209 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

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.

Wow we have so much in common already lol.

 

Your first point is a fallacy. This was only true in large part to Oblivion, of which BGS has since resolved in their successive titles. There were plenty of money sinks. The problem is there were also bugs or exploits that were rampant that circumvented the money sinks. That's an entirely different issue. Again, your third point is only relevant to Oblivion. The game had well over 300 dungeons and there was nothing valuable to find in any of them. You could go all the way through an Ayleid ruins and at the end you'd find an apple and a spoon in a master-lock chest. BGS fixed that in Fallout 3 and Skyrim, although I still felt Morrowind's approach was slightly better.

 

Again, your fourth point clearly shows you are talking about Oblivion... Most of the dungeons were actually copy and pasted, which isn't surprising when you only have one dungeon designer... Thankfully for Skyrim, BGS condensed the dungeons down to 150 quality ones with eight dungeon designers, and there is not one dungeon in the game that is identical. That is nothing more than a blatant lie. One of the things BGS wanted to do was make sure every dungeon experience was unique and different, which everyone is. Will they use some similar assets? Yeah, dwemer cities, nord crypts, or caverns have similarities. Besides that, each path and layout is entirely unique.

 

The main story, all of the guild quests, and the various quests in every hold are different and all offer their own interesting stories. There are even quests you can find in the wilderness that might surprise you of their quality. The only "fed-ex" quests would be the Radiant Story which are meant to provide infinite amounts of content when you complete everything else. They are far from the majority of content in Skyrim. Animations weren't the greatest, but the actual backdrop to the story and characters was incredibly interesting. The issue was the execution was lousy, partially due to a silent protagonist, partially due to no cinematic cut scenes, and some other issues.

 

Skyrim's UI was made for console. Pick up SkyUI. It's the most popular mod made for Skyrim. You don't have to like BGS or their games. You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you are going to make blatant and ridiculous claims, you should at least make sure they are supported. Half of your criticisms haven't even been relevant since Oblivion, which came out eight years ago. Makes me wonder if you actually played Skyrim or if you are just bashing on it for the sake of bashing.

 

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.

That's why BioWare went the direction they did with DAI initially. It certainly seems that they will continue to push that bar, however, given what they seem to be doing with the next Mass Effect. We'll see how DAI translates.

 

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.

I'm not so worried about the quality as I am about the point of a larger world. If BioWare doesn't build an environment in a way that makes sense and actually adds to the game, I don't see the point to it. They may as stay linear unless they are really trying to innovate their game design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TES is one of the original open world RPGs

Umm, no.

The Elder Scolls: Arena was released in 1996.

A small selection of earlier examples (there are many others):

1986 - Might & Magic

1985 - The Bard's Tale

1984 - Questron

1981 - Ultima I

In the 1980s, the standard design for CRPGs was open world. The move away from that is a newer thing.

[In Exile]

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.

 

Then I don't have to convince you of the fact that COD Titles sell tens of millions, repeat the same content, and people repeatedly buy it again for relatively minor advances or additions. If numbers prove the quality of a product, then the fact that gamers have bought like 5 versions of the same game for $60. It's sold over 20,000,000 over four times. 

 

COD comes out far more often, with little differences, and everyone eats it up. 

 

If you want to say Skyrim is the perfect RPG, you're going to have give a better argument than "Lol duh its perfect, 20,000,000 sales can't be wrong". 

[Lyrandori]

As far as BioWare games go I think that they've achieved their peak in terms of balancing linearity / scripted, directed story-telling and freedom of movement with Mass Effect 2. I'm not necessarily talking about the quality of said story-telling, but simply referring to the balance of both worlds that ME2 offered. We had good direction, some base restrictions (such as not being able to go on questing at some point, when having to speak to the Illusive Man to trigger a story quest, or when having to go through the Normandy abduction scene, and et cetera, which is complete linearity) and general open-ended freedom when it came to some locations and our chosen chronological order of side quests completion.

 

And for now I am praising ME2 for achieving that great balance because I and we haven't played DA:I yet. But I do believe that BioWare simply expended on the same type of inner-working and game-play mechanics. Mostly due to DA:I's sheer world size compared to ME2's, as BioWare said DA:I is their absolute biggest game, ever. So, considering what they've done with ME2, and seeing that they're certainly adding meat to an even larger bone (DA:I) in a similar way (I.E., that DA:I will be a mixture of linear story-telling and open-world freedom) then I'd assume that they wanted to explore that venue at least for Inquisition, but will probably keep the formula intact for future games too. Didn't the ME4 team mentioned that they'd focus more on exploration? That shows the direction they're taking.

 

Honestly though, I for one don't really mind. I do like good linear story-telling, and I also like sandbox-style games without necessarily having a story on the quality and complexity level of a decade-long novel series with staggering plot twists at every chapters. I thought (and still think) that Skyrim is the absolute best open-world game right now on the market (especially so if including mods), but its main story, and jaw-dropping number of side quests (that's excluding mods) isn't exactly what makes it such a marvel of a game (at least not for me). If you craft a vast sandbox game, you need content at almost every turn, you need breath-taking scenery to gawk at for ten minutes, you need to fill up the world with "things to do" (that doesn't have to include story-telling every time you speak to NPCs at every corners of every streets of every towns). I think that Skyrim achieved that beautifully. It's probably not false to say that DA:I is BioWare's first "true" take on open-world story-telling, well at least on that scale. We'll see how it goes, we're almost there guys.

 

In the meantime I'm happy that they decided to try to mix both aspects for Inquisition (open-world, and linearity where and when needed to tell said story), and I certainly hope that they do the same thing with ME4. In other words, and to directly answer the OP's question (thread's title) then I'd say that yes, BioWare should really go open-world, simply because their stories are some of the best in the game industry (especially indiviual character stories, not necessarily main arc stories, just look at ME2's character stories, Samara's story, Tali's, Legion's, Liara's, Kasumi's, Garrus', Grunt's, Mordin's... everyone's stories, that's where BioWare excels, character stories) and if it takes bigger open worlds to tell those stories then I'm all for that.

[Revan Reborn]

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.

It depends. A linear experience like Mass Effect 2 is great with all the set pieces hand-placed by BioWare, but there is a lack of variety in how they play out. The great thing about Skyrim is there are plenty of dungeons and places to explore, besides Draugr-infested crypts. You don't really need to go into any at all if you don't care to finish the story or obtain all the words of power.

 

The main difference between FO3 and FO NV was the implementation of factions and the morality system. That went a large way to provide more "significant" consequences some are speaking to. The Civil War in Skyrim was going to be a lot like that and more, but as I stated earlier, it was cut and limited due to time constraints.

 

The one problem (if you want to call it a problem) with TES is BGS in some ways gives us too much freedom and choice. We are the Dragonborn. We are the Archmage. We are the Listener. We are the Harbinger. Etc. Due to the game being so open, and the fact that we aren't hindered by our ability to explore by the decisions we make, it can sometimes lead to inconsistencies. This was certainly an issue with Skyrim. That far from ruins the game for me. If anything, feedback to BGS should be your priority so that they can do a better job of threading issues and perhaps locking certain areas away based on where you are in a quest.

[dlux]

 

You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you are going to make blatant and ridiculous claims, you should at least make sure they are supported. Half of your criticisms haven't even been relevant since Oblivion, which came out eight years ago. Makes me wonder if you actually played Skyrim or if you are just bashing on it for the sake of bashing.

Says the guy who wants Bioware to replace their relatively good game design with Bethesda style drivel. 

 

Anyway, I was actually talking about Skyrim. It is true that Oblivion is even worse though. BTW, no need to get so butthurt simply because you love bad game design.

[Revan Reborn]

Umm, no.

The Elder Scolls: Arena was released in 1996.

A small selection of earlier examples (there are many others):

1986 - Might & Magic

1985 - The Bard's Tale

1984 - Questron

1981 - Ultima I

In the 1980s, the standard design for CRPGs was open world. The move away from that is a newer thing.

Actually Arena was released in 1994. Daggerfall was released in 1996. Just to clarify. Also, note where I said "it is one of the original open world RPGs." Nothing of what I said is inaccurate or misleading. Especially in regards to console gaming, it is probably the first open world RPG to be released with Morrowind on the original Xbox in 2002.

[Heimdall]

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.

Well, the reason I said that is because I think those choices need to be balanced with those that actually do have a tangible effect in the plot/world.  If all the choices are those with tangible consequences, inevitably that means fewer and more limited choices because of the resources required.  However, if none of the choices have measurable consequence within the game, then it leaves all those choices feeling a bit... ineffective and pointless.

 

I find that Bethesda tends toward the latter and Bioware runs into the former.  It might have been nice if the College of Winterhold reacted to the fact that my character knew less than five fairly weak spells when they made him Archmage.  All quests, those that had choices and otherwise, felt disconnected from the player character and from one another.  If you have it in you to headcanon and roleplay a lot, there's a lot of room for building your character in that, but the world never quite feels like its aware of your presence.  Bioware puts more stock in defining the player character and using that to control the story.  This is limiting from a roleplaying perspective, but within that restriction Bioware has been able to put together brilliant instances of reactivity, like the Suicide Mission of ME2.  One could argue they're even better at maintaining the illusion of choice when they need to.

[Revan Reborn]

Then I don't have to convince you of the fact that COD Titles sell tens of millions, repeat the same content, and people repeatedly buy it again for relatively minor advances or additions. If numbers prove the quality of a product, then the fact that gamers have bought like 5 versions of the same game for $60. It's sold over 20,000,000 over four times. 

 

COD comes out far more often, with little differences, and everyone eats it up. 

 

If you want to say Skyrim is the perfect RPG, you're going to have give a better argument than "Lol duh its perfect, 20,000,000 sales can't be wrong". 

I never said it was perfect. Your condescending remarks are certainly humorous, however. My point does not change. First and foremost, CoD is not the standard, it is an exception to the rule. It's also an FPS, which is an entirely different genre. If you are going to make comparisons, you may want to consider if they are actually germane or not.

 

My point still stands that TES is one of the most influential open world RPGs in the industry. It has only grown larger and more popular with each successive sequel and continues to dwarf what its predecessor did in comparison. Very few IPs do that. Not even CoD has managed to top itself financially with each new title every single year.

 

Continue to flame regardless if you must.

[Revan Reborn]

As far as BioWare games go I think that they've achieved their peak in terms of balancing linearity / scripted, directed story-telling and freedom of movement with Mass Effect 2. I'm not necessarily talking about the quality of said story-telling, but simply referring to the balance of both worlds that ME2 offered. We had good direction, some base restrictions (such as not being able to go on questing at some point, when having to speak to the Illusive Man to trigger a story quest, or when having to go through the Normandy abduction scene, and et cetera, which is complete linearity) and general open-ended freedom when it came to some locations and our chosen chronological order of side quests completion.

 

And for now I am praising ME2 for achieving that great balance because I and we haven't played DA:I yet. But I do believe that BioWare simply expended on the same type of inner-working and game-play mechanics. Mostly due to DA:I's sheer world size compared to ME2's, as BioWare said DA:I is their absolute biggest game, ever. So, considering what they've done with ME2, and seeing that they're certainly adding meat to an even larger bone (DA:I) in a similar way (I.E., that DA:I will be a mixture of linear story-telling and open-world freedom) then I'd assume that they wanted to explore that venue at least for Inquisition, but will probably keep the formula intact for future games too. Didn't the ME4 team mentioned that they'd focus more on exploration? That shows the direction they're taking.

 

Honestly though, I for one don't really mind. I do like good linear story-telling, and I also like sandbox-style games without necessarily having a story on the quality and complexity level of a decade-long novel series with staggering plot twists at every chapters. I thought (and still think) that Skyrim is the absolute best open-world game right now on the market (especially so if including mods), but its main story, and jaw-dropping number of side quests (that's excluding mods) isn't exactly what makes it such a marvel of a game (at least not for me). If you craft a vast sandbox game, you need content at almost every turn, you need breath-taking scenery to gawk at for ten minutes, you need to fill up the world with "things to do" (that doesn't have to include story-telling every time you speak to NPCs at every corners of every streets of every towns). I think that Skyrim achieved that beautifully. It's probably not false to say that DA:I is BioWare's first "true" take on open-world story-telling, well at least on that scale. We'll see how it goes, we're almost there guys.

 

In the meantime I'm happy that they decided to try to mix both aspects for Inquisition (open-world, and linearity where and when needed to tell said story), and I certainly hope that they do the same thing with ME4. In other words, and to directly answer the OP's question (thread's title) then I'd say that yes, BioWare should really go open-world, simply because their stories are some of the best in the game industry (especially indiviual character stories, not necessarily main arc stories, just look at ME2's character stories, Samara's story, Tali's, Legion's, Liara's, Kasumi's, Garrus', Grunt's, Mordin's... everyone's stories, that's where BioWare excels, character stories) and if it takes bigger open worlds to tell those stories then I'm all for that.

Great post. If BioWare can pull it off, more power to them.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It depends. A linear experience like Mass Effect 2 is great with all the set pieces hand-placed by BioWare, but there is a lack of variety in how they play out. The great thing about Skyrim is there are plenty of dungeons and places to explore, besides Draugr-infested crypts. You don't really need to go into any at all if you don't care to finish the story or obtain all the words of power.

 

The main difference between FO3 and FO NV was the implementation of factions and the morality system. That went a large way to provide more "significant" consequences some are speaking to. The Civil War in Skyrim was going to be a lot like that and more, but as I stated earlier, it was cut and limited due to time constraints.

 

The one problem (if you want to call it a problem) with TES is BGS in some ways gives us too much freedom and choice. We are the Dragonborn. We are the Archmage. We are the Listener. We are the Harbinger. Etc. Due to the game being so open, and the fact that we aren't hindered by our ability to explore by the decisions we make, it can sometimes lead to inconsistencies. This was certainly an issue with Skyrim. That far from ruins the game for me. If anything, feedback to BGS should be your priority so that they can do a better job of threading issues and perhaps locking certain areas away based on where you are in a quest.

 

Significant consequences are what make an RPG what it is. It's not a side feature. 

 

Hell, I can become Arch-Mage while knowing absolutely nothing of magic beyond the spells you start with. During the College quest, whenever there's an obstacle that needs to be handled with (gasp!) magic, there is always a convenient magic tome not ten feet from it. And as an Arch-mage, you don't do any... well, arch-magey thing. You don't do magical research by yourself. You don't search for more members or try to replace the semi-qualified doofuses killed by Ancana. You don't try to normalize relations with the various Holds of Skyrim. You act more like a security guard for them then as a an university Dean, You're basically in the exact same position as at the beginning of the questline, except with a fancy new chamber which you won't use unless you fast travel all the time because the College is in the ass end of nowhere.

 

Similarily the Thief's Guild quests are all resolvable by storming the place and bashing everyone's skull in before making off with the goods. At most you will get a reprimand. And besides most of them are dungeon crawls anyway. At least the side quests require you to do thief-y stuff before they name you leader.

[frylock23]

I'm expecting something more like a personal MMO-style world experience. You have a very large world to play in, and each area is open to you more or less from the start, but that doesn't mean you want to go there because the enemies are spawned according to the area, not your level, so you're going to potentially turn that bend in the road or go left instead of right and find yourself hip deep in enemies you should be several levels higher to defeat.

 

I'm expecting each major region to have its own plot or subplot with the main plot threading throughout the whole, connecting it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Actually Arena was released in 1994. Daggerfall was released in 1996. Just to clarify. Also, note where I said "it is one of the original open world RPGs." Nothing of what I said is inaccurate or misleading. Especially in regards to console gaming, it is probably the first open world RPG to be released with Morrowind on the original Xbox in 2002.

I think the Elder Scrolls games are great (Arena and Skyrim, in particular).  And 1994 makes more sense, given that I wasn't gaming from 1995-1998.  I should have noticed that.

 

I just find it difficult to call anything "one of the original open world RPGs" when it came out 15 years after Akalabeth.  When Arena was released, there had already been 5 Might & Magic games, 8 Ultima games, 3 Bard's Tale games, and the Bard's Tale Construction Kit, which was a toolset that allowed players to create their own RPGs basically from scratch.

[Revan Reborn]

Says the guy who wants Bioware to replace their relatively good game design with Bethesda style drivel. 

 

Anyway, I was actually talking about Skyrim. It is true that Oblivion is even worse though. BTW, no need to get so butthurt simply because you love bad game design.

I actually never made that claim at all. What I did say was that BioWare should not make an open world or even a larger one based on their game design. Keep assuming though. If you were talking about Skyrim, then you clearly need to replay the game, because virtually everything you said was false.

 

Well, the reason I said that is because I think those choices need to be balanced with those that actually do have a tangible effect in the plot/world.  If all the choices are those with tangible consequences, inevitably that means fewer and more limited choices because of the resources required.  However, if none of the choices have measurable consequence within the game, then it leaves all those choices feeling a bit... ineffective and pointless.

 

I find that Bethesda tends toward the latter and Bioware runs into the former.  It might have been nice if the College of Winterhold reacted to the fact that my character knew less than five fairly weak spells when they made him Archmage.  All quests, those that had choices and otherwise, felt disconnected from the player character and from one another.  If you have it in you to headcanon and roleplay a lot, there's a lot of room for building your character in that, but the world never quite feels like its aware of your presence.  Bioware puts more stock in defining the player character and using that to control the story.  This is limiting from a roleplaying perspective, but within that restriction Bioware has been able to put together brilliant instances of reactivity, like the Suicide Mission of ME2.  One could argue they're even better at maintaining the illusion of choice when they need to.

I understand your point, and this has been a criticism that fans have made. I don't know how long you've played TES games, but Morrowind actually would prevent you from joining certain factions if you joined others. You couldn't me a member of the Morag Tong and the Thieves Guild, for example. I'm fairly certainly BGS recognizes the absurdity as well having an Archmage who doesn't know any magic. That being said, it was more of a practical matter of opening all of the guilds up because players complained in the past that they didn't want content locked away due to their choices. On a different note, the College of Winterhold was by far the weakest out of the guild quest lines in Skyrim.

 

Open world games have a problem with reacitivity(not that bioware has been the best at this) and meaningful questlines. It resorts to games coming up with broken systems like skyrim's "radiant story" system.  A logical model model would be one of arcanum or fallout NV

Radiant Story isn't meant to be reactive. It's only purpose is to generate simple tasks for the player to do if they've completed all of the hand-crafted quests. Reactivity is hard to create because it requires limiting the experience, which BGS does not like to do. One simple way, as we discussed in NV, was to create varying factions. That was something Skyrim meant to do with the Imperial Legion and Stormcloaks, but ran out of time and failed to finish.

[Kieran G.]

For DA i don't mind it, i just don't want it to be skyrim, i like what they are doing though, all these big open areas all over the world for specific reasons. and for the rest of bioware games i just want Mass Effect 4 to have a more open citadel instead of that rest stop in ME2 and that constant loading screen in ME3

[In Exile]

My point still stands that TES is one of the most influential open world RPGs in the industry. It has only grown larger and more popular with each successive sequel and continues to dwarf what its predecessor did in comparison. Very few IPs do that. Not even CoD has managed to top itself financially with each new title every single year.

 

Skyrim sales are the goal, and open-world fans think it's the open world part of Skyrim that made it sell well, in the same way that silent VO fans think silent VO is what really made it sell well, and "kill everything" fans think it's killing everything that made it sell well.

 

Skyrim is not substantially different from Oblivion - other than having its mechanics more streamlined - and it's an inferior game in every respect to Morrowind on its own standard. 

 

It sold more. That doesn't mean that open world sells. It might mean oversimplification sells. It might mean more FPS-like mechanics sell. FO3 and Skyrim are almost identical - yet FO3 never sold what skyrim sold. Maybe it means fantasy sells. Maybe it means world-building sells well. You were the chosen one in Skyrim. Maybe it means being the chosen one sells well. 

 

Developers drool over Skyrim sales, but to actually conclude one feature is somehow the make or break success is silly. 

 

I'm not flaming you, simply calling out the wonky reasoning you're using with respect to sales. We can debate gameplay features just fine without you having to try and foreclose the debate by saying, again, that because Skyrim is financially successful it means it has to be a better game or doing something right from a design POV. 

[Revan Reborn]

Significant consequences are what make an RPG what it is. It's not a side feature. 

 

Hell, I can become Arch-Mage while knowing absolutely nothing of magic beyond the spells you start with. During the College quest, whenever there's an obstacle that needs to be handled with (gasp!) magic, there is always a convenient magic tome not ten feet from it. And as an Arch-mage, you don't do any... well, arch-magey thing. You don't do magical research by yourself. You don't search for more members or try to replace the semi-qualified doofuses killed by Ancana. You don't try to normalize relations with the various Holds of Skyrim. You act more like a security guard for them then as a an university Dean, You're basically in the exact same position as at the beginning of the questline, except with a fancy new chamber which you won't use unless you fast travel all the time because the College is in the ass end of nowhere.

 

Similarily the Thief's Guild quests are all resolvable by storming the place and bashing everyone's skull in before making off with the goods. At most you will get a reprimand. And besides most of them are dungeon crawls anyway. At least the side quests require you to do thief-y stuff before they name you leader.

I'd actually argue it's immersing yourself in the game and building your character based on those experiences that make an RPG and not necessarily major decisions that happen. Those are certainly a piece of the pie, but not the entire experience.

 

I'm fairly certain we all agree the College of Winterhold was the weakest guild quest line in Skyrim. I honestly just used a dragon shout to gain access to the College as it was defined as magic. As I suggested earlier, in Morrowind, certain factions were locked if you didn't have certain skills or you chose particular factions. BGS wanted to avoid this due to cries from the community not wanting their options limited based on their character choices. That being said, I agree entirely that if you join the College of the Mages Guild, you should have a knowledge and focus in magic. Perhaps for TES VI.

 

In the Thieves Guild you are supposed to steal and not kill, as it's looked down upon. I found the quest line to offer a healthy mix however, and not leaning towards one extreme or the other. The great thing is Skyrim is a sandbox, so you can really approach situations how you like. It wasn't perfect, but I actually found the Thieves Guild quest line to be the strongest, at least in terms of storytelling.

 

I'm expecting something more like a personal MMO-style world experience. You have a very large world to play in, and each area is open to you more or less from the start, but that doesn't mean you want to go there because the enemies are spawned according to the area, not your level, so you're going to potentially turn that bend in the road or go left instead of right and find yourself hip deep in enemies you should be several levels higher to defeat.

 

I'm expecting each major region to have its own plot or subplot with the main plot threading throughout the whole, connecting it.

It's going to be a bit more linear than that. Areas largely won't be unlocked unless you complete certain major plot points. The exploration will really be in the zone itself once you go. I'm still wondering if there will be a reason to return to these areas once you "clean house" and complete everything.

 

I think the Elder Scrolls games are great (Arena and Skyrim, in particular).  And 1994 makes more sense, given that I wasn't gaming from 1995-1998.  I should have noticed that.

 

I just find it difficult to call anything "one of the original open world RPGs" when it came out 15 years after Akalabeth.  When Arena was released, there had already been 5 Might & Magic games, 8 Ultima games, 3 Bard's Tale games, and the Bard's Tale Construction Kit, which was a toolset that allowed players to create their own RPGs basically from scratch.

Perhaps I should specify more, considering TES is unique even for open world RPGs. Just a few of the things that sets it apart, besides its lore, is the first person view, classless system, lack of levels, Arena and Daggerfall are two of the largest game environments ever created for a game, etc. It's a very specialized kind of open world RPG, and unlike some of these other examples, it's still very much relevant, has continued to evolved, and has continued to innovate and cause change in the industry. Every other game you bring notice to was a niche on PC when most certainly weren't gaming.

[In Exile]

Honestly though, I for one don't really mind. I do like good linear story-telling, and I also like sandbox-style games without necessarily having a story on the quality and complexity level of a decade-long novel series with staggering plot twists at every chapters. I thought (and still think) that Skyrim is the absolute best open-world game right now on the market (especially so if including mods), but its main story, and jaw-dropping number of side quests (that's excluding mods) isn't exactly what makes it such a marvel of a game (at least not for me). If you craft a vast sandbox game, you need content at almost every turn, you need breath-taking scenery to gawk at for ten minutes, you need to fill up the world with "things to do" (that doesn't have to include story-telling every time you speak to NPCs at every corners of every streets of every towns). I think that Skyrim achieved that beautifully. It's probably not false to say that DA:I is BioWare's first "true" take on open-world story-telling, well at least on that scale. We'll see how it goes, we're almost there guys.

 

Whether or not Skyrim is the best open world RPG on the market is actually a separate point from whether or not Skyrim is good at doing what it purports to do. No company beside Bestheda really does open world RPGs - the only competition for Skyrim are just other Bestheda titles, namely, FO3 and FONV. Other games like two worlds are pure crap. If you want to say "open world" more generally, then we're going to get into a GTA vs. TES debate, which IMO is just an incomparable exercise. There is literally nothing in common between these two games other than a seamless map with no loading. 

 

The issue that we get to in terms of Skyrim's quality is the "things to do" portion of the game. Simply put, I don't think most of those things are all that fun. There's a novelty element to the exploration - I want to find the vista, see the towns, experience a dragon fight... and there's a great deal of fun in exploring the abilities... but once you become familiar with the game, there's nothing there. 

The fun part of Skyrim, IMO, is this feeling of newness - but once the game losses that, there's literally nothing there to replace it. The actual gameplay is horrible - in FPS you're literally playing Hexen with better graphics, and as 3rd person action game it's terrible. There's no one to meaningfully interact with, and no reason to replay the same content because you've already experienced everything. Any RP difference exists only in your own head - the game never reacts to it. 

 

Fundamentally, what's left? I just can't find anything. 

[Revan Reborn]

Skyrim sales are the goal, and open-world fans think it's the open world part of Skyrim that made it sell well, in the same way that silent VO fans think silent VO is what really made it sell well, and "kill everything" fans think it's killing everything that made it sell well.

 

Skyrim is not substantially different from Oblivion - other than having its mechanics more streamlined - and it's an inferior game in every respect to Morrowind on its own standard. 

 

It sold more. That doesn't mean that open world sells. It might mean oversimplification sells. It might mean more FPS-like mechanics sell. FO3 and Skyrim are identical - yet FO3 never sold what skyrim sold. Maybe it means fantasy sells. 

 

Developers droll over Skyrim sales, but to actually conclude one feature is somehow the make or break success is silly. 

 

I'm not flaming you, simply calling out the wonky reasoning you're using with respect to sales. We can debate gameplay features just fine without you having to try and foreclose the debate by saying, again, that because Skyrim is financially successful it means it has to be a better game or doing something right from a design POV. 

Skyrim sells well for one simple reason. I don't know how many games Todd Howard has to make for you to recognize this. It is the fact that you can "go where you want and do what you want." It's that simple. Very few games offer that level of freedom or choice, regardless of whether you appreciate it or not. All BGS has done since is continue to streamline and appeal to a larger audience. Their philosophy and game design really hasn't changed that much since the beginning. I would know as I've played every single TES major title.

 

While Morrowind is my favorite title, it had less to do with the game and more to do with the culture, the environment, and the politics. There was so much complexity in that game that it still astounds me what BGS accomplished. Based on the game alone, it was incredibly broken. However, Skyrim certainly has improved leaps and bounds in specific areas, whether we refer to combat, or character progression, or more dynamic events or unpredictable NPCs.

 

What is identical about Fallout 3 and Skyrim besides BGS made them? Even from a game play design, they have little in common. You have a similar foundation, but the way the games function and operate is fundamentally different on a variety of levels.

 

All I'm stating is you can hate on the game all you want, but its success seems to indicate it did something right, and clearly a lot of studios are following suit. Whether we look at Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham, Dragon Age, The Witcher, Far Cry, more and more titles are going bigger and are doing better as a result. You can debate all day long whether you think it's open world or not, but clearly developers figured that out a while ago.

 

You should ask yourself the question of why every BGS title since The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind has been critically acclaimed and been awarded game of the year? The incline for success is going up, not down, and BGS has hardly changed anything about their formula since Arena was released in 1994.

[Subtle54]

I think the DAI team are treating the "open world" similar to the ME3 exploration for galactic readiness. You have the choice of flying through the main story and your team will be  fighting the final confrontation with sling shots and a ragtag army or you can explore find gear, upgrades, base improvements, allies etc and your team will enter the final conflict using a battalion of Sherman tanks.

[In Exile]

Skyrim sells well for one simple reason. I don't know how many games Todd Howard has to make for you to recognize this. It is the fact that you can "go where you want and do what you want." It's that simple. Very few games offer that level of freedom or choice, regardless of whether you appreciate it or not. All BGS has done since is continue to streamline and appeal to a larger audience. Their philosophy and game design really hasn't changed that much since the beginning. I would know as I've played every single TES major title.

 

While Morrowind is my favorite title, it had less to do with the game and more to do with the culture, the environment, and the politics. There was so much complexity in that game that it still astounds me what BGS accomplished. Based on the game alone, it was incredibly broken. However, Skyrim certainly has improved leaps and bounds in specific areas, whether we refer to combat, or character progression, or more dynamic events or unpredictable NPCs.

 

What is identical about Fallout 3 and Skyrim besides BGS made them? Even from a game play design, they have little in common. You have a similar foundation, but the way the games function and operate is fundamentally different on a variety of levels.

 

All I'm stating is you can hate on the game all you want, but its success seems to indicate it did something right, and clearly a lot of studios are following suit. Whether we look at Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham, Dragon Age, The Witcher, Far Cry, more and more titles are going bigger and are doing better as a result. You can debate all day long whether you think it's open world or not, but clearly developers figured that out a while ago.

 

You should ask yourself the question of why every BGS title since The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind has been critically acclaimed and been awarded game of the year? The incline for success is going up, not down, and BGS has hardly changed anything about their formula since Arena was released in 1994.

 

It's like talking to a tape recorder. You even provide a list of games that actually predate Skyrim.  We're clearly not going to even have a conversation in respect of this point, so it's best to just drop it. If you think that this is the one feature that makes Skyrim sell well, then keep believing it. If you think developers mention "Skyrim" because the want to copy it instead of suck up to the fans who bought it, be my guest. 

[Revan Reborn]

Whether or not Skyrim is the best open world RPG on the market is actually a separate point from whether or not Skyrim is good at doing what it purports to do. No company beside Bestheda really does open world RPGs - the only competition for Skyrim are just other Bestheda titles, namely, FO3 and FONV. Other games like two worlds are pure crap. If you want to say "open world" more generally, then we're going to get into a GTA vs. TES debate, which IMO is just an incomparable exercise. There is literally nothing in common between these two games other than a seamless map with no loading. 

 

The issue that we get to in terms of Skyrim's quality is the "things to do" portion of the game. Simply put, I don't think most of those things are all that fun. There's a novelty element to the exploration - I want to find the vista, see the towns, experience a dragon fight... and there's a great deal of fun in exploring the abilities... but once you become familiar with the game, there's nothing there. 

The fun part of Skyrim, IMO, is this feeling of newness - but once the game losses that, there's literally nothing there to replace it. The actual gameplay is horrible - in FPS you're literally playing Hexen with better graphics, and as 3rd person action game it's terrible. There's no one to meaningfully interact with, and no reason to replay the same content because you've already experienced everything. Any RP difference exists only in your own head - the game never reacts to it. 

 

Fundamentally, what's left? I just can't find anything. 

You should also state this is clearly your opinion, as I would agree on a lot of your assertions.

 

You can argue the game play is bad, the action is terrible, the stories and characters are meaningless, but it doesn't make it true. Do you realize this? This is all your opinion. Again, if your opinion was "truth," Skyrim wouldn't have even been made. Consider the fact that perhaps you just do not appreciate the kind of game it is? That is perfectly fine. I don't like Grand Theft Auto. I believe it's terribly overrated and not that interesting. That being said, it still sells well and plenty love the game. I'm free to not like GTA. You are free to not like TES. What do the two have in common? They are both open world experiences with plenty to do, which I'm really to bet, based on trends, is likely why they sell so well...

[Revan Reborn]

It's like talking to a tape recorder. You even provide a list of games that actually predate Skyrim.  We're clearly not going to even have a conversation in respect of this point, so it's best to just drop it. If you think that this is the one feature that makes Skyrim sell well, then keep believing it. If you think developers mention "Skyrim" because the want to copy it instead of suck up to the fans who bought it, be my guest. 

Skyrim wasn't the first open world RPG. Again, Arena, which came out in 1994, was the first TES title. TES has been a popular franchise since it gained critical acclaim in 2002 in Morrowind. It became even larger with the release of Oblivion in 2006. My point is that all of these titles were inspired by its success. Skyrim is merely an evolution on a formula BGS has been crafting for twenty years. Does that make more sense? I think the issue is you are looking at the success of Skyrim in isolation of TES and what the franchise as a whole is. You don't sell 20 million copies without building up your fan base over a long period of time.

[In Exile]

You should also state this is clearly your opinion, as I would agree on a lot of your assertions.

 

You can argue the game play is bad, the action is terrible, the stories and characters are meaningless, but it doesn't make it true. Do you realize this? This is all your opinion. Again, if your opinion was "truth," Skyrim wouldn't have even been made. Consider the fact that perhaps you just do not appreciate the kind of game it is? That is perfectly fine. I don't like Grand Theft Auto. I believe it's terribly overrated and not that interesting. That being said, it still sells well and plenty love the game. I'm free to not like GTA. You are free to not like TES. What do the two have in common? They are both open world experiences with plenty to do, which I'm really to bet, based on trends, is likely why they sell so well...

 

Obviously it's my opinion. How could it anything else? I don't think it's incumbent on people to hold up a placard saying "This is an opinion." when talking about things that are obviously opinions. 

 

I don't know why you think I don't like TES. I think it's an incredible mediocre game that's absolutely worth playing, in the same way that Thor 2 was an incredibly mediocre movie that was a relatively fun diversion until Avengers 2.