all like "WOW, it's amazingly large!" After that, each other followed exactly the same scheme and I was just fighting/sneaking through dozens of leveled enemies in order to find a door with a pointless "puzzle", there is nothing distinct about particular locations to make you remember them, cities are a joke...
• Combat is much more complex in DA. It;s hard to compare single character combat to party based one, but combat was meh. Dragon Shouts didn't help at all, because apart from "FUS RO DAH" and another one that was broken in unmodded game (decreased enemy's armor to "minus-a-lot" making them killable in one hit) most of them are useless at higher levels.
• Character progression made combat unfairly difficult, unless you leveled up combat trees heavily.
• Inventory UI is just unbelievably terrible. At least on PC.
• Spells were incredibly unimaginative. For such a large game, how could you made only 4 types of offensive spells (one-target spell, an area spell, rune spell and a continous damage spell), repeated for 3 different elements? At Destruction 25 you got an Icicle spell, and at Destruction 75 you got a... larger Icicle spell. Apart from that, you had Illusion with three different spells, repeated across levels (some did AOE effect, but apart from that they just affected higher level enemies, meaning that you did exactly the same thing) + Muffle/Invisibility. Or Conjuration, where you had 5 types of spells that raised fallen enemies, that just changed what level enemy you could raise. Or 4 different Restoration spells, that just healed more hitpoints or created a stronger shield. Compare it with dozens of spells in DA, each distinctively different from one another, additional effects, combos, buffs, debuffs...
• Equipment is all the same (3 types of 2-handed and 1-handed weapons + bow + dagger), differing only in material, crafted weapons are far superior to one-of-a-kind artifacts, Smithing was obligatory for any warrior/archer/assassin archetype, otherwise you were just purposefully nerfing yourself...
• None of your actions have any effect on the world whatsoever. Kill the Emperor of Tamriel? Guard mentions it. You can then join the Imperial Legion, despite the fact that each and every guard in the city seems to know that you are from Dark Brotherhood, the same one that murdered the Emperor. It's like if you joined the Templars in DA2 and then had to fight Meredith...wait, ****, bad example.
• You mentioned romances... well, I won't even mention execution of this element in Skyrim. It'd be below this discussion to mention it. But it was caused by lack of any meaningful dialogue with any NPC. 
• Oh, Skyrim had better graphics than both DA games. But that's hardly a redeeming factor.

To those who say "But Skyrim sold 20 millions copies! It clearly is superior game to everything on the market!"

Call of Duty: Black Ops sold 5.6 million copies in ONE DAY in UK and USA marker ALONE. And was the best selling game of all time at the time in USA.

 

Are sales really an argument, when it comes to making a good game?

[theflyingzamboni]

Honestly, I think the "inspiration" they took from Skyrim was "don't make lame dragon fights". 

 

I actually enjoyed Skyrim, so don't take this as a me trolling, but the dragon fights were disappointing to me. I'm looking forward to a challenge in DAI.

What? Are you not entertained by OHK'ing the big bosses, or stagger-locking them from a distance so that they never get to attack you? What could be more epic than trivializing the such monstrous enemies with poorly implemented game mechanics??

[wicked cool]

Sales are what make a great game. In most cases its because you want to online with friends or you saw/talked to friends who liked it

Compare it to da2. Combat is better, you are stuck for the most part on the rails in da2, the favor ratings for companions were a mess, dungeons were awful and recycled, miss a dagger in act 1 and you can forget about it

Compare it to da1-da combat is slow, walking is slow and awkward, barely interact with environment, most npcs dont even acknowledge you, dlc separate worlds and awakenings not as fun as original. Fade is forced on you and painful at best

Da franchise shines in unique lore, companions and with da1 the feeling you beat the game and actions were appreciated

[Elhanan]

Skyrim had a story?
Damn, must've missed it.

Helpful link: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Quest_(Skyrim)
 

Looking to Skyrim to crafting? What?
Skyrim's crafting was "gain a perk, make new weapon, upgrade it so it does x% more damage and don't feel the damn difference, because in the meantime all enemies leveled up and gained more HP". DA:I actually allows you to mix different effects that weapons have, and it's crafting system in general (at first glance) seems superior to everything we've seen in an RPG so far.

Skyrim allowed one to craft weapons, armor and accessories, enchant them, as well as mix potions & poisons. Sounds similar to me.
 

You mean DA:O was better in like... everything?
Skyrim had better exploration and far larger map. That's it.

• Skyrim's story is nonexistant.
• It's NPCs are all bland and uninteresting - they barely have any personality at all.
• Locations are numerous, but they lack character - every Nord ruin is the same. When exploring first 2 I was all like "WOW, it's amazingly large!" After that, each other followed exactly the same scheme and I was just fighting/sneaking through dozens of leveled enemies in order to find a door with a pointless "puzzle", there is nothing distinct about particular locations to make you remember them, cities are a joke...
• Combat is much more complex in DA. It;s hard to compare single character combat to party based one, but combat was meh. Dragon Shouts didn't help at all, because apart from "FUS RO DAH" and another one that was broken in unmodded game (decreased enemy's armor to "minus-a-lot" making them killable in one hit) most of them are useless at higher levels.
• Character progression made combat unfairly difficult, unless you leveled up combat trees heavily.
• Inventory UI is just unbelievably terrible. At least on PC.
• Spells were incredibly unimaginative. For such a large game, how could you made only 4 types of offensive spells (one-target spell, an area spell, rune spell and a continous damage spell), repeated for 3 different elements? At Destruction 25 you got an Icicle spell, and at Destruction 75 you got a... larger Icicle spell. Apart from that, you had Illusion with three different spells, repeated across levels (some did AOE effect, but apart from that they just affected higher level enemies, meaning that you did exactly the same thing) + Muffle/Invisibility. Or Conjuration, where you had 5 types of spells that raised fallen enemies, that just changed what level enemy you could raise. Or 4 different Restoration spells, that just healed more hitpoints or created a stronger shield. Compare it with dozens of spells in DA, each distinctively different from one another, additional effects, combos, buffs, debuffs...
• Equipment is all the same (3 types of 2-handed and 1-handed weapons + bow + dagger), differing only in material, crafted weapons are far superior to one-of-a-kind artifacts, Smithing was obligatory for any warrior/archer/assassin archetype, otherwise you were just purposefully nerfing yourself...
• None of your actions have any effect on the world whatsoever. Kill the Emperor of Tamriel? Guard mentions it. You can then join the Imperial Legion, despite the fact that each and every guard in the city seems to know that you are from Dark Brotherhood, the same one that murdered the Emperor. It's like if you joined the Templars in DA2 and then had to fight Meredith...wait, ****, bad example.
• You mentioned romances... well, I won't even mention execution of this element in Skyrim. It'd be below this discussion to mention it. But it was caused by lack of any meaningful dialogue with any NPC. 
• Oh, Skyrim had better graphics than both DA games. But that's hardly a redeeming factor.

To those who say "But Skyrim sold 20 millions copies! It clearly is superior game to everything on the market!"
Call of Duty: Black Ops sold 5.6 million copies in ONE DAY in UK and USA marker ALONE. And was the best selling game of all time at the time in USA.
 
Are sales really an argument, when it comes to making a good game?

While I also contend that DAO is a better game for me, Skyrim is right behind it on my own list.

* Skyrim has many stories, whether one acknowledges them or not.
* Enjoy the charcters of Paarth, Esbern, Arngeir, Odahviing, Elenwen, Kodlak, and many more.
* Almost every dungeon and ruin has it's own story, esp if one takes the time to read the Journals and notes left therein. And I cannot recall any repeated designs; each one unique, I believe.
* Shouts can be used from start to finish; esp fond of Kyne's Peace, Clear Skies, Throw Voice, and for the Thalmor, holds and forts; Storm Call, plus the ones mentioned.
* Generally, only use the base perks for 1H, 2H, and armors; prefer the combat in my games to be fewer one shots. But one may design each character in a myriad of ways.
* Used Vanilla UI for 700+ hrs on the PC; not bad at all, though SkyUI does offer much more.
* While I prefer swords, the hammers and mauls in game looked great, as well as DW axes and daggers. Smithing helps, but like Alchemy, it is hardly mandatory.
* Spells cover the basics, but also offers some varied designs and imaginative uses for the varied Schools.
* Crafted weapons from a Master does offer better results than most artifacts; a plus for me.
* Most actions and factions in game get noticed from the lowliest of NPC's to the greatest (eg; Spells, Skills, Armors, weapons, etc).
* Romance and marriage implementation is my top criticism, too. That said, many others seem to enjoy the various ones, plus the adoptions offered by the DLC.

At 2800+ hrs and counting, Skyrim is hardly a lackluster game for me.

[Kage]

Compare it with dozens of spells in DA, each distinctively different from one another, additional effects, combos, buffs, debuffs...

 

Wow arent you biased mate xDDD

Dozens of spells of DA? You know we have 29, right?

 

I love both Skyrim and Dragon Age, but for me it is easier to replay Dragon Age than Skyrim. Once experienced Skyrim, the lack of story and shallow NPC / companions, makes following playthroughs just boring.

 

However, the experience of exploring Skyrim was awesome, and the game was huuuuge. It gave me so many hours before I considered it finished...

[AlanC9]

* Almost every dungeon and ruin has it's own story, esp if one takes the time to read the Journals and notes left therein. And I cannot recall any repeated designs; each one unique, I believe.

They do get repetitive after a while. I've only been playing for a couple of weeks and I find myself thinking "here's the bridge piece again," for instance. I guess there are only so many ways to build a dungeon.

* Generally, only use the base perks for 1H, 2H, and armors; prefer the combat in my games to be fewer one shots. But one may design each character in a myriad of ways.

You've been around here long enough to remember Syrsuro, right? His position was that TES combat wasn't ever going to be enjoyable or balanced since that wasn't the design objective, so the thing to do was just go right for the exploits and steamroll everything. (Or am I thinking of Torias?)

Anyway, Skyrim's a lot better balanced than Oblivion, and my mage doesn't have to go around casting Bound Spear all the time the way he did in Morrowind. But I have a problem here which is sort of related to my earlier point. Having to deliberately think of ways to manipulate the levelling system is unfun for me when it takes me out of the PC's headspace. Thinking "do I need to get spell X" is in-character, thinking "I've got to stop levelling Alchemy so much because it's making the enemies too tough" is out-of-character. Thankfully, known to not be an issue with DAI.

* Crafted weapons from a Master does offer better results than most artifacts; a plus for me.

Minus for me, but nobody's making me or anyone else grind smithing.