117 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Just because Dragon Age 2 was really bad for reuse of environments doesn't suddenly mean that I'm not allowed to criticize Skyrim. Skyrim is a great game that did a lot of things right but it's one that also did a number of things poorly in my opinion.
 
One of those things is that I think Skyrim didn't have enough variety in their dungeons. Reusing stuff is to be expected and while they do throw the odd unique thing at you the vast majority of the dungeons were the same small handful of tilesets which got boring to me.
 
Real life arguments are irrelevant. People don't make skyscrapers so that we can go have fun exploring them.  
 
It was more about the lack of variety in the types of dungeons rather than how they put them together.

Yet as Dutchess illustrated, every dungeon was of a different design. The one shown had several stories, and the ones I listed earlier had multiple wings, varied NPC's, etc. Both the Toolset (and likely those constructing the tombs) used the same materials, there is little reason to expect them to vary in appearance other than culturally, which is done (eg; Dwemer, Dunmer).

This is also done in the DA series; varied appearances based on race and culture, but similar for the same group.

Now I get the idea that sim designs begin to look alike (personally not fond of Dwarven ruins for this reason), but it is consistent with the materials the actual architects and laborers would have had during the same periods.

[Dutchess]

Just because Dragon Age 2 was really bad for reuse of environments doesn't suddenly mean that I'm not allowed to criticize Skyrim. Skyrim is a great game that did a lot of things right but it's one that also did a number of things poorly in my opinion.

 

One of those things is that I think Skyrim didn't have enough variety in their dungeons. Reusing stuff is to be expected and while they do throw the odd unique thing at you the vast majority of the dungeons were the same small handful of tilesets which got boring to me.

 

Real life arguments are irrelevant. People don't make skyscrapers so that we can go have fun exploring them.

 

Of course you can criticize Skyrim. I'm just questioning how fair some of those criticisms are. Like I said, if there is a game with the same number of dungeons as Skyrim and reuses assets far less to create those dungeons, I would love to hear it. More of anything (and everything) is always better, but there's a lot that has to be put into the game (any game) and I can accept that at some point they have to say it's enough and they will have to make due with the dungeon sections they have created. Maybe Witcher 3 or - who knows - DAI will blow Skyrim's dungeons out of the water and make Bethesda look less good, but as it stands the amount of effort that has been put into making all Skyrim's dungeons is obvious to me and is reason for me to love the game and respect its creators. If the variety of the dungeons is too limited for you, that is of course a valid opinion and reason to enjoy the game less or grow bored of it. But I think part of such criticism is looking at the competition and seeing how well a game handles itself against others with a similar approach, and looking at what else has been released in 2011 and the following years Bethesda can be proud. 

 

I believe some comparisons with the real world are perfectly valid, as no construction, be it pyramid, castle or skyscraper has ever been designed with the purpose to make it "fun to explore". Of course games don't have to follow the rules that apply to reality to the same degree (and they don't), but in my opinion there's nothing wrong with having things make sense from a more realistic point of view. That can mean one exit of a dungeon being on sea level and the other exit high up a mountain as you climb various levels in the dungeon (like with Shriekwind Bastion), ice caves up North in the snowy parts of Skyrim, and Nords that were practical when they build their ancestors' tombs. Within limits I can suspend some disbelief and have little problem approaching things from such a perspective rather than considering every limitation caused by "lack of resources".

[Cyonan]

Of course you can criticize Skyrim. I'm just questioning how fair some of those criticisms are. Like I said, if there is a game with the same number of dungeons as Skyrim and reuses assets far less to create those dungeons, I would love to hear it. More of anything (and everything) is always better, but there's a lot that has to be put into the game (any game) and I can accept that at some point they have to say it's enough and they will have to make due with the dungeon sections they have created. Maybe Witcher 3 or - who knows - DAI will blow Skyrim's dungeons out of the water and make Bethesda look less good, but as it stands the amount of effort that has been put into making all Skyrim's dungeons is obvious to me and is reason for me to love the game and respect its creators. If the variety of the dungeons is too limited for you, that is of course a valid opinion and reason to enjoy the game less or grow bored of it. But I think part of such criticism is looking at the competition and seeing how well a game handles itself against others with a similar approach, and looking at what else has been released in 2011 and the following years Bethesda can be proud. 

 

I believe some comparisons with the real world are perfectly valid, as no construction, be it pyramid, castle or skyscraper has ever been designed with the purpose to make it "fun to explore". Of course games don't have to follow the rules that apply to reality to the same degree (and they don't), but in my opinion there's nothing wrong with having things make sense from a more realistic point of view. That can mean one exit of a dungeon being on sea level and the other exit high up a mountain as you climb various levels in the dungeon (like with Shriekwind Bastion), ice caves up North in the snowy parts of Skyrim, and Nords that were practical when they build their ancestors' tombs. Within limits I can suspend some disbelief and have little problem approaching things from such a perspective rather than considering every limitation caused by "lack of resources".

 

I would think that getting bored is fair enough to criticize without needing to compare it to other games but if you insist, Diablo 2 has a fairly solid variety in environments with 4 acts each composed of multiple areas all with their own look and feel(that keeps the overall tone of the act itself). The only place it fell short was act 4 which was only really half an act.

 

The game uses procedural generation to create the dungeons and wilderness which mixes them up every time you play but the variety in environments is enough that it doesn't feel like running the same half a dozen dungeons over and over again with the odd unique thing thrown in here and there.

 

Not sure what the amount of effort put into the game has to do with this. I'm not calling Bethesda lazy or even saying they made a bad game.

 

Having designs grounded in real life is fine but as you said, nothing in real life is really designed to be fun to explore. Skyrim on the other hand is designed to be fun to explore. The real life comparison is irrelevant in this case because Skyrim was built to be fun while a skyscraper was not.

[Eternal Phoenix]

The quote is from a very old article back in 2011 when Skyrim had just reached 10 million sales.

http://www.wired.com...2/dragon-age-3/

 

Obviously a lot has changed in 3 years, including the retirement of Muzyka from BW who quoted the above, but did any elements of Skyrim reach DA:I?

 

Aside from both being labelled RPGs in a dark fantasy setting, I don't see much influence. Certanly not when considering combat mechanics, modding tools, levelling up, NPC development, storylines, continuity and dialogue.

 

Despite being plagued by horrible gameplay elements like bad AI (move out of the doorway damnit!), and really dire flirtation lines ("Is that an Amulet of Mara?"), Skyrim went on to sell more than 20 million copies.

 

The only thing I can see is the inclusion of mounts and a more open world, but these weren't things that Skyrim invented, they just implemented the concept very well.

 

Thankfully it doesn't seem like any Skyrim elements have reached Inquisition judging by the gameplay videos.

 

I think Skyrim possibly influenced Bioware going back to an open world approach as they had with the Baldur's Gate games but that's all.

[MrMrPendragon]

Hopefully they didn't take the ff

 

1. Alchemy and Crafting system - Ugh, Skyrim's crafting/smithing is INCREDIBLY boring, so is Alchemy. I hated all of it.

 

2. Gold Cap for Shopkeepers - I take everything that's not nailed to the ground and sell most of it. I can't do that if the shop guy only has 5 sovereigns or something.  Hated that in Skyrim.

 

3. Surprise quests - Hated how in Skyrim, you just listen to a random conversation then suddenly you have another quest in your journal. It all piles up and your journal ends up being a mess.

[Mr.Hmm]

Me, I would be really happy if they just made a mod tool set for DA:I. The default Skyrim experience was certainly fun but with the addition of mods you could have a really hardcore/interesting experience . Would be really great if they made a toolkit so that people could make mods (sure at start it might be useless ones but as time goes by there might be some really big ones).

 

I do know that they said they wont make a toolkit for modding but i really hope they are at last considering it.

[Elhanan]

Hopefully they didn't take the ff
 
1. Alchemy and Crafting system - Ugh, Skyrim's crafting/smithing is INCREDIBLY boring, so is Alchemy. I hated all of it.
 
2. Gold Cap for Shopkeepers - I take everything that's not nailed to the ground and sell most of it. I can't do that if the shop guy only has 5 sovereigns or something.  Hated that in Skyrim.
 
3. Surprise quests - Hated how in Skyrim, you just listen to a random conversation then suddenly you have another quest in your journal. It all piles up and your journal ends up being a mess.

What may be boring for some could possibly be quite enjoyable and immersive for others. One of the major posters in the Skyrim thread here on BSN is a huge fan of Alchemy, and is one of the go to folks for poisons. While I dislike Alchemy as a rule for any game, reading his experiences was enlightening that there are many ways to approach an enjoyable build. As for myself, I like using Smithing and Enchanting.

And to aid with the first two points, I enjoy the simplicity and ease of the Console Commands; recommended to bypass grinding and gold issues.

And there is a mod that was made to deal with the final problem; author has a small series to also aid with other Journal and Quest issues. Highly recommended.

http://www.nexusmods...m/mods/26359/?

[Revan Reborn]

The quote is from a very old article back in 2011 when Skyrim had just reached 10 million sales.

http://www.wired.com...2/dragon-age-3/

 

Obviously a lot has changed in 3 years, including the retirement of Muzyka from BW who quoted the above, but did any elements of Skyrim reach DA:I?

 

Aside from both being labelled RPGs in a dark fantasy setting, I don't see much influence. Certanly not when considering combat mechanics, modding tools, levelling up, NPC development, storylines, continuity and dialogue.

 

Despite being plagued by horrible gameplay elements like bad AI (move out of the doorway damnit!), and really dire flirtation lines ("Is that an Amulet of Mara?"), Skyrim went on to sell more than 20 million copies.

 

The only thing I can see is the inclusion of mounts and a more open world, but these weren't things that Skyrim invented, they just implemented the concept very well.

For one, how can you determine how much influence there is or isn't when you haven't even played DAI yet?

 

Secondly, Skyrim wasn't the first open world RPG BGS ever made. Their first ever Elder Scrolls title was The Elder Scrolls: Arena back in 1994, and they've been molding and refining the experience ever since. It wasn't until The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind in 2002, that BGS gained international acclaim and success. Shortly thereafter they released the juggernauts The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in 2006, and then Fallout 3 in 2008. As far as the open world RPG is concerned, BGS was one of the first pioneers and creators of the genre. People tend to mistakenly give them more credit due to Skyrim, being their most recent title, but they've been doing this for two decades.

 

As far as similarities are concerned, the more expansive open world is the most obvious change in BioWare's formula. I'm sure as you are likely aware, BioWare has traditionally made very linear and story-driven experiences. They are also taking a much different approach to exploration, side quests, the ecosystem, crafting, etc., of which much of it was inspired by Skyrim. The other aspect that's likely being overlooked is the impact players have on the environment and dynamic game play. Historically the only impact players have in a BioWare game is almost entirely exclusive to the story. Now, we are going to be seeing a lot more impact and consequences through a variety of avenues.

 

BioWare is still sticking to a lot of their concepts and philosophy in regards to game design, so DAI should be a healthy mix of story-driven/open world RPG. The Witcher 3 is definitely emulating Skyrim to a much greater extent. Regardless of how one feels about Skyrim, it's one of the few games that is actually a game changer and has a major impact and pull on the entire industry.

[Revan Reborn]

Just because Dragon Age 2 was really bad for reuse of environments doesn't suddenly mean that I'm not allowed to criticize Skyrim. Skyrim is a great game that did a lot of things right but it's one that also did a number of things poorly in my opinion.

 

One of those things is that I think Skyrim didn't have enough variety in their dungeons. Reusing stuff is to be expected and while they do throw the odd unique thing at you the vast majority of the dungeons were the same small handful of tilesets which got boring to me.

 

Real life arguments are irrelevant. People don't make skyscrapers so that we can go have fun exploring them.

 

 

 

It was more about the lack of variety in the types of dungeons rather than how they put them together.

This is just incorrect. You can criticize Oblivion for having repetitive and cookie cutter dungeon design. It certainly did as it had well over 300+ dungeons, of which many were identical and had absolutely zero purpose exploring due to the terrible gear/level-scaling that BGS thankfully rectified afterwards with Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

 

Skyrim, unlike Oblivion, did not have one single dungeon that was identical. Due to the large criticism BGS received with Oblivion, they made a point to hand-craft and differentiate every single dungeon in the game. Skyrim also had 150 dungeons or less in order to promote quality over quantity, unlike Oblivion. There was also a lot more variety in the dungeons whether they were caverns, keeps, sunken ships, old crypts, Oblivion, the list goes on and on.

 

People are more than welcome to criticize and bash Skyrim all they want if they so choose. That's what happens inevitably when you are the top open world RPG in the industry. However, please make sure your criticisms and assertions are actually true, otherwise you deflate your own argument before you even begin.

[dch2404]

For one, how can you determine how much influence there is or isn't when you haven't even played DAI yet?

 

Secondly, Skyrim wasn't the first open world RPG BGS ever made. Their first ever Elder Scrolls title was The Elder Scrolls: Arena back in 1994, and they've been molding and refining the experience ever since. It wasn't until The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind in 2002, that BGS gained international acclaim and success. Shortly thereafter they released the juggernauts The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in 2006, and then Fallout 3 in 2008. As far as the open world RPG is concerned, BGS was one of the first pioneers and creators of the genre. People tend to mistakenly give them more credit due to Skyrim, being their most recent title, but they've been doing this for two decades.

 

As far as similarities are concerned, the more expansive open world is the most obvious change in BioWare's formula. I'm sure as you are likely aware, BioWare has traditionally made very linear and story-driven experiences. They are also taking a much different approach to exploration, side quests, the ecosystem, crafting, etc., of which much of it was inspired by Skyrim. The other aspect that's likely being overlooked is the impact players have on the environment and dynamic game play. Historically the only impact players have in a BioWare game is almost entirely exclusive to the story. Now, we are going to be seeing a lot more impact and consequences through a variety of avenues.

 

BioWare is still sticking to a lot of their concepts and philosophy in regards to game design, so DAI should be a healthy mix of story-driven/open world RPG. The Witcher 3 is definitely emulating Skyrim to a much greater extent. Regardless of how one feels about Skyrim, it's one of the few games that is actually a game changer and has a major impact and pull on the entire industry.

 

Gameplay videos. You can draw inferences from the videos, but at the end of the day they are just speculations. E.g. I saw footage of a very early alpha build which showed a compass akin to Skyrim's, which someone previously pointed out has now been removed from the game.

 

The question of what has influenced DAI was not absolute, it was intended to be food for thought for an open discussion of Skyrim vs DA. This thread has surprisingly been very civil with decent arguments on the merits/criticisms of both games. The various viewpoints have really highlighted how much the two games are like apples and oranges, despite both being classed as RPGs.

[Revan Reborn]

Gameplay videos. You can draw inferences from the videos, but at the end of the day they are just speculations. E.g. I saw footage of a very early alpha build which showed a compass akin to Skyrim's, which someone previously pointed out has now been removed from the game.

 

The question of what has influenced DAI was not absolute, it was intended to be food for thought for an open discussion of Skyrim vs DA. This thread has surprisingly been very civil with decent arguments on the merits/criticisms of both games. The various viewpoints have really highlighted how much the two games are like apples and oranges, despite both being classed as RPGs.

Fair enough. As you suggested though, when dealing with pre-alpha gameplay footage, some of the aspects have to be taken with a grain of salt. BioWare is ultimately going to do whatever they believe will make the "best" Dragon Age game, but they will certainly look at competitors who have had immense success and look at what features and philosophies they incorporated into their respective games.

 

The term "Role Playing Game," much like "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games" really are deceptive and no longer represent their respective genres. So many experiences can classify as an "MMO" or an "RPG" that the term itself has almost lost meaning. I always considered The Elder Scrolls, in particular, too be much more of a open world fantasy simulator, as it doesn't really meet the confines and strict pillars of what used to constitute a traditional RPG.

 

With how much success The Elder Scrolls franchise has had in the past decade, a lot more "RPGs" seem to be following a similar approach of going towards a more persistent, open world, dynamic gameplay, and more of a player-driven experience, rather than the traditional linear and on-rails experience. I'm personally a fan of this direction, especially with the fact BioWare is now following suit. BGS has always been my favorite developer as they make the most compelling games I've ever played. BioWare comes in a close second with some of the greatest stories ever told, but they always lacked that open world, dynamic gameplay experience. Now we may finally have it, or at least are going that general direction.

[Cyonan]

This is just incorrect. You can criticize Oblivion for having repetitive and cookie cutter dungeon design. It certainly did as it had well over 300+ dungeons, of which many were identical and had absolutely zero purpose exploring due to the terrible gear/level-scaling that BGS thankfully rectified afterwards with Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

 

Skyrim, unlike Oblivion, did not have one single dungeon that was identical. Due to the large criticism BGS received with Oblivion, they made a point to hand-craft and differentiate every single dungeon in the game. Skyrim also had 150 dungeons or less in order to promote quality over quantity, unlike Oblivion. There was also a lot more variety in the dungeons whether they were caverns, keeps, sunken ships, old crypts, Oblivion, the list goes on and on.

 

People are more than welcome to criticize and bash Skyrim all they want if they so choose. That's what happens inevitably when you are the top open world RPG in the industry. However, please make sure your criticisms and assertions are actually true, otherwise you deflate your own argument before you even begin.

At no point did I call them 100% identical.

 

I said they were the same bunch of rooms rearranged into different orders and that they didn't have enough variety in how many types of dungeons there were. A crypt is still a crypt regardless of it it's arranged to be "Room A > Room B > Room C" or "Room C > Room A > Room B".

 

As far as actual dungeons go they basically had Keep, Nordic Crypt, Dwemer Ruin, and Mine/Cave(If I'm missing one feel free to point it out). I'm more fine with how the surface areas were but I don't really count things like sunken ships or the towers as real dungeons in that list.

 

If you're going to tell me that I'm wrong, you could at least point out things that I actually said =P

 

Also keep in mind that I'm criticizing one part of Skyrim rather than hating on it or bashing it. I think it was a great game and it's my second most played game on Steam behind Dragon Age: Origins. I tend to still criticize things I like and even have a few for my favourite game of all time.

[Dutchess]

 

As far as actual dungeons go they basically had Keep, Nordic Crypt, Dwemer Ruin, and Mine/Cave(If I'm missing one feel free to point it out). I'm more fine with how the surface areas were but I don't really count things like sunken ships or the towers as real dungeons in that list.

 

Ice caves? I rather liked those because you don't usually have them in games.

[dch2404]

At no point did I call them 100% identical.

 

I said they were the same bunch of rooms rearranged into different orders and that they didn't have enough variety in how many types of dungeons there were. A crypt is still a crypt regardless of it it's arranged to be "Room A > Room B > Room C" or "Room C > Room A > Room B".

 

As far as actual dungeons go they basically had Keep, Nordic Crypt, Dwemer Ruin, and Mine/Cave(If I'm missing one feel free to point it out). I'm more fine with how the surface areas were but I don't really count things like sunken ships or the towers as real dungeons in that list.

 

If you're going to tell me that I'm wrong, you could at least point out things that I actually said =P

 

Also keep in mind that I'm criticizing one part of Skyrim rather than hating on it or bashing it. I think it was a great game and it's my second most played game on Steam behind Dragon Age: Origins. I tend to still criticize things I like and even have a few for my favourite game of all time.

 

Might've been a couple more like the ice caves, verdant cave, Black Book etc. I think Bethesda could've made the ratio of dungeons to tilesets a bit better, but something has to be sacrificed for the sheer quantity of dungeons. Still, they did make clever use of elevation and mixing tilesets.

 

From what I hear, DA:I MP might have procedurally generated maps. Procedurally generated areas were a casualty of the transition from 2D to 3D around the turn of the millenium, so I'm very curious to see how it will turn out.

[wicked cool]

Daedric temple dungeon (dawnbreaker temple unique enemies and puzzles). Blackreach unique.

I love both games so im glad each is unique. Lets see how they market it once its released

[AlanC9]

Might've been a couple more like the ice caves, verdant cave, Black Book etc. I think Bethesda could've made the ratio of dungeons to tilesets a bit better, but something has to be sacrificed for the sheer quantity of dungeons. Still, they did make clever use of elevation and mixing tilesets.

Well, that's the thing. It sounds to me like Cyonan is opposed to the design objectives themselves, not the implementation.