209 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Before I give my own thoughts on the question above, I'd just like to preface I am a huge fan and supporter of open world RPGs. My favorite developer is Bethesda Game Studios and I have been a long-time fan of The Elder Scrolls since The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. TES is one of the original open world RPGs, and so they hold a very special place in my heart. That being said, there are pros and cons to the design approach. In particular with The Elder Scrolls, storytelling has never been much of a focus or very well executed. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, was by far the best attempt at a main story yet, and even then it fell short in a variety of ways.

 

What makes The Elder Scrolls and Fallout so appealing, however, is the fact that you make your own story. I don't have to rely on the storytelling prowess of BGS to entertain me (although their guild quest lines and expansions are generally always high quality). What I remember most in Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim was just exploring the world, finding what trouble I could get into, and what memories I could create. That is something that has unlimited replay value, because I build those experiences and the game doesn't have to build them for me.

 

With respect to BioWare, unlike BGS, character development and the main story are the main experience. Those two components mean everything in a BioWare game, and the moments BioWare's magic shined the brightest were in some of their most linear games. KotOR I, ME2, and DAO are probably my favorite BioWare games, and all of them were extremely linear in game play approach. This wasn't a bad thing, however, as BioWare was able to shape and build the type of experience they wanted the gamer to have. The smaller the environment, the more control the developer has. The bigger the environment, the less control they retain.

 

The reason I pose this question is I'm not convinced BioWare will be able to retain their high-quality storytelling if they go open world. BioWare has even admitted they couldn't develop one, persistent open world (like Skyrim) because it would compromise their storytelling capabilities. CDPR is being more ambitious, and is going to have one, persistent open world while also trying to maintain their choice-driven storytelling similar to BioWare. It will be interesting to see how DAI and TW3 fair taking a lot of cues from The Elder Scrolls. I believe open world RPGs can lead to an amazing experience, but not necessarily for developers who have traditionally been more story-driven in approach.

 

What are your thoughts on open world RPGs and BioWare's new direction? Are you looking forward to it? Or do you have some reservations about its success?

[Lollermancer]

Bioware should not make an open world RPG. The best stories have clear direction, not completely linear, but with flexibilty. Open world stories are generally weaker, less focused, thus being less intense. The immersion cause by skyrim, was the atmosphere, not really the story. With most bioware games its both story and atmosphere, thus better overall story and gaming experience.

[Icy Magebane]

I'd be a lot happier if they still had some proper cities to explore, but maybe we'll see them return in DA4.  If they could figure out a way to combine the open wilderness of DA:I with some large urban areas, that would be ideal.

[Muspade]

I'm not poking this topic until I've seen what they are capable of with the new engine in place, though I would like to point out it's only really "Semi-open world".

I do hope for some additional codex lore when exploring area's where the main quest isn't present.

[InfinitePaths]

Bioware isn't going for open world, just big zones.

 

 

 

Also,It's too late in the development cycle to change anything.

[In Exile]

TW3 won't be open world in the way Skyrim is open world. And open world isn't anything special - it's just one seamless map. What makes something like Skyrim or Morrowind is the absence of party members, a more threadbare plot, and no real direction in terms of plot. Fallout NV is the closest game to both open world and story driven and it's a lot more restrictive in terms of what you can do.

[Jester]

Well, technically speaking DA:I has semi-open world (like DA:O, Baldur's Gate, KotOR... only taken to 11). 

Witcher 3 is going to have full, seemless open-world, but still divided into three "hubs". 

And most importantly, both companies decided not to scale enemies. Why is that important? Because it restricts access to certain areas by spawning there enemies which are too hard for a player to beat. Unlike Skyrim, where you could literally go anywhere on the map that you want - and you were able to actually do most quests from the very beginning - it will be impossible in those both story-driven games.

In Witcher 3 you will be restricted by power level of the enemies. In DA:I you will also be restricted by War Table missions and Inquisitions "Power". 

 

Those kind of restricions are unavoidable, if you want to make a story driven experience in an open world or a semi-open world. 

 

In those circumstances, I believe it to be a step in a right direction. Increasing the scale of the game so much, achieved with little-to-no compromise on storytelling would be a great feat, and would really create a new standard for RPG developers.

 

Fallout NV is the closest game to both open world and story driven and it's a lot more restrictive in terms of what you can do. 

 

Exactly. For example, the game begins by telling you to go after Benny - guy who shot you, stole from you and left you for dead. In theory, you could ignore it (like you can ignore Greybeards call in Skyrim) and try to reach the large city you can see on the horizon - New Vegas. But doing so by going straight at it, would see your undeveloped and poorly armed character murdered horribly by the local wildlife. 

[Reznore57]

I don't think Bioware is going open world /sandbox games.

DAI isn't open world anyway , you have a number of different regions , and they all have some kind of plot going on ...

There's a structure , I'm pretty sure you need to unlock some region by gaining power.

You can't just wander around the whole map ignoring the plot .

[KaiserShep]

A prefer a kind of middle ground. I love having lots of area to cover, but I very much like to have a more story-driven gaming experience. I find that with a totally open world, I start to lose interest as I just cover more ground doing random things, and it starts to feel a bit empty.

[CrazyMooNew]

I think so...yes...

 

While we've (thankfully) been given only drips and drops of the story...I don't expect DA:I to be lacking in it at all. Now this may seem a little controversial, but SWTOR (the Old Republic Mmo) was open world...and I personally don't think it suffered from it...hell...the story was probably the only reason I played the game for as long as I did, but that isn't to say that I'm hoping for DA:I to be on par with SWTOR...I hope that DA:I blows it out of the water (and fully expect it to).

 

But its good to ask...I just don't think Bioware suffers from what Bethesda suffers from. I don't see DA:I losing its focus and narrative...and I believe that Bioware knows what fans of Dragon Age and Mass Effect enjoy...characters...and story. Changing the environment from linear corridors to vast open fields wont change that....although....its very likely that there will be more downtime between quests/missions...seeing as how you actually have to travel, but that's a small ...tiny...miniscule price to pay for the ability to really explore.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm hoping they tried the best of both worlds. I don't expect that same "emergent" experience you get from TES (or any true open world), but Bioware games could do with more exploratory features.

I believe with certain restrictions, in mind, yes. I thought the concept behind ME1's exploration was going in the right direction, but just had poor execution. We'll have to see how their approach works with DAI.

 

Bioware should not make an open world RPG. The best stories have clear direction, not completely linear, but with flexibilty. Open world stories are generally weaker, less focused, thus being less intense. The immersion cause by skyrim, was the atmosphere, not really the story. With most bioware games its both story and atmosphere, thus better overall story and gaming experience.

This is more or less what I'm getting at. I still enjoy TES immensely, but for very different reasons from a BioWare game. Developers have less control when you build such a large world where players choose how they play.

 

I'd be a lot happier if they still had some proper cities to explore, but maybe we'll see them return in DA4.  If they could figure out a way to combine the open wilderness of DA:I with some large urban areas, that would be ideal.

I'm not sure if all the large environments will only be wilderness. There have to be a few cities we get to explore, although who knows how large they'll be.

 

I'm not poking this topic until I've seen what they are capable of with the new engine in place, though I would like to point out it's only really "Semi-open world".

I do hope for some additional codex lore when exploring area's where the main quest isn't present.

The OP addressed how DAI is not a full-on open world. BioWare chose not to go that route due to restricting their storytelling capabilities.

 

Bioware isn't going for open world, just big zones.

 

 

 

Also,It's too late in the development cycle to change anything.

The OP addressed how DAI is not a full-on open world. BioWare chose not to go that route due to restricting their storytelling capabilities.

 

While this is certainly to some degree about DAI, it's also about future BioWare games in general, such as the new Mass Effect and Casey Hudson's IP, of which both are supposedly to be open world. The point still stands that by going "more" open world there are certain compromises that must be made. Will the pros of going more open world outweigh the cons?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Open-world and story-driven are two ideas that often seem to be caught in a conflict. I can only name few games where I thought the combination worked.

 

I think BioWare was right not to go open-world with DA:I. What CDPR is doing with The Witcher 3 sounds interesting, but we have no choice but to wait and see if they actually pull it off.

[Nonoru]

I think we hit the sweet spot with DAI

[Icy Magebane]

I'm not sure if all the large environments will only be wilderness. There have to be a few cities we get to explore, although who knows how large they'll be.

We'll see about that.  Hopefully you are right, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest this.

[Revan Reborn]

TW3 won't be open world in the way Skyrim is open world. And open world isn't anything special - it's just one seamless map. What makes something like Skyrim or Morrowind is the absence of party members, a more threadbare plot, and no real direction in terms of plot. Fallout NV is the closest game to both open world and story driven and it's a lot more restrictive in terms of what you can do.

Again, read the OP. This distinction has been made. The point is BioWare has historically gone linear to avoid the pitfalls of a more open world game. I disagree that open world isn't special. It's incredibly special as many of the best games have been open world. Whether we look at TES, GTA, Read Dead Redemption, all of these winning formulas have been grounded in the open world approach. What makes TES, in general, special is the fact that the plot is driven by the player rather than the developer. That's the point. Fallout NV was a buggy, incomplete mess that Obsidian (like KotOR II) did not finish.

 

I don't think Bioware is going open world /sandbox games.

DAI isn't open world anyway , you have a number of different regions , and they all have some kind of plot going on ...

There's a structure , I'm pretty sure you need to unlock some region by gaining power.

You can't just wander around the whole map ignoring the plot .

Read the OP. The distinction between TES and DAI was made in regards to open world. It cannot be refuted, however, that DAI is definitely going more sandbox in nature. The overhaul of crafting is a major example of that. Also how classes and the skill trees function are a lot more diverse and free-form than the previous DA titles.

 

There will be some restrictions due to storytelling on open world exploration, but there will be a lot more than I believe you are giving credit. The point still stands going bigger makes it more difficult to focus that experience in a way BioWare is used to.

 

A prefer a kind of middle ground. I love having lots of area to cover, but I very much like to have a more story-driven gaming experience. I find that with a totally open world, I start to lose interest as I just cover more ground doing random things, and it starts to feel a bit empty.

Well this largely just depends on how that open world is littered with content. Certainly this would be a concern for BioWare, as they don't have twenty years of experience under their belts with larger worlds such as BGS.

[hellbiter88]

I absolutely think they should go open world.

 

There's nothing wrong about open world, so long as you fill it with good content. An open world with crap story and meaningless fetch quests are terrible, but an open world filled with engaging, fun, and meaningful directives can drastically drive up playability and allow for more "sandbox" play. I think what Bioware is doing with Inquisition is spot-on. They're merging the best of both worlds: open world and linear story. I hope they have a dedicated, focused main plot line, balanced with an open-ended exploration type fantasy RPG. It enables you to choose your own pace: plough through the main quest like other linear games, or take your time and do whatever you want like traditional open world games.

 

I thought DA:O's (and don't even get me started on DA:II's) world was claustrophobic, constricting, and sort of boring. Especially on subsequent playthroughs. Sure you could hop from one location to the other, but they were utterly lacking in fun explorative options. Basically, once you cleared an area, there was very little incentive to come back and explore further--nothing really changed. Notable exceptions are the mages tower and denerim, but both still felt constricting to me.

 

It's entirely possible that this could still hold true for Inquisition but I doubt it--it sounds like the world evolves and grows and changes, especially after having explored it already. To me, that's very engaging.

[viperidae]

I'm hoping they tried the best of both worlds. I don't expect that same "emergent" experience you get from TES (or any true open world), but Bioware games could do with more exploratory features.

 

i'm hoping for something akin to the witcher 2, with larger and more areas and not such a set structure for where you go.

[In Exile]

I thought DA:O's (and don't even get me started on DA:II's) world was claustrophobic, constricting, and sort of boring. Especially on subsequent playthroughs. Sure you could hop from one location to the other, but they were utterly lacking in fun explorative options. Basically, once you cleared an area, there was very little incentive to come back and explore further--nothing really changed. Notable exceptions are the mages tower and denerim, but both still felt constricting to me.

 

I find that to be true in all possible cases. More things to explore don't make re-exploring them any more fun. I agree that DA:O wasn't interesting to explore the first time around, but I just don't get how that differs when the map is grander. Unless you don't explore it all at once, but that just seems like creating a pain via backtracking. 

[Kage]

They should not go full open world. A true open world game (Skyrim), means the main story will be mediocre, because you cannot tell where the player is going, you as a writer are not in control of the story's progression.

 

They are going however to big areas, not to open world. And that is a good thing. I like Skyrim, but I like Dragon Age more. I prefer story and character development over open worlds. Give me my 2 different franchises, and I will buy them both no problem.

[Revan Reborn]

Well, technically speaking DA:I has semi-open world (like DA:O, Baldur's Gate, KotOR... only taken to 11). 

Witcher 3 is going to have full, seemless open-world, but still divided into three "hubs". 

And most importantly, both companies decided not to scale enemies. Why is that important? Because it restricts access to certain areas by spawning there enemies which are too hard for a player to beat. Unlike Skyrim, where you could literally go anywhere on the map that you want - and you were able to actually do most quests from the very beginning - it will be impossible in those both story-driven games.

In Witcher 3 you will be restricted by power level of the enemies. In DA:I you will also be restricted by War Table missions and Inquisitions "Power". 

 

Those kind of restricions are unavoidable, if you want to make a story driven experience in an open world or a semi-open world. 

 

In those circumstances, I believe it to be a step in a right direction. Increasing the scale of the game so much, achieved with little-to-no compromise on storytelling would be a great feat, and would really create a new standard for RPG developers.

 

Exactly. For example, the game begins by telling you to go after Benny - guy who shot you, stole from you and left you for dead. In theory, you could ignore it (like you can ignore Greybeards call in Skyrim) and try to reach the large city you can see on the horizon - New Vegas. But doing so by going straight at it, would see your undeveloped and poorly armed character murdered horribly by the local wildlife. 

The only previous BioWare game (besides Baldur's Gate) that I would argue was semi-open world would be Mass Effect 1. With all the planets you could explore with the mako, they were large in scale and it was much more player-driven. KotOR and DAO certainly aren't semi-open world as each area was a linear path and you were forced to go in one general direction.

 

Oblivion was the only title where scaling was used extensively and really to the detriment of the game. This was not the case in Fallout 3 or Skyrim, where you could actually go to areas you were not ready for, and you would die rather easily. It made the experience more enjoyable because you knew your limits (levels were largely based on the type of foe you encountered, not your level), but you still had choice in where you went.

 

There are certain restrictions BioWare must do in order to protect the integrity of their story and characters. The real question is how far in terms of an open world experience should they go? Even with these limits in place, the bigger you go, the harder it is to maintain that focused, quality experience.

I think so...yes...

 

While we've (thankfully) been given only drips and drops of the story...I don't expect DA:I to be lacking in it at all. Now this may seem a little controversial, but SWTOR (the Old Republic Mmo) was open world...and I personally don't think it suffered from it...hell...the story was probably the only reason I played the game for as long as I did, but that isn't to say that I'm hoping for DA:I to be on par with SWTOR...I hope that DA:I blows it out of the water (and fully expect it to).

 

But its good to ask...I just don't think Bioware suffers from what Bethesda suffers from. I don't see DA:I losing its focus and narrative...and I believe that Bioware knows what fans of Dragon Age and Mass Effect enjoy...characters...and story. Changing the environment from linear corridors to vast open fields wont change that....although....its very likely that there will be more downtime between quests/missions...seeing as how you actually have to travel, but that's a small ...tiny...miniscule price to pay for the ability to really explore.

SWTOR is open world to an extent... It's actually a perfect example of how an open world can be compromised because of the need for focusing on story, which in itself really hurt the ability to explore in that game. I hope DAI is nowhere as intrusive in regards to exploring like SWTOR was.

 

Lets use Mass Effect as an example, as that was BioWare's most recent attempt at a more open world experience. Exploration in that game was really pointless and not that enjoyable at all. It didn't help that the controls of the Mako were atrocious. Going big just because you can is not a great approach to have. Making a successful open world game is difficult, even one with limits and restrictions.

 

It's a lot more unpredictable what players can do so developers have to make sure they fill the environment with enough distractions and activities to keep them entertained. This isn't just as simple as BioWare maintaining the high quality storytelling in Mass Effect 2 with much bigger zones. It's much more complicated than that.

[hellbiter88]

I find that to be true in all possible cases. More things to explore don't make re-exploring them any more fun. I agree that DA:O wasn't interesting to explore the first time around, but I just don't get how that differs when the map is grander. Unless you don't explore it all at once, but that just seems like creating a pain via backtracking. 

 

I'm actually talking more about evolution of an area, rather than simply a large-scale filler. Of course we won't know if this is true with Inquisition until it's actual release, but it sounds like they're taking steps to keep previously explored areas changing and evolving. The extinction system, the rift formations, the various bases to conquor and explore--and their impact on the environment (such as one demo that showed setting up a base alongside a cliff terraforms the poisonous gas in the area and allows passage)... that's the stuff I'm getting at. No game is going to implement open world perfectly, not yet anyway. But it sounds like Bioware is giving it an honest effort and I'm excited to see how that unravels.

[Reznore57]

Read the OP. The distinction between TES and DAI was made in regards to open world. It cannot be refuted, however, that DAI is definitely going more sandbox in nature. The overhaul of crafting is a major example of that. Also how classes and the skill trees function are a lot more diverse and free-form than the previous DA titles.

 

There will be some restrictions due to storytelling on open world exploration, but there will be a lot more than I believe you are giving credit. The point still stands going bigger makes it more difficult to focus that experience in a way BioWare is used to.

 

 

 

You have the Inquistion and everything you do is more or less tied to that.

From what I gather you need to gain power and influence to move forward , there's probably different ways to do that so there's more variety than simply doing your average quests.

But again it seems some regions are locked , (for example in a recent twitch , at the beginning of the game , you can't go to Orlais , and it seems the only region you can access is the Hinterland) and of course there's some big plot points you have to go through to get to the end.

 

My point is the game has bigger regions , and you have more freedom in those .But the structure of the game isn't open world , it feels more like Origins with bigger maps.

[Revan Reborn]

Oh, I think they can easily improve on that.

 

All they need to do is put in random encounters, events and NPCs to stumble upon, as you're out exploring. ME didn't have much in the way of sidequests, except in main hubs.

In theory, it sounds simple. In practice, it isn't at all. This is the same approach every MMO in recent history has attempted to do. Filling their worlds with "random encounters, events, and NPCs to stumble upon." Most have failed profusely as it's not just populating an environment with daily quests. You need to actually bring the place to life, and very few open world games have pulled that off.

 

Open-world and story-driven are two ideas that often seem to be caught in a conflict. I can only name few games where I thought the combination worked.

 

I think BioWare was right not to go open-world with DA:I. What CDPR is doing with The Witcher 3 sounds interesting, but we have no choice but to wait and see if they actually pull it off.

I won't make judgments on DAI until I ultimately play it. All I can see is BioWare is definitely playing it safe, for better or for worse. We'll see soon enough.

 

I too find CDPR's approach interesting. It's more ambitious, albeit there are still some restrictions as others have suggested. I actually think TW3 may be closer to that ideal mix of open world and story. We'll have to see how both games compare when they are released.

 

I think we hit the sweet spot with DAI

We shall see. I think it will be a great game, but BioWare is starting to get out of their element. They may have some success, but I'm also expecting to see some awkward or out of place game design as a result.

 

We'll see about that.  Hopefully you are right, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest this.

I may just be making this up, but I believe we'll go to the capital city in Orlais? I'm assuming it would have to be just as large as Denerim (except not divided into load screens).