209 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

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.

I wasn't all that impressed with the Skyrim implementation. You had choice, sure, but the choices weren't based on anything. The difficulty levels of various encounters struck me as more-or-less arbitrary, even assuming that I know in advance what sort of creatures to expect in the zone.

[Revan Reborn]

There's nothing "realistic" or living about the different skins that enemies will have. Yes, you see different stuff... but that stuff isn't interest. Stormcloaks are just mooks. As are imperials. As are bandits. As are dragons. Killing a stormcloak isn't different from killing an imperial. The gameplay is the same. There's no deep or sophisticated interaction with them - you're either killing them or not.

 

Sure, stuff is new, but there's nothing particularly interesting about this "new" content. It's dynamic in that it isn't pre-scripted, but there's nothing to the dynamic content that they give you. 

 

Skyrim doesn't give you variety. Sure, I can create different types of combat playstyles (assuming I don't play long enough to just get 80% of the skills), but all of the quests are identical, no one recognizes any difference in what I do, and there isn't that much difference in terms of the story. 

 

We'll never see eye to eye on this, but as a matter of fact I just don't see that much variety in content.

Those encounters were just an example of one thing Skyrim does. It doesn't matter if we agree or not, as we merely have to let the numbers and the amount of hours people have spent on the game do the talking. We don't even need to include mods (which are a minority anyways as most don't play Skyrim on PC) to see that people spent a ridiculous amount of time in Skyrim compared to any other game. This is part of the reason why TES has always been regarded as the single player MMO because of how much time people spend, because there is always something to do or find. Your expectations or how you perceive that are purely a subjective matter.

 

Aye, that's a big advantage of semi-open world like Inquisition does. The game has deserts, snowy mountains, the hinterlands, a lush forest, marshes, and that's not all. Bethesda have less variety as a rule.

 

Morrowind may be the most varied and even then large parts of the map are still grey-brown wasteland, mixed with some lush greenlands in the south and a volcano. The quirky vegetation and architecture still makes it a great world to explore, but still.

 

Oblivion is green forests pretty much all over. Some marshes in the south, plains around Skingrad, some snow north, that's pretty much it.

 

Fallout 3 has grey-brown wasteland with a green tint, and... that's pretty much it. Oh yeah, Washington itself is less brown and more grey. Yay.

 

Fallout New Vegas is desert and more desert. And some differently colored rocks. Zion Canyon and the Divide in the DLCs look awesome however.

 

Skyrim is snow, mountains, snow on mountains, a forest in the south, and the semi-swampy regions around Solitude and Riften. Much of it is grey.

 

That's much less overall variety, which is inevitable when you attempt to cram an entire province or several US States in one level but still.

I think some of you folks need to go back and play through Skyrim, or Oblivion, or Morrowind. There is a lot more variety in the environment than what you are suggesting. DAI certainly isn't going to be more diverse just because they chopped up the world into zones.

 

Whether we talk about the Ashlands, Red Mountain, much of the vegetation near Seyda Neen, underwater content, Solstheim, Mournhold, Vivec City, Ebonheart, the various dungeons, ruins, caverns, crypts, etc.

 

One could argue Oblivion might be the least diverse? Most of it is just grasslands, forest, snow in the north, swamps in the south, ocean on the west, and then the Imperial City in the middle. Of course there are the various Ayleid ruins, forts and keeps, Oblivion gates, Shivering Isles, etc.

 

I don't even believe Fallout 3 should be included as it's a post-apocalyptic setting... Of course there isn't a lot of variety. Most of the environment is dead due to the nuclear fallout.

 

Fallout New Vegas wasn't developed by BGS, so that's irrelevant. Also, it's the Mojave Desert, so that more or less speaks for itself.

 

Skyrim by far is the most diverse. The various holds, the tundra, forest, swamps, hot springs, mountains, snow, hills and cliffs, grasslands, oceans, it has virtually every kind of ecosystem one would expect. Color palette and saturation does not mean a lack of variety. I agree Vanilla Skyrim was a bit subdued in terms of colors, but to argue there wasn't a wide variety of environments is silly.

 

The point is, true open world or just large environments, diversity in what one will experience will not differ from one to the other. That's entirely up to the art team and how creative they are in terms of developing the world.

[andar91]

Personally, I don't see Bioware's focus on story and characters and a more open-world setting as opposed, thought they often seem like it. The problem is that when people hear "open-world" they instantly think about games like Skyrim, but I think it's more complicated than that. I don't really think that the basic narrative formula or structure of Bioware's games has changed that much in Inquisition; I think the levels are bigger. It doesn't mean the story elements are minimized, though maybe less saturated - we'll have to do more gameplay to get to the next story point if we aren't just running through the main quest line.

 

David Gaider talked about this a little here: http://forum.bioware...2#entry17478282

 

There are indeed parts of the game where you won't encounter a lot of conversation (outside of party banter or ambient comments). It depends on how populated the area is, really. There are also areas which have a lot of conversation, and the crit path plots which are much more cinematic-heavy. Not every activity needs to involve conversation in order for it to be interesting, however--though I guess you'll eventually see and decide that for yourselves.

 

So, let's take Skyrim as an example. I've played it a fair bit, but not extensively. I know there's a main path in the game, but it fades into the background pretty darn quickly as you wander around doing random things for no real purpose - I always felt like I had to really seek out quests if I wanted to do them.

 

I think quests will be central in DAI. It isn't open world, it has zones, and we go to those zones for reasons) as shown in the Twitch stream. Like....in Origins a bit. If Origins was Inquisition, we would still travel to the Brecilian Forest, but it would be one BIG forest area with some sub-areas (like the caves or a temple or whatever). And maybe our overarching goal is to recruit the elves, but their are scattered pockets of elves throughout the area with one central one. There's a big werewolf lair in a series of caves, but they're too high level at first, so you go about doing other things like dealing with vicious animals and werewolf stragglers. You might also deal with a mad hermit who is crazy and summons demons (a side-quest). An elf asks you to gather some lost tokens representative of the elven gods that were left in the forest when an Aravel was attacked by werewolves, so that's a little fetch quest. Also, perhaps there's some tension between the Dalish and a small but thick cluster of refugees fleeing the blight at the edge of the forest - they have their own problems like Darkspawn attacking, a trio of kids who went off exploring and are now lost and beguiled by a sloth demon (imagine that camp we saw). Aneirin could still be there, but maybe he's being hunted by templars and there's a sidequest where you either help him evade/kill them or turn him in. And then of course there's the poet tree, and maybe some dryads. Maybe a REALLY tough bear in an area with a reward for its pelt, not to mention crafting materials and landmarks to find and all them codex entries. And there probably wouldn't be a TON of conversation aside from casual banter in most of this, but the main quest definitely would have a lot of it (and cinematics).

 

But you're ultimately still there to win over the Dalish which means you need access to the big temple thing. Does that make sense? This is sort of how I see Inquisition working. Basically, there's still that central through-line that keeps everything grounded, and how far you stray from that is totally up to you. So if you're starting to get bored, you still have a definitive goal to go back to.

 

That's my 2 cents.

[Lebanese Dude]

Except I can't. When I play with my Lego, I can decide that my dragonborn lego piece organizes a third uprising using the power of the guilds in Skyrim to overthrow the imperials, bring down the stormcloaks, and begin his campaign to create a new empire much in the same way that Septim himself did, before eventually asceding to godhood. 
 
In Skyrim, I have to play through the contrived and unreactive civil war plot. 
 
A sandbox is like my lego's come with a bunch of instructions that say "you're only allowed to make believe the following things:..."  - it's the worst of both worlds. It's not reactive or immersive as a story, and there's no real room for imagination.

You took the analogy too far. Even classic RPGs don't offer the scope you are requesting. Even BioWare games have limits to their choices. You can't do anything that isn't programmed.

Open world RPGs have an advantage over classic RPGs in that the game my be played in whatever way and order you desire.

That's what I was getting at.

The thing is, properly enjoying games like Skyrim requires a great deal of either extreme of not giving a **** about story or committed enough to roleplay thoroughly. There isn't much middle ground for the passive story-seeker.

It's why I understand why some dislike it. I personally did not care for open world RPGs til I role played like crazy and installed the zillion mods I needed to make everything a reality.

[bEVEsthda]

I wasn't all that impressed with the Skyrim implementation. You had choice, sure, but the choices weren't based on anything. The difficulty levels of various encounters struck me as more-or-less arbitrary, even assuming that I know in advance what sort of creatures to expect in the zone.

 

Not based on anything you don't create yourself, no. But the same is true about the best bits in DA:O.

 

More-or-less-arbitrary is how it should be.

[Revan Reborn]

 

 

 

The game world was empty because it was realistic. It's a wasteland. That's the point. In NV, any town or settlement is set up in a logical way, near supplies of water and food. In FO3, there was better content in exploration because there was more stuff to discover every little while, but it made no sense as a living world. That's what I don't get when you use a description like "living" - FO3 is the epitome of a game-y world where the map is designed as a (bad) way of giving the player content at set intervals, with no regard for how a map as designed could actually support life. 

 

Reread that quote you posted. I never said anything about "empty" or "realistic." You are putting words in my mouth. What I did say was the design for the environment was worse. Fallout 3 you had Washington D.C. and the greater area (The Capital Wasteland) versus Fallout NV with New Vegas and the greater area (The Mojave Wasteland). F3 just had a better design and flow than FNV which was largely hindered by the progression of the main story.

 

There's a difference in creating a sense of isolation and emptiness for a post-apocalyptic setting and how you build the experience and allow players to traverse it. F3 just had a better design with exploration in mind, which isn't surprising since BGS made it. Obsidian tried focusing more on the story and other characters, crippling the exploration in the process.

 

 

No, DAI should only take place in the city of Kirkwall. Why doesn't Bioware give us the sequel that we are all asking for???

If Kirkwall had changed as much as BioWare was claiming in DA2, I wouldn't have minded it as much.

 

There is plenty of content. It's just presented with a different approach.

Think of open world RPGs as a box of Legos. You have an instruction set to tell you how to build whatever is inside it.

However you can ignore the guide completely and make your own creations using your imagination.

By buying more Legos (installing mods), you can create some truly amazing creations.

So in a sense, the content is fragmented and it is up to the player to make them fit using their imagination.

This is a good explanation. A sandbox is what you make it really. BGS gives more tools and unpredictability than any other developer out there. You either appreciate it, which most do based on the sales, or you don't.

 

I'm for it . If only because it make the world 'Alive' and give you a reason to go back to an Area . 

That's the concern. Based on how BioWare is developing the environments, they haven't given any indication there will be a reason to return to previous areas. People don't seem to realize going bigger doesn't necessarily mean re-playability and a living worth. Those are two different things.

 

I think they should. It would show a lot of innovation if Bioware could mold a fun open world and then create an amazing narrative with awesome characters. I can't think of many open games that are like that. Usually they sacrifice one or the other. DAI seems to be trying to do a little of everything and if it's executed right, I think that in itself is innovative compared to what's on the market. The next step will be to integrate full sandbox worlds with their narrative/characters. DAI is a big step for them but I think full sandbox is their natural evolution and where they can really innovate. I simply can't name many sandbox RPGs that have an amazing world to explore with incredible narrative/characters in it. That is my dream RPG and I've yet to play one.

That is a dream RPG I believe many of us would want. I'm not sure it's possibly based on the need to limit exploration based on storytelling needs. I think we are more likely to see it from a developer who has already done the open world RPG and then tries to build a more compelling story in it.

 

I wasn't all that impressed with the Skyrim implementation. You had choice, sure, but the choices weren't based on anything. The difficulty levels of various encounters struck me as more-or-less arbitrary, even assuming that I know in advance what sort of creatures to expect in the zone.

To each his own I suppose. I played on Master difficulty, so early on if I was getting out of the range of typical bandits or draugrs, I knew I might be in trouble. Messing with giants, mammoths, dragons, or the like generally was not suggested. I see this being much better than the Oblivion approach where everything was scaled to your level so there was always a "challenge" and nothing could ever be easy or too hard.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

I think some of you folks need to go back and play through Skyrim, or Oblivion, or Morrowind. There is a lot more variety in the environment than what you are suggesting. DAI certainly isn't going to be more diverse just because they chopped up the world into zones.

 

Whether we talk about the Ashlands, Red Mountain, much of the vegetation near Seyda Neen, underwater content, Solstheim, Mournhold, Vivec City, Ebonheart, the various dungeons, ruins, caverns, crypts, etc.

 

One could argue Oblivion might be the least diverse? Most of it is just grasslands, forest, snow in the north, swamps in the south, ocean on the west, and then the Imperial City in the middle. Of course there are the various Ayleid ruins, forts and keeps, Oblivion gates, Shivering Isles, etc.

 

I don't even believe Fallout 3 should be included as it's a post-apocalyptic setting... Of course there isn't a lot of variety. Most of the environment is dead due to the nuclear fallout.

 

Fallout New Vegas wasn't developed by BGS, so that's irrelevant. Also, it's the Mojave Desert, so that more or less speaks for itself.

 

Skyrim by far is the most diverse. The various holds, the tundra, forest, swamps, hot springs, mountains, snow, hills and cliffs, grasslands, oceans, it has virtually every kind of ecosystem one would expect. Color palette and saturation does not mean a lack of variety. I agree Vanilla Skyrim was a bit subdued in terms of colors, but to argue there wasn't a wide variety of environments is silly.

 

The point is, true open world or just large environments, diversity in what one will experience will not differ from one to the other. That's entirely up to the art team and how creative they are in terms of developing the world.

 

I didn't include expansions, and cities are, well, cities, not full-fledged locations (unless the city is the setting of the majority of the gameplay, like in NWN or DA2 I suppose), which is why I didn't include Val Royeaux (or whichever city in Orlais we visit). But there's little variety between the Ashlands and the Red Montain, the ocean is not exactly a location since it's just water, and my main beef with Skyrim is the lack of variety in color palette. 90% of the game is brown, snow-white or green. With the dash of grey in structures. Admitedly Blackreach was pretty awesome, but it's still less varid than what we know of DA:I so far.

 

The other thing is that it makes the world seem tiny. Going from one end of the province to the other on foot in 20 minutes kinda diminishes the sense of scale. But outright changing maps doesn't give that impression, you know you traveled for X amount of time.

 

In the end, it's just a matter of opinion. But I do think that Bethesda games just aren't as good as Bioware's (well, Skyrim was better than DA2, but that's because the latter was sub-par) so...

[Revan Reborn]

Personally, I don't see Bioware's focus on story and characters and a more open-world setting as opposed, thought they often seem like it. The problem is that when people hear "open-world" they instantly think about games like Skyrim, but I think it's more complicated than that. I don't really think that the basic narrative formula or structure of Bioware's games has changed that much in Inquisition; I think the levels are bigger. It doesn't mean the story elements are minimized, though maybe less saturated - we'll have to do more gameplay to get to the next story point if we aren't just running through the main quest line.

 

David Gaider talked about this a little here: http://forum.bioware...2#entry17478282

 

There are indeed parts of the game where you won't encounter a lot of conversation (outside of party banter or ambient comments). It depends on how populated the area is, really. There are also areas which have a lot of conversation, and the crit path plots which are much more cinematic-heavy. Not every activity needs to involve conversation in order for it to be interesting, however--though I guess you'll eventually see and decide that for yourselves.

 

So, let's take Skyrim as an example. I've played it a fair bit, but not extensively. I know there's a main path in the game, but it fades into the background pretty darn quickly as you wander around doing random things for no real purpose - I always felt like I had to really seek out quests if I wanted to do them.

 

I think quests will be central in DAI. It isn't open world, it has zones, and we go to those zones for reasons) as shown in the Twitch stream. Like....in Origins a bit. If Origins was Inquisition, we would still travel to the Brecilian Forest, but it would be one BIG forest area with some sub-areas (like the caves or a temple or whatever). And maybe our overarching goal is to recruit the elves, but their are scattered pockets of elves throughout the area with one central one. There's a big werewolf lair in a series of caves, but they're too high level at first, so you go about doing other things like dealing with vicious animals and werewolf stragglers. You might also deal with a mad hermit who is crazy and summons demons (a side-quest). An elf asks you to gather some lost tokens representative of the elven gods that were left in the forest when an Aravel was attacked by werewolves, so that's a little fetch quest. Also, perhaps there's some tension between the Dalish and a small but thick cluster of refugees fleeing the blight at the edge of the forest - they have their own problems like Darkspawn attacking, a trio of kids who went off exploring and are now lost and beguiled by a sloth demon (imagine that camp we saw). Aneirin could still be there, but maybe he's being hunted by templars and there's a sidequest where you either help him evade/kill them or turn him in. And then of course there's the poet tree, and maybe some dryads. Maybe a REALLY tough bear in an area with a reward for its pelt, not to mention crafting materials and landmarks to find and all them codex entries. And there probably wouldn't be a TON of conversation aside from casual banter in most of this, but the main quest definitely would have a lot of it (and cinematics).

 

But you're ultimately still there to win over the Dalish which means you need access to the big temple thing. Does that make sense? This is sort of how I see Inquisition working. Basically, there's still that central through-line that keeps everything grounded, and how far you stray from that is totally up to you. So if you're starting to get bored, you still have a definitive goal to go back to.

 

That's my 2 cents.

What you are referring to is that line of linearity will still be there. BioWare has to maintain it in order to protect the main story and character development. BGS doesn't dictate how you play. Some like that. Some don't. Either way, you don't have to do anything. In DAI, there are some things you have to do in order to progress to the next area. That's really the main reason why DAI isn't a full-blown open world like Skyrim. That being said, BioWare seems to be inching closer and closer to a true open world game. My concern again is the re-playability of these larger areas. Once I've completed the content there, will there be a need to return? There is a lot of re-playability in Skyrim. In terms of BioWare with just one playthrough, not at all.

 

You took the analogy too far. Even classic RPGs don't offer the scope you are requesting. Even BioWare games have limits to their choices. You can't do anything that isn't programmed.

Open world RPGs have an advantage over classic RPGs in that the game my be played in whatever way and order you desire.

That's what I was getting at.

The thing is, properly enjoying games like Skyrim requires a great deal of either extreme of not giving a **** about story or committed enough to roleplay thoroughly. There isn't much middle ground for the passive story-seeker.

It's why I understand why some dislike it. I personally did not care for open world RPGs til I role played like crazy and installed the zillion mods I needed to make everything a reality.

The kind of freedom he is at least suggesting is something more along the lines of a tabletop RPG. No video game can offer that amount of variety and fidelity. That being said, BGS and TES is the closest thing out there to it. You don't have to appreciate it, and clearly he doesn't, but certainly that doesn't diminish the limitless hours of content the game has to offer.

 

Whether you are roleplaying or not, there is something to enjoy in Skyrim regardless. It just depends on your expectations and what you are looking for. BioWare games are much more confined and dictate who you are and how you will play. There is no choice in that regard, only the choices they give us.

[Greenface21]

 A sandbox is what you make it really. BGS gives more tools and unpredictability than any other developer out there. You either appreciate it, which most do based on the sales, or you don't.

 

I doubt that. I believe an effective ad campaign that involved a catchy viking chorus theme song, lots of scenery porn, and a promise of epic dragon fights is what drove sales for that game.  

[Revan Reborn]

I didn't include expansions, and cities are, well, cities, not full-fledged locations (unless the city is the setting of the majority of the gameplay, like in NWN or DA2 I suppose), which is why I didn't include Val Royeaux (or whichever city in Orlais we visit). But there's little variety between the Ashlands and the Red Montain, the ocean is not exactly a location since it's just water, and my main beef with Skyrim is the lack of variety in color palette. 90% of the game is brown, snow-white or green. With the dash of grey in structures. Admitedly Blackreach was pretty awesome, but it's still less varid than what we know of DA:I so far.

 

The other thing is that it makes the world seem tiny. Going from one end of the province to the other on foot in 20 minutes kinda diminishes the sense of scale. But outright changing maps doesn't give that impression, you know you traveled for X amount of time.

 

In the end, it's just a matter of opinion. But I do think that Bethesda games just aren't as good as Bioware's (well, Skyrim was better than DA2, but that's because the latter was sub-par) so...

Cities are part of the environment. Might as well include them. The ocean is definitely a location in Skyrim, Oblivion, and Morrowind. Have you ever explored underwater? You'd be surprised how many sunken ships, collapsed fortifications, or hidden caves you'd find. The water isn't there to just be seen. I forgot all about Blackreach, although I did mention Dwemer Ruins. My point is Skyrim is very much multi-regional. BioWare and CDPR have even admitted to learning from BGS in a variety of ways in terms of the environment.

 

Color palette and diversity in environment are two different things, as I stated earlier. As far as the sense of scale, I believe that's subjective. When I know the environment is chopped into pieces and I have to go through loading screens, that kind of experience seems much smaller and more confined than Skyrim, Oblivion, or Morrowind. Admittedly, Morrowind was actually rather small, but because of how it was built (and the fact it took forever to run everywhere in that game), it actually felt really large.

 

Fair enough. BGS is my favorite developer. BioWare comes after them. Then probably CDPR, but they might pass up BioWare depending on how good TW3 is. I love great characters and a great story. I enjoy an immersive and large environment with infinite possibilities more, personally. A much better role playing experience, in my opinion, as I choose what I do, rather than the developers for me. BioWare games are more like watching a movie than a role playing game.

[Todrazok]

I think from what I've seen of gameplay footage DA:I's semi-open world will go very well with the games narrative about the rising Inquisition. Now, whether or not the big zones have fun content in them remains to be seen.

 

As for an actual "open world", I think looking back a game like Dragon Age 2 could've worked very well as a open world had the game used a better engine and obviously a longer development time for polish. It would've allowed Bioware to show the massive scale Kirkwall should've been, and fleshed out the city as a whole alot more.

 

Ultimately I think it just depends on the game whether or not "open world" is a good idea or not, with that being said the most important thing is that the content within said world is compelling and fun  .

[Revan Reborn]

I doubt that. I believe an effective ad campaign that involved a catchy viking chorus theme song, lots of scenery porn, and a promise of epic dragon fights is what drove sales for that game.  

Or, BGS has been making open world RPGs for two decades. Their games are built so that anyone can play them. They have infinite amounts of customization, choice, and freedom unrivaled in any other RPG. It should also be mentioned that BGS has the largest, most dedicated modding community in the entire industry. Being able to "go where you want and do what you want," which was the motto for Morrowind, is in a lot of ways the ultimate role playing experience. Great games sell copies. A strong marketing campaign can only sell in the initial months, but not for the long term.

[Wiggs Magee]

No i don't think Bioware should go open world

Even in DA:O and ME2 where you could pick and choose in what order you did things and often had alot of space to cover they were still quite structured.

And one of Bioware's greatest strengths is creating a structured and in my opinion very good story to follow, all the time in ME2/ DA:O almost every important you were doing in someway added to the overall goal (every recruitment/loyalty mission to fighting the collectors.... every mission in DA:O to gather forces to combat the blight)

Put that in a open world and suddenly all structure and sense of flow is completely lost.

For atleast me and all of my friends in any open world we find ourselves in (W_D, ES games, the Witcher) you're let loose in the open world and within 5 hours you're picking up a book for an old lady and literally have no idea what the overall aim actually is.

[In Exile]

You took the analogy too far. Even classic RPGs don't offer the scope you are requesting. Even BioWare games have limits to their choices. You can't do anything that isn't programmed.

Open world RPGs have an advantage over classic RPGs in that the game my be played in whatever way and order you desire.

That's what I was getting at.

The thing is, properly enjoying games like Skyrim requires a great deal of either extreme of not giving a **** about story or committed enough to roleplay thoroughly. There isn't much middle ground for the passive story-seeker.

It's why I understand why some dislike it. I personally did not care for open world RPGs til I role played like crazy and installed the zillion mods I needed to make everything a reality.

 

My point, though, is that open-world RPGs get the balance wrong. There's a trade-off between freedom and reactivity, but a game like TES just offers you 0 reactivity without any real gain in freedom. Morrowind tried much harder to strike a balance by creating excluive content. So it wasn't reactive to your character, but it was reactive to your choices - FO:NV follows a similar design path. 

 

You can't ignore the story, sure, but I don't care about the story. I could play a disconnected game with a bunch of small quest vignette's if those quests were reactive - that's basically how DA2 works in terms of its story path, it's all pretty disconnected w/o the framed narrative to make it seem like Act 1/2 have a point to Act 3. 

 

RP is more than just headcannon - that's just fanfiction. There has to be reaction from the game. If my pure mage character is identical in everything in terms of reaction to my rogue, and even mass murdering an entire village gives me 0 difference if I just pay enough... where's the actual content? How is the game living? IRL a mass murdering doctor and a community oriented cop are treated totally different. 

[bEVEsthda]

Except I can't. When I play with my Lego, I can decide that my dragonborn lego piece organizes a third uprising using the power of the guilds in Skyrim to overthrow the imperials, bring down the stormcloaks, and begin his campaign to create a new empire much in the same way that Septim himself did, before eventually asceding to godhood. 

 

In Skyrim, I have to play through the contrived and unreactive civil war plot. 

 

A sandbox is like my lego's come with a bunch of instructions that say "you're only allowed to make believe the following things:..."  - it's the worst of both worlds. It's not reactive or immersive as a story, and there's no real room for imagination. 

 

It's not quite that game. It's not quite that kind of sandbox. (But almost, you could prob go in that direction, with the help of mods and making mods)

You're thrown out in a world that ultimately has limits for you. I find that the most endearing and positive attribute of ES. I always also reinforce that, by studiously avoiding power-gaming and imposing further limits on the way I play them.

The life my char lives, and the story that follows, is all. That's what is essential. And I walk everywhere. Teleporting and chasing "the main plot" just ruin the experience. If you do that, an ES game must be a pretty crappy experience. There have to be more going on in your head.

 

This is what I play these games for. Not just ES, but also the likes of DA:O.

DA2 otoh, is nothing. I have a real hard time to see that it's anything else than a Space Invader game with movies playing a story between levels. Life's too short for that.

 

That's not to say that more defined NPCs wouldn't be appreciated. But we will get there. Bethesda have already been there, but had to scale back because consoles couldn't handle it then. But it's a technology that will go forward.

Deeper dialogue and more defined NPCs, by themselves, is not enough for me in a game that lacks the essential component.

Nor are they really needed in a game that doesn't.

 

I have 'known' you for years here on the forums. I know well that we are very different. ...In these things.

[Revan Reborn]

No i don't think Bioware should go open world

Even in DA:O and ME2 where you could pick and choose in what order you did things and often had alot of space to cover they were still quite structured.

And one of Bioware's greatest strengths is creating a structured and in my opinion very good story to follow, all the time in ME2/ DA:O almost every important you were doing in someway added to the overall goal (every recruitment/loyalty mission to fighting the collectors.... every mission in DA:O to gather forces to combat the blight)

Put that in a open world and suddenly all structure and sense of flow is completely lost.

For atleast me and all of my friends in any open world we find ourselves in (W_D, ES games, the Witcher) you're let loose in the open world and within 5 hours you're picking up a book for an old lady and literally have no idea what the overall aim actually is.

For BioWare's purposes, I agree that structure is definitely needed, which is why going more open world could be an issue for their future games.

 

I think your example to describe Watch_Dogs, TES, and TW is a little extreme, but not everything you do in the world will necessarily move the narrative forward. That being said, I'd argue that the world itself is more of a narrative, and the things you do are telling your own story, rather than the developer doing it for you. It's just a different kind of storytelling.

[In Exile]

Or, BGS has been making open world RPGs for two decades. Their games are built so that anyone can play them. They have infinite amounts of customization, choice, and freedom unrivaled in any other RPG. It should also be mentioned that BGS has the largest, most dedicated modding community in the entire industry. Being able to "go where you want and do what you want," which was the motto for Morrowind, is in a lot of ways the ultimate role playing experience. Great games sell copies. A strong marketing campaign can only sell in the initial months, but not for the long term.

COD is an insanely popular series of games that blows Skyrim out of the water, but its popularity doesn't translate into quality. Fair enough that you like doing a bunch of random stuff, but that doesn't equate with a good RPG. There's no reactivity, the mechanics are pretty bad ... sure, there are few restrictions to what you can do, in the sense that the game doesn't tell you what to do, but there are few few things you actually can do. 

 

It's a big YMMV. 

[Ferico21]

It's not a true open world to the sense of skyrim, as I'm sure they clarified. What they're simply doing is just enlarging the general area of the games levels so that there is a lot more for people to do without all the loading screens. Mounts are involved to help you cover that area in a faster time, which is okay....

BUT What makes a open world truly fun to play, is filling it with things worth exploring. If the environments design is interesting, the sights are cool, and each place feels different from the last then you have something great to play.

That's what makes DA:I one of the top games I'm looking forward to play this year...Unless by some godly miracle Fallout 4 is announced and simultaneously released within the next 2 months......DA:I GOTY!!!

[Revan Reborn]

It's not quite that game. It's not quite that kind of sandbox. (But almost, you could prob go in that direction, with the help of mods and making mods)

You're thrown out in a world that ultimately has limits for you. I find that the most endearing and positive attribute of ES. I always also reinforce that, by studiously avoiding power-gaming and imposing further limits on the way I play them.

The life my char lives, and the story that follows, is all. That's what is essential. And I walk everywhere. Teleporting and chasing "the main plot" just ruin the experience. If you do that, an ES game must be a pretty crappy experience. There have to be more going on in your head.

 

This is what I play these games for. Not just ES, but also the likes of DA:O.

DA2 otoh, is nothing. I have a real hard time to see that it's anything else than a Space Invader game with movies playing a story between levels. Life's too short for that.

 

That's not to say that more defined NPCs wouldn't be appreciated. But we will get there. Bethesda have already been there, but had to scale back because consoles couldn't handle it then. But it's a technology that will go forward.

Deeper dialogue and more defined NPCs, by themselves, is not enough for me in a game that lacks the essential component.

Nor are they really needed in a game that doesn't.

 

I have 'known' you for years here on the forums. I know well that we are very different. ...In these things.

I agree that you can't quick travel or use carriages to teleport your way through the main story. That's not how TES works. In fact, I would tell most to NOT do the main story and to AVOID using any kind of quick travel system as you will ruin it. There is so much you will miss or not experience it's mind boggling. BGS only put quick travel in the game as a way to broaden the appeal to the game, make it less intimidating, and allow more variety in the player base.

 

I'm really hopeful that BGS will unlock Radiant AI as it was in Oblivion. While it was game breaking in some respects, it was also revolutionary. The more tamed version in Oblivion and Skyrim are fine, but so much more is possible. The key to immersion is not that the world necessarily reacts to you, but that the world reacts to itself. That is what is key. If battles, disputes, etc. are happening between other NPCs dynamically removed from my influence, that is truly innovative.

 

I personally wouldn't want to be Tiber Septim and CHIM my way into molding the world as I see fit. Being a Divine would be incredibly boring. That's why making a Superman movie is so incredibly difficult. It's much more interesting when disputes are out of your hands and you have to work within the confines of the game to find your own solution. In regards to the Civil War, it was meant to be a lot more ambitious and dynamic, but BGS had to cut most of the content due to time constraints.

[bEVEsthda]

 If my pure mage character is identical in everything in terms of reaction to my rogue, and even mass murdering an entire village gives me 0 difference if I just pay enough... where's the actual content? How is the game living? IRL a mass murdering doctor and a community oriented cop are treated totally different. 

 

This is a flaw in the games. Just a flaw. Every game has them. And plenty of them. ...I don't even know where to begin...

 

But it is a good point. A very good point. It's an annoying flaw. I remember it was one of the things I found most dissatisfying in Morrowind, long ago.

 

Otoh, there are many who play these games, and abuse this flaw, and want these things to be so. (I suppose it's the GTA players  ) So in the end I can accept this, because it's side of its property of being a software toy, usable in many different ways.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

Fair enough. BGS is my favorite developer. BioWare comes after them. Then probably CDPR, but they might pass up BioWare depending on how good TW3 is. I love great characters and a great story. I enjoy an immersive and large environment with infinite possibilities more, personally. A much better role playing experience, in my opinion, as I choose what I do, rather than the developers for me. BioWare games are more like watching a movie than a role playing game.

 

That's just it, Bethesda games are good for exploration and messing around, and they have their moments, but as RPGs they aren't anything special. The most you can do is select which killing implements you use, but even MMOs allow you to do that. As far as actual role-playing go, making decisions that affect the world and all that, they're sub-par in many respects. You either do X thing, or you don't. Sometimes they allow alternate outcomes (DB questline in Skyrim) but it's veeeery rares, and it exists alongside silly stuff like people of the College asking you to fetch their stuff when you're the damn Arch-Mage.

 

The Civil War questline was especially dull. Go to that fort, kill those baddies, rinse and repeat until you assault enemy capital city. Don't get me started on how dreadful Radiant quests were.

[andar91]

What you are referring to is that line of linearity will still be there. BioWare has to maintain it in order to protect the main story and character development. BGS doesn't dictate how you play. Some like that. Some don't. Either way, you don't have to do anything. In DAI, there are some things you have to do in order to progress to the next area. That's really the main reason why DAI isn't a full-blown open world like Skyrim. That being said, BioWare seems to be inching closer and closer to a true open world game. My concern again is the re-playability of these larger areas. Once I've completed the content there, will there be a need to return? There is a lot of re-playability in Skyrim. In terms of BioWare with just one playthrough, not at all.

 

Um...yes? Maybe we're talking about different things here, but yes, I agree it's about maintaining a central, largely linear storyline. I do not think this is a bad thing.

 

Sidenote: I have NO freaking clue what BGS is, so that's all Greek to me.

 

As for replayability...I'm not sure. I find Origins extremely replayable, myself, even though you go to all the same places...but you can make different choices there. It remains to be seen as to how Inquisition will play out, but they have expessed that choice is a major focus for them in this game (and I'm assuming consequence).

 

I'm not sure I agree that Bioware is inching closer and closer to a truly open-world game. Like I said, I think they took their standard formula and widened it to incorporate huge explorable areas. 

[Revan Reborn]

COD is an insanely popular series of games that blows Skyrim out of the water, but its popularity doesn't translate into quality. Fair enough that you like doing a bunch of random stuff, but that doesn't equate with a good RPG. There's no reactivity, the mechanics are pretty bad ... sure, there are few restrictions to what you can do, in the sense that the game doesn't tell you what to do, but there are few few things you actually can do. 

 

It's a big YMMV. 

You are comparing an annual shooter to a series that has a released numbered sequel approximately every five years? These are not the same thing.

 

As far as individual sales, Skyrim has sold over 20 million units since its release. CoD titles do not have that type of longevity as Activision forces Infinity Ward/Treyarch and others to constantly flesh out new titles every year.

 

Agree to disagree. I believe TES games offer more freedom and choice than any other RPG on the market and have for a long time. You can argue semantics, subtleties, and the quality of how dynamic and reactive it is, but it does not change the fact it's there. I don't have to convince you of what Skyrim is. Again, 20,000,000 units have been sold since it's release. The only other title that comes out as often as TES that gets those kind of numbers would be GTA.

[Isaidlunch]

Honestly, open world and story-driven are two ideas that I'd rather not see mixed. I already know which way the wind is blowing, I'm expecting The Witcher 3 to be a sign of things to come for the entire RPG genre, so I'll just grudgingly accept it or move on if it really bothers me. I'd be happy if Bioware kept to semi-open world like what they're trying to do with DAI but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware's games from ME4 onwards will be developed to be completely open world.

[Revan Reborn]

That's just it, Bethesda games are good for exploration and messing around, and they have their moments, but as RPGs they aren't anything special. The most you can do is select which killing implements you use, but even MMOs allow you to do that. As far as actual role-playing go, making decisions that affect the world and all that, they're sub-par in many respects. You either do X thing, or you don't. Sometimes they allow alternate outcomes (DB questline in Skyrim) but it's veeeery rares, and it exists alongside silly stuff like people of the College asking you to fetch their stuff when you're the damn Arch-Mage.

 

The Civil War questline was especially dull. Go to that fort, kill those baddies, rinse and repeat until you assault enemy capital city. Don't get me started on how dreadful Radiant quests were.

If BGS games weren't special, I don't believe we'd be talking about them or they'd be selling. The point is you make decisions all the time in TES games. You may not appreciate them and they may not be as paramount as a choice in a BioWare game, but you are always making them. There was more than just the Dark Brotherhood with how to deal with Cicero. Did you support the Stormcloaks or the Imperial Legion? Did you support the vampires or the Dawnguard? The only story that was admittedly forced and lacking in choice was the main story. Even there though, you could decide to side with the Blades or with Parthurnaax. I will agree that some of the dialogue NPCs would say weren't appropriate given your character's feats, but that's more of a game development issue than a failing as an RPG.

 

The Civil War we received was not the one BGS envisioned. Had they have had time to finish the game, it was going to be extremely dynamic where we fight over various keeps and cities for control and influence. These scales would constantly change and evolve overtime and it would require us to make a concerted effort to gain enough influence over Skyrim. It was incredibly ambitious and interesting, but due to time constraints, BGS had to cut it out and put in a cookie cutter linear story. If you go on Nexusmods, you can find a mod of how a person tried to fully realize what BGS actually intended. There was also an arena in Windhelm much like the arena in the Imperial City that was cut from Skyrim. Lots of content didn't make it in.