209 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

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.

 

We'll see. I'm very skeptical of open-world design in RPGs. A game like AC - despite having relatively simple diversions - has them spaced well. So do GTA and SR games. Skyrim has a huge issue with, basically, pointless walking or trudging to get to points of interest. This walk-a-thon aspect to exploration seems to be endemic to RPGs that focus on exploration and it's incomprehensible to me. 

 

It's like someone thought that long subway rides to get from A to B are fun. 

[Majestic Jazz]

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.

Red Dead Redemption had one of the better stories of last gen and it was open world. Care to explain that?

[In Exile]

Red Dead Redemption had one of the better stories of last gen and it was open world. Care to explain that?

 

RDR had (1) a fixed protagonist, (2) a world that did not interact at all between the story and what you did in the open world (3) a fixed and linear story divided into instance zones (like GTA, triggering a "story" mission just took you out of the open world and put you in a story instance, except unlike an MMO there's no need to hive it off). 

The open world and story are totally disconnected from each other. It's exactly the same as SR, GTA, and Assassin's Creed. 

[Revan Reborn]

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.

Open world games are very difficult to develop, which is the problem. BGS has been making them for twenty years, and they more or less have it down to a science, even if their main story and characters continue to suffer (partially because of a lack of cinematics and no protagonist VO).

 

BioWare has historically focused on telling a story and creating convincing and compelling characters. By adding the open world foundation on top of that, they are more or less doubling their efforts. While I believe the environments will be compelling to explore the first time, I am not convinced they will be interesting to come back to later. Especially when you beat the game and have gone to every zone, why would you go back to the Hinterlands when you will just one shot every enemy? It's no different from DAO in that sense, just larger.

 

One reason why I believe TES is one of the few open world franchises that works is because their major character and story is actually the environment. The create such a believable and immersive world that one never grows tired of revisiting areas. This is not the case in most open world games where they lose value after being explored once. While I'd like DAI to have more re-playability in the environment, considering the restrictions they are placing on it for the story, I doubt there will be much reason to return to previous zones (unless there was an area we couldn't unlock previously).

[Vapaa]

A true open world, paradoxally, actually feel quite small.

 

DAI made a good call with the multi-region aspect, you have the benefit of an open-world (big open area), without the drawback (lack of environnement variety).

[hellbiter88]

We'll see. I'm very skeptical of open-world design in RPGs. A game like AC - despite having relatively simple diversions - has them spaced well. So do GTA and SR games. Skyrim has a huge issue with, basically, pointless walking or trudging to get to points of interest. This walk-a-thon aspect to exploration seems to be endemic to RPGs that focus on exploration and it's incomprehensible to me. 

 

It's like someone thought that long subway rides to get from A to B are fun. 

 

Normally this is true, although I think (or hope, anyway) that Inquisition will curb this nicely with fast-travel options and claiming various camps throughout the area.

 

If you wanted to get from point A to point B quickly, I'd wager you can just plough through in a few minutes and set up a camps along the way to set fast-travel points. And when you think about it, the hike can really be no worse than Origins--where I recall many frustrating "mage circle" runs going from top level to bottom level because I missed that special item or boss fight [looking at you Watchguard of the Reaching side quest ]. If anything I think this option is actually better, because you can either cut a straight path or deviate and go explore. Just more options.

[Revan Reborn]

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.

DAI is essentially going TW2 route, except much larger.

 

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. 

This is the concern. Open world and even semi-open world games only work if their worlds actually have re-playability. This is a large reason why TES is so popular. With what we have seen of DAI, once you complete all the side quests and main quest in a zone, there appears to be little reason to return. We are essentially just getting a meatier DAO that will take more time to complete. I doubt once we've beat the game, there will be a reason to return to the Hinterlands or some of these other areas, especially with a lack of level scaling on most NPCs.

 

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.

BioWare actually initially thought about making DAI a true open world, but did not like the compromises they would have had to make in terms of storytelling. The point is DAI is a step towards more of an open world game, and I have a feeling BioWare will continue to push the boundary between a story-driven experience and an open world. We already know with the next Mass Effect BioWare wants there to be a variety of large planets players explore with the Mako, except they'll actually have plenty of content unlike ME1.

[Revan Reborn]

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.

I agree, with you, but that's also one of my concerns.

 

What makes an open world appealing is the re-playability of the world. A bigger DAO will not have re-playability as once you complete those quests, you will not have a reason to return to that environment. It will take longer than a smaller area in DAO, but it's the same result in the end. There's no benefit in going more open world if you aren't going to actually develop your environment to become a living, breathing place.

 

I understand for storytelling reasons why they want to limit the open world, but that's also why this approach may inevitably fail. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Revan Reborn]

We'll see. I'm very skeptical of open-world design in RPGs. A game like AC - despite having relatively simple diversions - has them spaced well. So do GTA and SR games. Skyrim has a huge issue with, basically, pointless walking or trudging to get to points of interest. This walk-a-thon aspect to exploration seems to be endemic to RPGs that focus on exploration and it's incomprehensible to me. 

 

It's like someone thought that long subway rides to get from A to B are fun. 

This is why there is quick travel and a carriage system in Skyrim to avoid the "walk-a-thon" if you don't want to take the time to explore the world. That being said, while I actually enjoy exploring and not just navigating load screens (old habit because of Morrowind), I found most of the emergent game play tends to happen when you are doing the "walk-a-thon." If you just quick travel from one point to the next, you end up on missing out on some of the best game play experiences Skyrim has to offer. AC, GTA, and SR are a lower kind of open world game, as they throw in silly mini-games that become redundant and only offer one use. I never explore any of those environments after I beat the game because they generally don't have re-playability, unlike Skyrim.

[hellbiter88]

Open world games are very difficult to develop, which is the problem. BGS has been making them for twenty years, and they more or less have it down to a science, even if their main story and characters continue to suffer (partially because of a lack of cinematics and no protagonist VO).

 

BioWare has historically focused on telling a story and creating convincing and compelling characters. By adding the open world foundation on top of that, they are more or less doubling their efforts. While I believe the environments will be compelling to explore the first time, I am not convinced they will be interesting to come back to later. Especially when you beat the game and have gone to every zone, why would you go back to the Hinterlands when you will just one shot every enemy? It's no different from DAO in that sense, just larger.

 

One reason why I believe TES is one of the few open world franchises that works is because their major character and story is actually the environment. The create such a believable and immersive world that one never grows tired of revisiting areas. This is not the case in most open world games where they lose value after being explored once. While I'd like DAI to have more re-playability in the environment, considering the restrictions they are placing on it for the story, I doubt there will be much reason to return to previous zones (unless there was an area we couldn't unlock previously).

 

In all fairness, the game isn't even out. We could both be wrong. And Bioware is very excellent at storytelling, which is why I have faith that they'll maintain that strong plotweaving even with openworld aspects intertwined. And when a game can boast 200+ hours of completion time, I doubt you will get immediately bored, even after your second (third, fourth) playthrough. With so much crap all over the place, you'll be working very hard to discover every possible secret the game has to offer in one playthrough--and due to the constantly shifting array of options given by the Dragon Age Keep, I doubt that would even be possible in one game. Customization is said to be virtually endless, so custom-tailoring your character and playing him/her the way you want will likely not be an issue. In terms of immersion, I haven't seen a single demo that I didn't think was going to be wonderfully immersive.

 

Yes, I have blind faith in Bioware--but that's because I have enjoyed their games, despite the flaws. And if I could add Dragon Age: Origins to my top all-time favorite list of games, and DA:II to my top all-time "almost had it but not quite" list of games, regardless of the fact that their environments made me what to gouge my eyes out, I have every confidence that adding more size, options, and detailed environments can only be a plus.

 

I guess it could imact the story negatively, in which case I would be let-down... but we won't really be able to determine if they've made the right choice or not until we play the game.

[Revan Reborn]

A true open world, paradoxally, actually feel quite small.

 

DAI made a good call with the multi-region aspect, you have the benefit of an open-world (big open area), without the drawback (lack of environnement variety).

Lack of environment variety? Have you played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim? Again, the benefit to open world isn't just "big open area[s]". The benefit is that the actual environment is living and has re-playability. Plenty of games have gone massive with poor results. I fear DAI will just be DAO with larger environments, which will be terrible as there won't be a reason to return once you complete all the quests. That is not great open world design.

[bEVEsthda]

Ultimately, I think the sandbox can and will be merged with the 'Story Driven' flavor of Bioware's earlier games.

 

But I'm doubtful that it will be Bioware who will do it. I think the developer is far more likely to be Bethesda or Obsidan.

 

The reason is that, at least as far as DA2, Bioware have abandoned their own approach. Create and roleplay your own character is gone. In DA2, ME2 and ME3, Bioware is pursuing a different kind of game. This is of great significance, because the greatest benefit from Bethesda's sandbox worlds is precisely the total freedom the character has to act and behave by it's own mind and personality.

 

'Exploring' as in the old adventure game paradigm - turn every stone, open every door, take everything loose - doesn't really benefit that kind of game. Bethesda's worlds freed us from that tedium, because it was too much and thus pointless by it's own absurdity.

 

I'm not sure Bioware have understood these things. We'll see how it works in DA:I. But by all means, the BG concept of explore everything and look for things to find, is not dead at all. It can still be enjoyable. But it's not the same.

 

Should Bioware pursue open world?  By all means if they can make it work some way. But far more important is to pursue their own classic 'story driven' flavor. That's why I - as strong Bethesda fan - am here. I like Strawberry. But I like Licorice too. But that doesn't mean I like DA2. I don't.

[Estelindis]

I'm happy with Bioware creating a bigger, richer game world, but I'd hate for them to go properly "open world" and lose out on the storytelling strengths that they've established.

[In Exile]

This is why there is quick travel and a carriage system in Skyrim to avoid the "walk-a-thon" if you don't want to take the time to explore the world. That being said, while I actually enjoy exploring and not just navigating load screens (old habit because of Morrowind), I found most of the emergent game play tends to happen when you are doing the "walk-a-thon." If you just quick travel from one point to the next, you end up on missing out on some of the best game play experiences Skyrim has to offer. AC, GTA, and SR are a lower kind of open world game, as they throw in silly mini-games that become redundant and only offer one use. I never explore any of those environments after I beat the game because they generally don't have re-playability, unlike Skyrim.

 

There's no gameplay in walking. There aren't really any meaningful encounters along the paths, with some exceptions. Skyrim doesn't have gameplay experiences to offer in that regard. Fallout NV is far superior in terms of stublimg across content, and that's because the content in NV is scripted, just like how it was in BG1. 

 

There's no playability to walking around Skyrim, much less replayability. I disagree with you entirely on GTA, etc. Those games are a superior breed, because they at least have things to do. 

[ald0s]

I personally think that Bioware will be able to hit the best of the open world and the linear sory heavy RPGs at the same time. The areas look great nad lets keep in mind that DAI will not be a "real" open world RPG like Skyrim. It still has Zones, which are bigger then in every other bioware RPG, but still limited.

 

Also i believe that you will still be able to play the way you want. You can explore nearly endlessy or you could follow the main story driven approuch and only do as much exploration as you want to.

[In Exile]

 

Lack of environment variety? Have you played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim? Again, the benefit to open world isn't just "big open area[s]". The benefit is that the actual environment is living and has re-playability. Plenty of games have gone massive with poor results. I fear DAI will just be DAO with larger environments, which will be terrible as there won't be a reason to return once you complete all the quests. That is not great open world design.

 

There's no living environment in TES games. They have, at best, worker ants that pretend to be people because of pre-recorded dialogue. That's about as close to "living" as the game gets. 

 

I enjoy seamless worlds, but for it to be meaningful it has to be like TW2: it has to have actual content that's worth exploring and engaging with. Pure sandbox ends up just being an inferior version of lego. 

[Revan Reborn]

In all fairness, the game isn't even out. We could both be wrong. And Bioware is very excellent at storytelling, which is why I have faith that they'll maintain that strong plotweaving even with openworld aspects intertwined. And when a game can boast 200+ hours of completion time, I doubt you will get immediately bored, even after your second (third, fourth) playthrough. With so much crap all over the place, you'll be working very hard to discover every possible secret the game has to offer in one playthrough--and due to the constantly shifting array of options given by the Dragon Age Keep, I doubt that would even be possible in one game. Customization is said to be virtually endless, so custom-tailoring your character and playing him/her the way you want will likely not be an issue. In terms of immersion, I haven't seen a single demo that I didn't think was going to be wonderfully immersive.

 

Yes, I have blind faith in Bioware--but that's because I have enjoyed their games, despite the flaws. And if I could add Dragon Age: Origins to my top all-time favorite list of games, and DA:II to my top all-time "almost had it but not quite" list of games, regardless of the fact that their environments made me what to gouge my eyes out, I have every confidence that adding more size, options, and detailed environments can only be a plus.

 

I guess it could imact the story negatively, in which case I would be let-down... but we won't really be able to determine if they've made the right choice or not until we play the game.

I'll be happy if I'm wrong. I'm just basing my current views on the various demos (officially released and behind closed doors) BioWare has been releasing over a year now. They have not given me any indication to believe I will return to any of these areas once I complete all the content provided there.

 

I'm not concerned with the varying degrees of how one's world state can affect the experience. BioWare has always done a great job in providing a truly customized world. I'm concerned about once I beat the game 100%, what would be the point of going back to previous areas. Even on subsequent playthroughs, I might end up skipping much of the content if it ultimately isn't beneficial or compelling to do another time.

 

Open world is one of the big catch phrases this generation, along with cooperative play/multiplayer. The concern is I don't believe many of these developers understand what makes a great open world game. It's not just large environments. DAI just seems to be a DAO on steroids in terms of land to cover. While that's not necessarily bad, it certainly isn't as compelling as areas that one would have reason to return to later in the game.

 

One of the aspects I feel BioWare has always done a poor job of is bringing the world to life. If the places I visit do not feel like somewhere I can live and are nothing but questing hubs, DAI is more or less just doing what SWTOR attempted to do. The only place, as far as I can tell, that the player has any reason to return to is Skyhold, of which I'm not even sure is actually in a zone. It may just be a separate environment you have to load into.

[Majestic Jazz]

I believe open world is the next natural step for Bioware and I hope it happens.

[Revan Reborn]

Ultimately, I think the sandbox can and will be merged with the 'Story Driven' flavor of Bioware's earlier games.

 

But I'm doubtful that it will be Bioware who will do it. I think the developer is far more likely to be Bethesda or Obsidan.

 

The reason is that, at least as far as DA2, Bioware have abandoned their own approach. Create and roleplay your own character is gone. In DA2, ME2 and ME3, Bioware is pursuing a different kind of game. This is of great significance, because the greatest benefit from Bethesda's sandbox worlds is precisely the total freedom the character has to act and behave by it's own mind and personality.

 

'Exploring' as in the old adventure game paradigm - turn every stone, open every door, take everything loose - doesn't really benefit that kind of game. Bethesda's worlds freed us from that tedium, because it was too much and thus pointless by it's own absurdity.

 

I'm not sure Bioware have understood these things. We'll see how it works in DA:I. But by all means, the BG concept of explore everything and look for things to find, is not dead at all. It can still be enjoyable. But it's not the same.

 

Should Bioware pursue open world?  By all means if they can make it work some way. But far more important is to pursue their own classic 'story driven' flavor. That's why I - as strong Bethesda fan - am here. I like Strawberry. But I like Licorice too.

If the rumors about Fallout 4 having a voiced protagonist are true, I believe you may be spot on that BGS may be the first to truly mix story and open world in a compelling way. Obsidian and CDPR are certainly also contenders. BioWare could do it, but for better or worse, the story will likely always hinder and cripple the open world due to their development style.

 

BioWare has definitely gone for a more refined experience since the conversation wheel and the fully-voiced protagonist. They essentially build the character for us and we are able to develop it to some degree overtime. It's not the same level of freedom we'd see in a BGS game, but it is still compelling and entertaining.

 

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. BioWare seems to more or less have found their niche. At this point, their biggest innovation seems to just be making environments larger, and we'll see how that translates in the game.

[Zatche]

I prefer what they're donig with DAI regarding the openness of the world. I agree with the story-related reasons others have stated.

 

Plus, I can't imagine, say, Redcliff and Halamshiral existing in the same sandbox.

[hellbiter88]

I'll be happy if I'm wrong. I'm just basing my current views on the various demos (officially released and behind closed doors) BioWare has been releasing over a year now. They have not given me any indication to believe I will return to any of these areas once I complete all the content provided there.

 

I'm not concerned with the varying degrees of how one's world state can affect the experience. BioWare has always done a great job in providing a truly customized world. I'm concerned about once I beat the game 100%, what would be the point of going back to previous areas. Even on subsequent playthroughs, I might end up skipping much of the content if it ultimately isn't beneficial or compelling to do another time.

 

Open world is one of the big catch phrases this generation, along with cooperative play/multiplayer. The concern is I don't believe many of these developers understand what makes a great open world game. It's not just large environments. DAI just seems to be a DAO on steroids in terms of land to cover. While that's not necessarily bad, it certainly isn't as compelling as areas that one would have reason to return to later in the game.

 

One of the aspects I feel BioWare has always done a poor job of is bringing the world to life. If the places I visit do not feel like somewhere I can live and are nothing but questing hubs, DAI is more or less just doing what SWTOR attempted to do. The only place, as far as I can tell, that the player has any reason to return to is Skyhold, of which I'm not even sure is actually in a zone. It may just be a separate environment you have to load into.

 

Yeah I understand what you're saying, even if I don't agree with all of it. I actually felt the demos captured the environments rather well, and fully expect to play through those on a 3rd or 4th playthrough. That said, I share your statement about skipping certain content/areas you've already seen. I'm sure there are many areas in inquisition that i'll pass by after my virgin play, but I think that is true with just about any game. And in contrast to that, there are many areas I'm confident that I'll return to frequently. I guess it just depends on the type of player and the type of content that's being presented to that player. It's impossible for Bioware to construct a game that equally appeals to all persons, so they're throwing out as much diversity and as many options as they can, and I respect that.

 

Ironically the best open world game I've ever played was Minecraft--the simplest and yet most complex game I've ever seen. No quest, no true objective whatsoever, just pure endless environment with virtually endless replayability. No open world game with a plot can grant that kind of freedom, and some devs try to hard to emulate that sort of environment. A good semi-open world, with an array of choices and sites that can change depending on your choices, and evolve based on your actions--with a solid plotline that keeps you engaged is exactly what I'm looking for in Inquisition. But that's just me.

[Icy Magebane]

If the rumors about Fallout 4 having a voiced protagonist are true, I believe you may be spot on that BGS may be the first to truly mix story and open world in a compelling way. Obsidian and CDPR are certainly also contenders. BioWare could do it, but for better or worse, the story will likely always hinder and cripple the open world due to their development style.

 

BioWare has definitely gone for a more refined experience since the conversation wheel and the fully-voiced protagonist. They essentially build the character for us and we are able to develop it to some degree overtime. It's not the same level of freedom we'd see in a BGS game, but it is still compelling and entertaining.

 

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. BioWare seems to more or less have found their niche. At this point, their biggest innovation seems to just be making environments larger, and we'll see how that translates in the game.

*sigh* So much for that franchise... damn... I hope that's not true.  Fallout was one of the few open-world games out there that let us properly roleplay.  Well, the Obsidian version at least...  If they go that route, TES is sure to follow.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm happy with Bioware creating a bigger, richer game world, but I'd hate for them to go properly "open world" and lose out on the storytelling strengths that they've established.

I don't believe you'll have to worry. Given that focus on storytelling, however, is why I don't believe going bigger is necessarily a good thing for BioWare. I just question how lively and lasting these larger environments will be, especially once your tasks are done in those areas.

 

There's no gameplay in walking. There aren't really any meaningful encounters along the paths, with some exceptions. Skyrim doesn't have gameplay experiences to offer in that regard. Fallout NV is far superior in terms of stublimg across content, and that's because the content in NV is scripted, just like how it was in BG1. 

 

There's no playability to walking around Skyrim, much less replayability. I disagree with you entirely on GTA, etc. Those games are a superior breed, because they at least have things to do. 

It's not the "walking" that's the game play. It's what you find while "walking" that is the experience. You also must not be playing any of BGS' games properly at all, as all of my experiences have been discovered because of exploring. That is the whole point of the game, "go where you want and do what you want."

 

New Vegas was empty and boring. Only the main story was somewhat interesting, but the rest of the world took a step back compared to Fallout 3. It's more "scripted" approach was not a benefit in the slightest. Maybe had Obsidian had more time to flesh out the experience, things could have potentially been different.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't have thousands of hours of playing Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim because I was walking and didn't find anything to do... GTA is at best a rental because once you complete it, you are done. That's why GTA Online was such a big deal to add in re-playability the series doesn't have, and failed miserably. TES never needed multiplayer because it doesn't suffer from a lack of re-playability.

 

I personally think that Bioware will be able to hit the best of the open world and the linear sory heavy RPGs at the same time. The areas look great nad lets keep in mind that DAI will not be a "real" open world RPG like Skyrim. It still has Zones, which are bigger then in every other bioware RPG, but still limited.

 

Also i believe that you will still be able to play the way you want. You can explore nearly endlessy or you could follow the main story driven approuch and only do as much exploration as you want to.

That's really I believe what BioWare is going for. More variety in what you can do. I don't necessarily believe that the environments will have more re-playability or be as compelling as some open world games, but there will be more options to choose from in DAI. Of course, that's the difference between a game that has 200 hours of supposed game play and one that is limitless. I'll certainly play through DAI multiple times, but it's unlikely it's open world will offer the same level of interest that Skyrim would.

 

 

 

 

There's no living environment in TES games. They have, at best, worker ants that pretend to be people because of pre-recorded dialogue. That's about as close to "living" as the game gets. 

 

I enjoy seamless worlds, but for it to be meaningful it has to be like TW2: it has to have actual content that's worth exploring and engaging with. Pure sandbox ends up just being an inferior version of lego. 

 

Radiant AI is the most advanced NPC system in the entire industry. It unfortunately had to be dialed back in Oblivion (look at the 2005 E3 video), but it's certainly more dynamic than you give it credit.

 

We can agree it has to be worth exploring and engaging. We clearly have differing views on the success of a sandbox, however.

 

I believe open world is the next natural step for Bioware and I hope it happens.

Natural? In some ways, yes as BioWare wants to build a more believable world. In other ways, no because of the limitations it would place on storytelling. That's the real crux of the argument.

[bEVEsthda]

If the rumors about Fallout 4 having a voiced protagonist are true, I believe you may be spot on that BGS may be the first to truly mix story and open world in a compelling way. Obsidian and CDPR are certainly also contenders. BioWare could do it, but for better or worse, the story will likely always hinder and cripple the open world due to their development style.

 

BioWare has definitely gone for a more refined experience since the conversation wheel and the fully-voiced protagonist. They essentially build the character for us and we are able to develop it to some degree overtime. It's not the same level of freedom we'd see in a BGS game, but it is still compelling and entertaining.

 

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. BioWare seems to more or less have found their niche. At this point, their biggest innovation seems to just be making environments larger, and we'll see how that translates in the game.

 

I certainly hope Fallout 4 is not going to have a voiced protagonist. I can't imagine why Bethesda would want to go that way?

But crazy fools are suddenly put in charge of things all over the world, so anything can happen.

 

And no. Bioware have not found their niche. They had one. But they lost it. One question is if they intend/ want to make the ME2/3 paradigm their new niche? Maybe, since it seemed to have some success. If so, it's goodbye from me.

[Vapaa]

Lack of environment variety? Have you played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim?

 

Yes, and it's just snowy forest and mountains.

 

I fear DAI will just be DAO with larger environments

 

Fid you actually followed what the developpers are saying ?