209 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

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.

This could potentially be true in regards to building up the Inquisition's influence for the final battle. We'll have to see as BioWare hasn't given us a lot of information probably to try and avoid revealing too much and getting into spoilers.

 

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. 

For the last three or so pages you have repeatedly bashed the game and made it rather abundantly clear you don't want BioWare to emulate Skyrim whatsoever, which is not even what the thread was remotely about. Perhaps you should read through your posts? I've actually stated multiple times I do not want BioWare to go more open world because I don't believe they will develop it properly. You think Skyrim is boring? Think about once you complete all the quests in a zone in DAI and there is nothing left to do there. Going bigger only makes sense if your philosophy is in line with the model.

[In Exile]

This could potentially be true in regards to building up the Inquisition's influence for the final battle. We'll have to see as BioWare hasn't given us a lot of information probably to try and avoid revealing too much and getting into spoilers.

 

For the last three or so pages you have repeatedly bashed the game and made it rather abundantly clear you don't want BioWare to emulate Skyrim whatsoever, which is not even what the thread was remotely about. Perhaps you should read through your posts? I've actually stated multiple times I do not want BioWare to go more open world because I don't believe they will develop it properly. You think Skyrim is boring? Think about once you complete all the quests in a zone in DAI and there is nothing left to do there. Going bigger only makes sense if your philosophy is in line with the model.

 

I haven't "bashed" the game. You've repeatedly called it the greatest RPG, an almost perfect RPG, the best open world game on the market... saying that it's not as good as you say it is isn't bashing it, anymore than saying that chocolate isn't the greatest food of all time is bashing it. 

I think Skyrim's content is boring, once you get past the shine. I don't think DA:O or DA2's content is boring on replays. It's very like I'll think the same about DA:I. That says absolutely nothing about the content other than it will happen to be content I like. 

[AshenEndymion]

For the last three or so pages you have repeatedly bashed the game and made it rather abundantly clear you don't want BioWare to emulate Skyrim whatsoever, which is not even what the thread was remotely about.

 
So, this might be a random question... If the thread title is "Should bioware go open world", and the question in the OP is "What are your thoughts on open world RPGs and BioWare's new direction? Are you looking forward to it? Or do you have some reservations about its success?"... Then what is this thread "remotely about"?  I mean, how is it not the place for someone to state that they do not want Bioware to emulate Skyrim(or other Bethesda games, for that matter) in any significant way?

[Revan Reborn]

I haven't "bashed" the game. You've repeatedly called it the greatest RPG, an almost perfect RPG, the best open world game on the market... saying that it's not as good as you say it is isn't bashing it, anymore than saying that chocolate isn't the greatest food of all time is bashing it. 

Yes because saying the game play is terrible, combat is atrocious, first person and third person action game are horrendous, characters and story are forgettable, etc. is not bashing. Clearly those are constructive criticisms?

 

I'm a huge fan of TES. I think Skyrim is a great game. That's my opinion as your low view of it is yours. Regardless of our opinions, it still sold well, had a major impact on the industry, and a lot of games (whether you like it or not) are taking cues from Skyrim's success. It's that simple.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition, in particular, was inspired greatly by Skyrim. The game was originally going to be open world and they even had a compass similar to Skyrim. This is the reality. The question is should BioWare look towards BGS for inspiration into going more open world? I'm not so certain BioWare should go open world at all. Regardless of my feelings, it's happening anyways.

 

 

 
So, this might be a random question... If the thread title is "Should bioware go open world", and the question in the OP is "What are your thoughts on open world RPGs and BioWare's new direction? Are you looking forward to it? Or do you have some reservations about its success?"... Then what is this thread "remotely about"?  I mean, how is it not the place for someone to state that they do not want Bioware to emulate Skyrim(or other Bethesda games, for that matter) in any significant way?

What you just quoted... Do you think the game should go open world? Give your thoughts on the pros and cons.

 

The point is this thread is becoming more of a BioWare vs BGS than actually will Dragon Age's new direction work for a BioWare game. Certainly Skyrim should be part of the discussion as DAI is taking a lot of cues from the game. But again, this thread is about BioWare and open world games. Getting off on rants and tangents about BGS is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Heimdall]

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.

I see, Skyrim was my first actually.  I went back and tried Oblivion but couldn't get into it.  My problem is that I've actually had a hard time making multiple playthroughs of Skyrim because I feel like the type of character I build doesn't really matter much, specifically because I've explored most of the questlines with my first character.  That I could do things like join the College as a warrior with 4 spells is a prime example.  It goes back to what I said about reactive choices.  It didn't feel like what I did with the character really mattered beyond the roleplay story I built in my head... and that just wasn't quite enough.

 

Exclusive quests get a bad rap.  Done well, they make the choices between them feel much weightier.

[natalscar]

The thing is imo Bioware is unsurpassed in storytelling and while I really enjoyed Skyrim and Fallout 3, I never felt like my character mattered to the world, he or she was just an archetype. Throughout tasks, romances, quests, it felt very empty. I wouldn't want Bio to go that route if their storytelling suffered. Regardless of any Bio game and it's faults, I always feel special, important, and that I have a unique place in the world I feel connected.

[Revan Reborn]

I see, Skyrim was my first actually.  I went back and tried Oblivion but couldn't get into it.  My problem is that I've actually had a hard time making multiple playthroughs of Skyrim because I feel like the type of character I build doesn't really matter much, specifically because I've explored most of the questlines with my first character.  That I could do things like join the College as a warrior with 4 spells is a prime example.  It goes back to what I said about reactive choices.  It didn't feel like what I did with the character really mattered beyond the roleplay story I built in my head... and that just wasn't quite enough.

 

Exclusive quests get a bad rap.  Done well, they make the choices between them feel much weightier.

Oblivion is by far the weakest of the TES titles. It was rushed out the door in an attempt to be a launch title and BGS didn't fully understand the new hardware at the time. Morrowind is a much better game, albeit much more dated. Hopefully, Skywind will be finished eventually and you'll be able to play it using the Skyrim engine.

 

I certainly see where you are coming from. There are pros and cons to locking content or making it available to everyone. It has just been a BGS philosophy to generally just let the player base decide how they want to play. If you decide you want to go to the College with no skills in magic, that is your choice. Should BGS penalize you for doing that? Maybe. I personally found plenty of reasons to revisit previous content, whether it was with a different character, I changed some of the major choices, or I was including new mods to change the game.

[Revan Reborn]

The thing is imo Bioware is unsurpassed in storytelling and while I really enjoyed Skyrim and Fallout 3, I never felt like my character mattered to the world, he or she was just an archetype. Throughout tasks, romances, quests, it felt very empty. I wouldn't want Bio to go that route if their storytelling suffered. Regardless of any Bio game and it's faults, I always feel special, important, and that I have a unique place in the world I feel connected.

I agree to a point, but this has more to do with unsuccessful storytelling and lack of a protagonist voice, in my opinion. While I love KotOR I and DAO, it absolutely annoyed me that the main protagonist lacked a voice. There was just something about hearing Shepard actually speak and watching hearing his dialogue change because of your decisions that was so much more gratifying. Rumor has it Fallout 4 will be adding in a voiced protagonist, so I'm hoping the awkward storytelling days of BGS are coming to an end.

[Gtdef]

The point of open world games imo is to interact with the world in an unscripted manner. I like Skyrim and Fallout because I can spot enemies at the distance, snipe them or try to approach safely with stealth. It's not perfect by any means but it's a good attempt at simulation.

 

DAI has nothing of the things I like in open world games I've played, from Gta to farcry to Skyrim. In Witcher 3 demo for example we saw Geralt hunting the flying monster. I don't know how railroaded it will turn out to be but it shows promise and if it works like I think it will (based on my experience with the previous games) then it's a big plus for me. DAI is just like it's predecessors but the map is bigger and has more collectibles. And I hate collectibles. I like action, not progress meters.

[Revan Reborn]

The point of open world games imo is to interact with the world in an unscripted manner. I like Skyrim and Fallout because I can spot enemies at the distance, snipe them or try to approach safely with stealth. It's not perfect by any means but it's a good attempt at simulation.

 

DAI has nothing of the things I like in open world games I've played, from Gta to farcry to Skyrim. In Witcher 3 demo for example we saw Geralt hunting the flying monster. I don't know how railroaded it will turn out to be but it shows promise and if it works like I think it will (based on my experience with the previous games) then it's a big plus for me. DAI is just like it's predecessors but the map is bigger and has more collectibles. And I hate collectibles. I like action, not progress meters.

I think BioWare has used a bit of misdirection when promoting DAI since "open world" currently is something you want your game to be associated with. DAI is certainly more open world than its predecessors, but it's still very much confined and controlled. My concern is that BioWare's conservative approach to telling a story just will not make sense in this much larger environment they are building.

 

I like to use ESO as the latest example of a game that failed to understand what makes open world and exploration work, which is sad since it had to be the first TES MMO. I agree with you completely that collectibles are meaningless fluff in order to try and fill and open world. GTA, SR, W_D, and plenty of other open world games are guilty of this kind of experience that doesn't add anything at all.

[Heimdall]

Oblivion is by far the weakest of the TES titles. It was rushed out the door in an attempt to be a launch title and BGS didn't fully understand the new hardware at the time. Morrowind is a much better game, albeit much more dated. Hopefully, Skywind will be finished eventually and you'll be able to play it using the Skyrim engine.

 

I certainly see where you are coming from. There are pros and cons to locking content or making it available to everyone. It has just been a BGS philosophy to generally just let the player base decide how they want to play. If you decide you want to go to the College with no skills in magic, that is your choice. Should BGS penalize you for doing that? Maybe. I personally found plenty of reasons to revisit previous content, whether it was with a different character, I changed some of the major choices, or I was including new mods to change the game.

I actually think the companions are part of it, (Again, part of that more defined character template Bioware likes) it makes the player character feel more like an entity in the world when Bioware companions are there to chat and discuss recent developments.  More importantly, the player character can talk back to them and have extensive conversations.  You've remarked on how gratifying it is to hear Shepard and the like speak in the game world.  I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Bioware's style makes my character feel like a genuine character within the world (Usually).  I love Skyrim's atmosphere, and I certainly built all sorts of stories about my character as I explored its vistas, but when I came back to the NPCs and the Questlines their indiscriminate reactions became jarring, seeing how disconnected my character felt by comparison to Bioware's protagonists.

 

Open world is a sandbox, and great for raw exploration, but not great for taking advantage of the benefits of strict structure.

[Revan Reborn]

I actually think the companions are part of it, (Again, part of that more defined character template Bioware likes) it makes the player character feel more like an entity in the world when Bioware companions are there to chat and discuss recent developments.  More importantly, the player character can talk back to them and have extensive conversations.  You've remarked on how gratifying it is to hear Shepard and the like speak in the game world.  I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Bioware's style makes my character feel like a genuine character within the world (Usually).  I love Skyrim's atmosphere, and I certainly built all sorts of stories about my character as I explored its vistas, but when I came back to the NPCs and the Questlines their indiscriminate reactions became jarring, seeing how disconnected my character felt by comparison to Bioware's protagonists.

 

Open world is a sandbox, and great for raw exploration, but not great for taking advantage of the benefits of strict structure.

Companions are definitely a major component towards bringing the world to life and making the protagonist grounded. While Skyrim did have some amazing companions, with Selana in particular, there wasn't any in-depth  or long-term experience with them like you'd expect in a BioWare game.

 

What I think is overall beneficial is we are seeing pushes from the open world side and the more storytelling side. BioWare is going more open world trying to really immerse players in the world. If the rumors of Fallout 4 are true, BGS will have a voiced main protagonist, and perhaps even more well-developed companions if we are lucky. Hopefully the downsides to both philosophies will diminish while the upsides will define the experience.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Oblivion is by far the weakest of the TES titles. It was rushed out the door in an attempt to be a launch title and BGS didn't fully understand the new hardware at the time. Morrowind is a much better game, albeit much more dated. Hopefully, Skywind will be finished eventually and you'll be able to play it using the Skyrim engine.

 

I certainly see where you are coming from. There are pros and cons to locking content or making it available to everyone. It has just been a BGS philosophy to generally just let the player base decide how they want to play. If you decide you want to go to the College with no skills in magic, that is your choice. Should BGS penalize you for doing that? Maybe. I personally found plenty of reasons to revisit previous content, whether it was with a different character, I changed some of the major choices, or I was including new mods to change the game.

 

The whole ''it's your choice'' thing only works to a point. If you want to be the super-special superhero that's better than everyone and gets to do whatever he wants because he's the player hero, then sure it's a valid point, and I imagine a sizable portion of Beth's fanbase is composed of people who want this to a greater or lesser degree (more power to them, I'm not saying it's a bad way to play a game). But within the world itself, it just makes no sense. If what you like in RPGs is choice, the consequence of those choices and immersing yourself in the gameworld, well, that kind of thing is a big annoyance at best, a dealbreaker at worst.

 

I mean, if you want meaningful choices, you have to put restrictions to accompany that. Otherwise it's, well, not a choice at all.

[Revan Reborn]

The whole ''it's your choice'' thing only works to a point. If you want to be the super-special superhero that's better than everyone and gets to do whatever he wants because he's the player hero, then sure it's a valid point, and I imagine a sizable portion of Beth's fanbase is composed of people who want this to a greater or lesser degree (more power to them, I'm not saying it's a bad way to play a game). But within the world itself, it just makes no sense. If what you like in RPGs is choice, the consequence of those choices and immersing yourself in the gameworld, well, that kind of thing is a big annoyance at best, a dealbreaker at worst.

 

I mean, if you want meaningful choices, you have to put restrictions to accompany that. Otherwise it's, well, not a choice at all.

I agree. It just then becomes a matter of how much freedom and choice to allow and how much you will penalize or restrict players. It's a tough balancing act, especially when you are trying to make your game as broad as you can to appeal to a wide variety of different gamers. If not from BioWare, BGS could certainly takes cues from CDPR in making a more imperfect world where your choices will often have consequences you don't necessarily intend, good or bad. Hopefully that's just one of those things BGS will try to improve on, while BioWare tries to find ways of creating a more believable world, of which they've struggled with.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I'd rather not judge quality based on popularity.  I still maintain that Ultima IV is the best CRPG ever made (though I will entertain discussion of Ultima VII), no matter how many people were playing it at the time.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Not a full open world. Ironically, I've always found the 'massive' open worlds actually make the game world seem smaller in the long run. Skyrim or Cyrodill for instance, you can walk across in 20 minutes and they're supposed to be two large provinces on a massive continent. That throws me right out of the experience a bit. 

 

The bunch of semi open worlds approach is actually preferable for me, for that reason. It can just be one to-scale chunk of a larger map to play around with. 

[Revan Reborn]

I'd rather not judge quality based on popularity.  I still maintain that Ultima IV is the best CRPG ever made (though I will entertain discussion of Ultima VII), no matter how many people were playing it at the time.

I don't believe anyone will dispute that Ultima, in particular, is one of the most influential RPGs ever made. Period. It set the foundation and standard for many things that came after it. When speaking about TES, is was very much influential in its own right, as it holds a particular niche that I've never seen another game really replicate. It just so happens to have become quite influential since Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, in particular, as it gains more attention and praise

 

Not a full open world. Ironically, I've always found the 'massive' open worlds actually make the game world seem smaller. Skyrim or Cyrodill for instance, you can walk across in 20 minutes and they're supposed to be two large provinces on a massive continent. 

 

The bunch of semi open worlds approach is actually preferable for me, for that reason. It can just be one to-scale chunk of a larger map to play around with. 

Well certainly Oblivion and Skyrim are dwarfed in comparison to Daggerfall, which (excluding Arena) was the largest TES game ever built. It is an exact 1:1 ratio of Great Britain. Obviously, that kind of scale with the appropriate amount of content is more or less impossible to achieve in this modern day of game development. Also, I'm not sure many would appreciate it taking hours to actually traverse from one side of a province to another.

 

When comparing the size of Skyrim to other games, however, it is massive, especially if you don't quick travel or use the carriage system. I've just never personally found semi-open world to be that big, especially once all the content is complete and there is no reason to stay. Hopefully BioWare will handle that problem more effectively than what some developers have attempted in the past when going bigger.

[Revan Reborn]

Open world isn't really about size nececessarily. It's unpredictability and high instance of random events, and being able to manipulate the physical laws of the world

 

Or emergent gameplay. 

 

And you can have it without sacrificing story (GTA does this)

Exactly. I've been referring to this as re-playability, but emergent gameplay works just as well. All of BGS' games make use of this. I can't speak for GTA V, but I never personally though GTA IV had much in the way of emergent gameplay. RDR was a bit better in this regard.

 

My major concern with BioWare going bigger is whether they'll have the emergent gameplay to accommodate it, and not just the occasional rift to close. I want there to be real purpose and unpredictability when exploring any of these places, whether it's the first, second, or third time. That kind of experience lends to exploration and the proper use of a large environment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't believe anyone will dispute that Ultima, in particular, is one of the most influential RPGs ever made. Period. It set the foundation and standard for many things that came after it. When speaking about TES, is was very much influential in its own right, as it holds a particular niche that I've never seen another game really replicate. It just so happens to have become quite influential since Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, in particular, as it gains more attention and praise.

TES is certainly influential, and it does some things really well.

 

But it also does some things less well.  I strongly dislike the TES combat (especially since BethSoft handled VATS so well in FO3 - Skyrim desperately needed VATS), and the scaling (particularly in Oblivion) really harms the sense of advancement.

 

But the world design and the modding ability is just spectacular.  I wouldn't have like Skyrim nearly as much without mods.

[Darkly Tranquil]

They should not go open world if it means sacrificing depth of character and story to do it. Let Bethesda do sandbox games with plots written on coaster, Bioware games are about the story and the complex characters you meet in them. Personally, I found Skyrim utterly tedious; I lasted about two hours before I gave up due it's total lack of anything approaching a coherent narrative, terrible wooden voice acting, and irritating combat. In the end, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't get into it because it lacked all the things DA has (story, characters, voice acting). The last thing I want to see is for DA to go the Skyrim route.

[Revan Reborn]

TES is certainly influential, and it does some things really well.

 

But it also does some things less well.  I strongly dislike the TES combat (especially since BethSoft handled VATS so well in FO3 - Skyrim desperately needed VATS), and the scaling (particularly in Oblivion) really harms the sense of advancement.

 

But the world design and the modding ability is just spectacular.  I wouldn't have like Skyrim nearly as much without mods.

I actually like Skyrim's combat personally. I love how intuitive it is where one button/trigger is one arm and one button/trigger is the other. It makes the experience a bit more engaging in that sense because I feel I have more control over my character. Where the experience falls short, and the major criticism, is the lack of depth. Especially if you are using a sword and a shield, it's more or less a rinse and repeat of blocking and slashing. The power swings and shield bashing can change up the monotony, but it doesn't really change all that much. I just believe BGS needs to find a way of adding more complexity to the fight, much like how Batman: Arkham is really easy to get into but offers a lot of depth for really advanced players.

 

I personally did not like VATS at all. I felt like it was taking away from the FPS game play and turning the experience more so into a number crunching game. If anything, instead of telling me my percentage of hitting a particular part of an enemy's body, I'd rather VATS give me information on the environment and potentially hints/tips on how to better engage certain enemies. I still want the actual combat to be real-time, however, instead of watching cut scenes from showing my character shooting to the bullet making impact with my target.

 

Level scaling and gear scaling were atrocious in Oblivion. It's the main reason why it's my least favorite TES title. After becoming the Champion of Cyrodiil, the Divine Crusader, and becoming the Daedric Prince of Madness, the last thing I should have to worry about is getting into a "duel of the fates" with a Highwayman in full Daedric Armor. I also shouldn't have to spend hours in a dungeon, using all of my lockpicks to open a master-locked chest, just to find a fork and an apple inside... Thankfully, Fallout 3 and Skyrim largely addressed and resolved the issues that plagued Oblivion.

 

Mods certainly make Skyrim even better. If consoles had access to mods, I'd really wonder how many copies Skyrim could potentially sell. 20 million is insane on it's own, and that's primarily from consoles only. The PC community is a niche, even though we have sole access to mods, which give unlimited, free content to the game.

[Revan Reborn]

They should not go open world if it means sacrificing depth of character and story to do it. Let Bethesda do sandbox games with plots written on coaster, Bioware games are about the story and the complex characters you meet in them. Personally, I found Skyrim utterly tedious; I lasted about two hours before I gave up due it's total lack of anything approaching a coherent narrative, terrible wooden voice acting, and irritating combat. In the end, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't get into it because it lacked all the things DA has (story, characters, voice acting). The last thing I want to see is for DA to go the Skyrim route.

It won't, which is why I'm skeptical BioWare can really do larger game worlds. Whatever criticisms you may have of Skyrim, it's a master when it comes to emergent game play. That is something BioWare has either struggled with or never really dabbled in. It's one thing to make a larger world. It's another to make one that people are actually invested in and want to explore.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I personally did not like VATS at all. I felt like it was taking away from the FPS game play and turning the experience more so into a number crunching game.

That's exactly what I want from combat.  I never want to do anything in real time.

Level scaling and gear scaling were atrocious in Oblivion. It's the main reason why it's my least favorite TES title. After becoming the Champion of Cyrodiil, the Divine Crusader, and becoming the Daedric Prince of Madness, the last thing I should have to worry about is getting into a "duel of the fates" with a Highwayman in full Daedric Armor. I also shouldn't have to spend hours in a dungeon, using all of my lockpicks to open a master-locked chest, just to find a fork and an apple inside... Thankfully, Fallout 3 and Skyrim largely addressed and resolved the issues that plagued Oblivion.

I found Oblivion really amusing on this, because of how levelling worked.

 

I planned a character at the start who was a merchant.  He was imprisoned for some underhanded business dealing, but all of his starting skills were non-combative.

 

But the way levelling works in Oblivion, that meant that my character only gained levels if he increased those non-combat skills, and that pretty much didn't happen.  So I managed, on my first playthrough, to accidentally break the game's scaling system.  I levelled up exactly once in the whole game.  But since my other skills could increase freely, I gained powerful magic without having the world scale with me.  I'd summon Atronachs who'd clear whole dungeons for me.  It was hilarious.

 

Also, though, Oblivion was also the first TES game that wasn't truly open world.  You weren't allowed to enter the cities by climbing the walls anymore.  And I miss the early TES spells like Slow Fall and Levitate.

[Darkly Tranquil]

It won't, which is why I'm skeptical BioWare can really do larger game worlds. Whatever criticisms you may have of Skyrim, it's a master when it comes to emergent game play. That is something BioWare has either struggled with or never really dabbled in. It's one thing to make a larger world. It's another to make one that people are actually invested in and want to explore.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it find exploring type games pretty boring. The lack of a directed plot was probably my biggest issue with Skyrim - I just didn't know where I was supposed to go, and just wandering around fighting things and talking to people seemed fairly uninteresting when I have been given no reason to care about any of them.

I know a lot of people complain about "on-rails" game design, but I honestly prefer a directed game and narrative design than open world where you wander around trying to find things to do. The Last of Us, which I regard as the best written game I have ever played (25+ years as a gamer) was entirely on-rails game design, but I never felt more invested in a game and it's characters than in it.

Hopefully DAI will have a decent amount of exploring (but not too much), while giving us narrative reasons to want to go exploring.