209 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

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. 

Bethesda Game Studios. They have developed Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. They are part of this discussion because they make open world RPGs.

 

It's re-playable on multiple playthroughs. I'm referring to re-playability on the same playthrough, like a BGS game. Otherwise, if there is no reason to return to the Hinterlands later in DAI, it's just a bigger DAO with more space to cover.

 

The only reason I said they almost went open world is that they heavily considered it early in development. DAI's development was heavily inspired by Skyrim, but they decided it would have compromised the story too much.

[Revan Reborn]

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.

Based on how the next ME was described at Comic Con with the new Mako, it sounds like it will be much more open world and massive than DAI. I think it's inevitable that RPGs will become more open world. It's not surprising when Skyrim sold 20 million copies and has had the huge impact on gaming culture as it has. References to Skyrim are made all the time. TW3 and DAI are just the first steps towards a more open world RPG. As this generation continues, I think we'll continue to see a push as that's really the only aspect BioWare has significantly lacked in.

[Greenface21]

 

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.

 

That's great marketing for the RPG crowd but I have a gut feeling Skyrim sales tapped into the casual crowd in order to attain its high sales records. Those people don't give a crap about any of those points. Now i am not saying its a bad game. I bought it and enjoyed it for what it was. 

 

Sorry that was OT.  Bioware should not go full open-world. Those types of games tend to have too many quests that are shallow and leave unsatisfying conclusions. Skyrim uses non-reactivity to simulate freedom and choice which kind of defeats the purpose of playing rpg, at this point you're just RPing. You don't really need a PC or console for that.

 

Right now open-world seems like a popular buzz word to get gamers interested like "zombie" was a few years ago. Time will tell if it becomes a staple of the genre.

[AlanC9]

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.
 

Are you sure it's a flaw?It always struck me as a core design principle of the series.

[Revan Reborn]

 

 

 

That's great marketing for the RPG crowd but I have a gut feeling Skyrim sales tapped into the casual crowd in order to attain its high sales records. Those people don't give a crap about any of those points. Now i am not saying its a bad game. I bought it and enjoyed it for what it was. 

 

Sorry that was OT.  Bioware should not go full open-world. Those types of games tend to have too many quests that are shallow and leave unsatisfying conclusions. Skyrim uses non-reactivity to simulate freedom and choice which kind of defeats the purpose of playing rpg, at this point you're just RPing. You don't really need a PC or console for that.

 

Right now open-world seems like a popular buzz word to get gamers interested like "zombie" was a few years ago. Time will tell if it becomes a staple of the genre.

 

We can argue about the quality of the game all day, but it's irrefutable its success has had an impact and many RPGs (DAI and TW3 included) are following suit. They are taking a lot of cues from what Skyrim did, and it should be expected as they want to continue to innovate and get better as well.

 

Skyrim isn't nearly as non-reactive as a few keep suggesting, but due to technological and development constraints, there were some compromises that clearly had to be made. Skyrim focuses on other choices rather than the entire map changing or certain events barring previous areas from being explored later.

 

I'd argue open world always was a staple of the genre. I think the issue is very few games in the past could actually pull it off. BGS has been doing it since Arena. Rockstar has been doing it since GTA. The difference is overtime these two franchises, in particular, just seem to get bigger and bigger as well as more popular. Other studios have been watching and are following suit.

[Revan Reborn]

Are you sure it's a flaw?It always struck me as a core design principle of the series.

Not at all. It has to do with technological and financial resources. You can only make a game as diverse and complex for everybody to a certain point. Remember that BGS creates some of the largest worlds in the industry with a team of 100 developers. Lets compare that to Ubisoft who will have over 1000 developers working on the same Assassin's Creed title. So given the scale and size of BGS' studio, it's impossible to do everything and some things will be cut. That's how development works.

[Almostfaceman]

I predict Bioware WILL go more and more open world. The "next gen" consoles are helping open up 64 bit gaming and unless we all get hit by an EMP and dragged back to the stone age, technology will keep moving forward. The capability to build more and more complex and in-depth worlds will progress and developers who are in it for the love will not be able to help themselves immersing us all in fantasy worlds. Bioware, postulating a continued successful path, will certainly be one of the pioneers.

 

[Revan Reborn]

I predict Bioware WILL go more and more open world. The "next gen" consoles are helping open up 64 bit gaming and unless we all get hit by an EMP and dragged back to the stone age, technology will keep moving forward. The capability to build more and more complex and in-depth worlds will progress and developers who are in it for the love will not be able to help themselves immersing us all in fantasy worlds. Bioware, postulating a continued successful path, will certainly be one of the pioneers.

 

This is a good point. Certainly part of the reason some developers haven't gone open world has been technological limitations. New gen consoles are allowing developers to do much more than they could before. Just look at the massive crowds in AC Unity as an example. With this new leap in console hardware, games will no doubt become more ambitious as a result. Open world is just one of those areas few have tackled but will be much easier to traverse with the more powerful hardware.

[AlanC9]

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. .

It's hardly semantics to point out that TES games are weak on consequence. If consequence is the point of choice, then having lots of weak choices isn't of much use. I guess the substantive question is what are choice and freedom for?

[Heimdall]

It's hardly semantics to point out that TES games are weak on consequence. If consequence is the point of choice, then having lots of weak choices isn't of much use. I guess the substantive question is what are choice and freedom for?

I'd argue that having a large number of flavor choices in addition to those with meaty consequences is actually a benefit that can help the player define their RP character.

[Revan Reborn]

It's hardly semantics to point out that TES games are weak on consequence. If consequence is the point of choice, then having lots of weak choices isn't of much use. I guess the substantive question is what are choice and freedom for?

Again, depends on how you view those consequences. Stealing. Murdering. Breaking and entering. These are all choices you can make, and everyone of them has a consequence. Death? Having a bounty? Paying a fine? Jail time? There are a variety of paths you can take. Just because you believe the choice and consequence isn't as "significant" as a choice in a BioWare game doesn't diminish it. Throughout Skyrim, whether on quests or not, you have a choice to kill major figures or not. *SPOILERS* You can kill Cicero in the Dark Brotherhood. You can kill Parthurnaax for the Blades. You can kill Ulfric Stormcloak for the Imperial Legion. You can kill Madanach of the Forsworn. You can even kill Emperor Titus Mede II for the Dark Brotherhood! *SPOILERS*

 

All of these choices have consequences. We can debate how big or small an impact these consequences have, but they are consequences nonetheless. Either way, I fail to understand why people continue to argue a lack of choice or consequence when that has always been the core pillar of TES games and it is something that they do that few others can. It should also be noted that part of the reason we are having this discussion is because it's incredibly difficult to have overarching consequences that impact everything in one, persistent world. This is why DAI and TW3 are maintaining some restrictions because their ability to tell a story would be affected if they opened the world too much.

 

 

I'd argue that having a large number of flavor choices in addition to those with meaty consequences is actually a benefit that can help the player define their RP character.

This is a really great point. It shouldn't necessarily matter how big or how small the choice is. The fact that you are making it goes a much farther way to developing their own character rather than someone confining you to choices they decided for you. That is why I think TES is a much better game in terms of role playing than any BioWare game. I have full control over my choices and actions. The same cannot be said for BioWare games, and that's okay because they do other things well.

[AlanC9]

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.

Now that I think about it, people who like NV better tend to not really care about exploration per se. Never played FO3 but I'd probably be one of those guys if I had.
 
 

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.

Master for me too. Skyrim's got a fairly odd difficulty curve. The breakpoints can make it feel like you're going backwards.

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.

Better than Oblivion ain't saying much. Anyway, the scaling issue I was talking about was for all the other stuff besides dragons and giants. You don't really know if an area's too tough until you're pretty deep in it; if there was any particular pattern I never discovered it, so I never had any thinking to do. Though now that my PC's level 35 it doesn't seem to matter much anymore.

[Giantdeathrobot]

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.

 

I typed a lenghty response, but the power went out now I'm angry   so I'm going to say this; the choices were often bland and binary, and in terms of roleplaying depth Bethesda games don't hold a candle to many RPG developers like Bioware, Obsidian, or CD Projeckt. Maybe it's a design decision, maybe it's because they have too much content, maybe it's because Beth is just not that good at that sort of thing.

 

They are enjoyable games, and I had a lot of fun in Skyrim. But I haven't replayed the game despite bombarding it it with good mods. There is just much less appeal to me than in other types of RPG.

[Kehrsyn]

I would prefer something along the lines of Dragon's Dogma and Skyrim. Mostly open world with some areas as loadable zones, major city or quest hubs and shops.

[AlanC9]

Again, depends on how you view those consequences. Stealing. Murdering. Breaking and entering. These are all choices you can make, and everyone of them has a consequence. Death? Having a bounty? Paying a fine? Jail time? There are a variety of paths you can take. Just because you believe the choice and consequence isn't as "significant" as a choice in a BioWare game doesn't diminish it.

It doesn't? Why doesn't it?

BTW, this board supports a "spoiler" tag these days.

[Revan Reborn]

Now that I think about it, people who like NV better tend to not really care about exploration per se. Never played FO3 but I'd probably be one of those guys if I had.
 
 
Master for me too. Skyrim's got a fairly odd difficulty curve. The breakpoints can make it feel like you're going backwards.


Better than Oblivion ain't saying much. Anyway, the scaling issue I was talking about was for all the other stuff besides dragons and giants. You don't really know if an area's too tough until you're pretty deep in it; if there was any particular pattern I never discovered it, so I never had any thinking to do. Though now that my PC's level 35 it doesn't seem to matter much anymore.

If you are going to create a large open world, shouldn't the environment be interesting and make you want to explore it? Otherwise, why build such a huge place when it's not worth exploring? That was the problem with NV. I enjoyed the story and some of the characters, but it was just not a well-developed environment. Fallout 3's map design was way more enticing, even if the main story (initially anyways) was disappointing.

 

Besides needing to use cover against dragons because you would almost certainly get one shot, the only aspect I found somewhat irritating was how normal bandits could occasionally do one-hit executioners on you if you had full health. That was a bit ridiculous at times.

 

Well that's the point. Some people are using Oblivion as the example for level/gear scaling in BGS games. That was a mistake that BGS made eight years ago and have since corrected it. There are just certain enemies in Fallout 3, Fallout NV, or Skyrim that you know not to mess with. The curve isn't quite as severe as Morrowind was, but you should know early on what you can handle and what you can't. I will agree that in the later game when you are more or less maxed out, everything is easy. That's not necessarily a bad thing either, as at some point you should feel as if you have accomplished something.

[Lux]

It's about time they went open world. Previous gameplay was rectrictive.

[Revan Reborn]

I typed a lenghty response, but the power went out now I'm angry   so I'm going to say this; the choices were often bland and binary, and in terms of roleplaying depth Bethesda games don't hold a candle to many RPG developers like Bioware, Obsidian, or CD Projeckt. Maybe it's a design decision, maybe it's because they have too much content, maybe it's because Beth is just not that good at that sort of thing.

 

They are enjoyable games, and I had a lot of fun in Skyrim. But I haven't replayed the game despite bombarding it it with good mods. There is just much less appeal to me than in other types of RPG.

I can agree to some degree that choices weren't nearly as interesting, but I believe that had more to do with a failure to create a compelling story. I still believe in terms of freedom and choice TES is the best role playing experience. BioWare games and CDPR really confine you to a few roles that you are forced to play like traditional MMORPGs.

 

It comes down to staff, funding, time, and priorities. BGS enjoys making large games. With Skyrim, they had 100 members in their studio. Compared to some of these studios, including BioWare, their team is incredibly small. With that understood, it's clearly a time issue as there was plenty we know was supposed to be in the game that was either cut or released later as free content or DLC.

 

We are certainly allowed to have diverging opinions. I will agree that BioWare has better stories in their games, but that's what they focus on I also think BioWare games have lacked in terms of character progression and scale of environments. DAI is trying to rectify that. I wouldn't be surprised if Fallout 4 will try and rectify BGS' long history or poor storytelling. Certainly, BGS has always done a phenomenal job, in my opinion, of building large, persistent worlds worth exploring.

[dlux]

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.

My least favorite game developer is Bethesda and my least favorite games are the Elder Scrolls series and Fallout 3.

 

Bethesda are the masters of (1) extensive item and level scaling, the player has no feeling of progression; (2) broken economies, Beths apparently has no idea what a money sink is; (3) very unrewarding exploration because of the utter lack of unique items and other rewards; (4) numerous copy-pasted dungeons and crypts (5) Fed-ex quests galore.... and so on. Even the writing, story telling, animations and voice acting in Bethesda's games are absolutely horrendous, not to mention that they also make the worst inventory UIs. Ugh.

 

I think the GTA series are better (open world) RPGs than anything that Bethesda has made in the past 10 years, and they aren't even RPGs.  I simply don't think that developers should try and copy Bethesda too much, because Beth's game design at its core is simply not very good IMO.

 

So to answer your question: NO, don't go Bethesda style full open world. It sucks. Big time.

 

 

 

No thanks, Todd.

[dsl08002]

No not open world, that does not suite biowares RPG style, the problem having open world is that you can miss importent elements that might connect to the story.

[Ceoldoren]

Not fully open-world. I feel it would hurt the story to make a seamless, big world. As at times companies make a huge lake that's like a puddle when you step in. I prefer my deep, smaller pond.

[Revan Reborn]

I would prefer something along the lines of Dragon's Dogma and Skyrim. Mostly open world with some areas as loadable zones, major city or quest hubs and shops.

 

Open world implies cities, towns and shops are all accessed without loading a new area. World of Warcraft is open world while the instances are loadable zones to accommodate small groups.

You are nitpicking. Morrowind was technically an open world as there weren't separate cells for cities, unless you want to argue the short load screens to populate interiors is not open world. This is purely a technological limitation. While Oblivion and Skyrim may have had load screens on console, there are mods for PC where you can remove all load screens. I personally used them and I can guarantee BGS will likely remove them with future titles on the new hardware. If not, modders will always do it.

 

Also, if you want to use MMORPGs as an example, Star Wars Galaxies or Darkfall Online are much better examples. WoW is far from open world as the map is divided into various zones you must cross, even if there aren't load screens. You are still limited within the confines of those maps. There was no limitation which direction or way you went in SWG or DO. That is exactly how TES functions.

 

It doesn't? Why doesn't it?

BTW, this board supports a "spoiler" tag these days.

Possibly because the gravity of choices is largely a subjective matter. You may not appreciate the choices, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone else won't. There are infinitely more choices to be made in a BGS title versus a BioWare title largely because of the nature of the game. You aren't stuck on rails like traditional RPGs. You make your own path and everywhere you go is a choice with consequences, whether you are aware of it or not.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I can agree to some degree that choices weren't nearly as interesting, but I believe that had more to do with a failure to create a compelling story. I still believe in terms of freedom and choice TES is the best role playing experience. BioWare games and CDPR really confine you to a few roles that you are forced to play like traditional MMORPGs.

 

It comes down to staff, funding, time, and priorities. BGS enjoys making large games. With Skyrim, they had 100 members in their studio. Compared to some of these studios, including BioWare, their team is incredibly small. With that understood, it's clearly a time issue as there was plenty we know was supposed to be in the game that was either cut or released later as free content or DLC.

 

We are certainly allowed to have diverging opinions. I will agree that BioWare has better stories in their games, but that's what they focus on I also think BioWare games have lacked in terms of character progression and scale of environments. DAI is trying to rectify that. I wouldn't be surprised if Fallout 4 will try and rectify BGS' long history or poor storytelling. Certainly, BGS has always done a phenomenal job, in my opinion, of building large, persistent worlds worth exploring.

 

Yeah, but to me the problem with exploration is that once you did it, well, there's not much more to add. You saw dungeon X, you did quest Y, you don't need to do it again. Besides, at some point, once you saw enough one Draugr-infested barrows, you saw them all. There's only so many randomly generated enemies and content you can face before it loses all novelty and simply consists of you going through the motions. That's another advantage of hand-placed encounters.

 

Roleplaying depth, however, allows for far more replayability. New Vegas alone warrants 3 playthroughs, for each major factions (NCR, Legion, House/ Yes Man) because things are so different each time around. A Legion playthrough especially makes you persona non grata in a big part of the map, so you're fighting a lot more. By contrast, a Yes Man playthrough means everyone can like you until the very end where you backstab everybody and assume direct control in a way no Bethesda (or even Bioware) game has ever allowed you to. Yes, I really, really like New Vegas. Far more than FO3 with its crap story, boring BoS and non-existent difficulty.

 

By contrast, in Skyrim, being a known Imperial supporter that is days away from sieging (well, wildly running with 10 NPCs into the streets of) Windhelm never stops you from waltzing into Ulfric Stormcloak's throne room and chatting with the man like if you didn't massacre his entire army by yourself. That was a pretty major mood killing moment for me. It's as if the Warden in Origins could just walk into Fort Drakon and play Pazaak with Loghain.

[dlux]

Baldur's Gate is open world, you can go anywhere and do anything. You would probably die trying if your level was too low, but it was theoretically possible. It was great. 

 

Open world gaming in Bethesda's games is terrible though.

[In Exile]

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.

 

My point is just that a game can't pretend to be a simulation when it fails to simulate even the most basic social rules that hold together a society.