209 réponses à ce sujet

[Koneko Koji]

I must admit, I don't really mind - I found that Origins was open world enough for me that I could explore and do all sorts of side quests, without jepordising the main story line - so if we've got something similiar coming with Inquisition, then I'll be happy.

[bEVEsthda]

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. 

 

Frankly, that's just a phrase that seem born out of some grave jealousy of TES' success.

I don't think TES exactly claims to be 'a' - as in one - simulation. No rpg or combat game can pretend that as long as we still have this always-fight-to-the-death-and-the-last-man-everybody-fights-at-full-ability-until-the-moment-of-death paradigm, which everybody seem to think is so perfectly natural.

But it doesn't matter. All games have huge discrepancies from reality in many places. You just don't think about those which don't bother you too much, or those you have gotten used to. One accepts these in order to have whatever experience one hopes the game will deliver.

 

I perfectly understand your point though. I do remember very clearly that the very mild consequences for criminal behavior annoyed me a lot, when I began playing Morrowind. I kinda thought it ruined the game a bit. That it was so easy to be a criminal. What's the point? But eventually I accepted it and forgot about it. It doesn't impact you so much if you live a honest life. And that is the exact same process by which we accept all huge simplifications which exists in all games (I won't call it "flaws" any longer, since some people here want to interpret flaws as something unintended from the developers, rather than as a property of a game that makes it a less satisfactory experience - which was the meaning I put into it).

[Lee T]

You can do a story driven game in an open world. You jut have to use it wisely. In it's essence DA2 was an open world game as everything took place in a restricted geographic area. With a proper devellopment time it could have been a full fledged open world, with a linear story.

unfortunately they didn't have the time to finish it, let alone realise their ambitions and push the envelop (I was fascinated by the idea of living through different time period in the same place and see the gradual changes caused by your adventure, except the city didn't change in the game except for a few landmarks).

[Revan Reborn]

I agree that this has a modern Baldur's Gate feel with open areas for exploration, but bigger, better, more beautiful.

 

Given the storyline and companions that BioWare can produce, the open areas will be more of an enhancement rather than detrimental to gameplay. And if you don't want to explore, just focus on the storyline.

This is only if the larger areas actually add to the experience. If they become a mere chore where we feel it's more of a job than something that's actually enjoyable, not at all. I'm also concerned that, as in most large/open world environments, emergent game play will be relatively limited. This is the biggest potential downside, because there's no point in going big unless you have reason to return or explore an area multiple times. There needs to be value in the world you build.

 

As long as I have a fair amount of places to poke my nose into, I'll be happy. What they are doing for DA:I seems to be making large open areas and not true open world. Its kind of like what Fable 2 and 3 did...except better.

I've played all the numbered Fables, and I honestly can't remember any of them, especially the environments. That is something that BioWare should try to avoid by creating an environment that I will remember and that will have a life of its own. That's something BGS has always done well with TES, and certainly BioWare could take cues in how to build the environment rather than just taking the typical MMO approach and creating quest hubs with static npc spawns.

 

Yeah i can agree with that. If it's something realistic like a freaking mountain in the way i'm good, but at least now that we have jumping they can't do the whole "small stream or log blocking a path" thing. The reason i am still excited is to be visiting many different kinds of places.

Hopefully long gone are the days of not being able to cross relatively small obstacles like we saw in KotOR, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc. I am interested in seeing the variety for sure, and hopefully BioWare will keep the experience interesting by taking us to new and exotic locations.

I love open world rpgs like skyrim....I just find them lacking in the story/character department. I would be all for a Bioware fully open world game like skyrim as long as they put the same amount of story and character in to it as they have with other games otherwise no.

I think a slightly better characterization of BGS' dilemma is the poor execution of the story. The characters actually are typically very well-done. The issue is you don't have long-term conversations and relationships that you build such as you do in a BioWare game. BGS also generally slacks on the main story execution (although Skyrim's main story was much better than Oblivion's), while the guild quest lines and their expansions are always fantastic. I'd actually argue BGS is the one studio I've never felt I wasted money on buying their DLC (Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, Knights of the Nine, Dawnguard, Dragonborn, etc.).

 

It really comes down to money, time and resources. BGS had 100 developers working on Skyrim, which is small in comparison to most AAA studios. Because of these various factors, some things just won't make the final cut due to what is deemed more important or prioritized. I believe it would be much easier for BGS to create an open world with a compelling story (perhaps a bigger team and just better execution as their characters and story are generally good) rather than BioWare attempting to go open world, which they've never done.

[Revan Reborn]

I must admit, I don't really mind - I found that Origins was open world enough for me that I could explore and do all sorts of side quests, without jepordising the main story line - so if we've got something similiar coming with Inquisition, then I'll be happy.

I have to disagree. While there may have been a false illusion of "open world" because you traveled all over Ferelden, we were generally stuck in load screens, halfway paths fighting random mobs, or walking along linear paths with no way of diverging in our own directions. The first time I went into the Korcari Wilds and seeing sticks along the swamp preventing me from exploring it more thoroughly was a major disappointment and immersion breaker for me. BGS has been making large open worlds since 1994. Having to deal with the most confined spaces in 2009 didn't make a lot of sense.

 

Frankly, that's just a phrase that seem born out of some grave jealousy of TES' success.

I don't think TES exactly claims to be 'a' - as in one - simulation. No rpg or combat game can pretend that as long as we still have this always-fight-to-the-death-and-the-last-man-everybody-fights-at-full-ability-until-the-moment-of-death paradigm, which everybody seem to think is so perfectly natural.

But it doesn't matter. All games have huge discrepancies from reality in many places. You just don't think about those which don't bother you too much, or those you have gotten used to. One accepts these in order to have whatever experience one hopes the game will deliver.

 

I perfectly understand your point though. I do remember very clearly that the very mild consequences for criminal behavior annoyed me a lot, when I began playing Morrowind. I kinda thought it ruined the game a bit. That it was so easy to be a criminal. What's the point? But eventually I accepted it and forgot about it. It doesn't impact you so much if you live a honest life. And that is the exact same process by which we accept all huge simplifications which exists in all games (I won't call it "flaws" any longer, since some people here want to interpret flaws as something unintended from the developers, rather than as a property of a game that makes it a less satisfactory experience - which was the meaning I put into it).

I find a lot of his arguments to be rather trivial or silly as BGS makes some of the most ambitious and immersive games on the market. Not happy with the execution? Fine. You won't find many other developers even trying to tackle or attempt to pull off what BGS does to begin with, whether it's developed well or not. In my personal opinion, I think BGS actually does more things well than they do poorly. It's not easy to make some of the largest games in the industry when your team is dwarfed in comparison to most AAA studios.

 

First, I think claiming TES to be a "simulation" is a flawed argument and lack of understanding of the franchise to begin with. It's very much a sandbox in many ways, and the point is to go where you want and do what you want. That being said, it's still very much a "game," and the goal is to build systems that ultimately are fun, and not necessarily realistic or believable. While the more hardcore role players may enjoy harsher experiences such as the need to eat, sleep, heal wounds, wear armor and clothing based on weather conditions, etc., not everybody enjoys that level of realism. Some things in real life actually aren't fun, and so it becomes a matter of determining what elements of real life should stay and what should be altered.

 

You can do a story driven game in an open world. You jut have to use it wisely. In it's essence DA2 was an open world game as everything took place in a restricted geographic area. With a proper devellopment time it could have been a full fledged open world, with a linear story.

unfortunately they didn't have the time to finish it, let alone realise their ambitions and push the envelop (I was fascinated by the idea of living through different time period in the same place and see the gradual changes caused by your adventure, except the city didn't change in the game except for a few landmarks).

Well BioWare would have needed an entirely different engine as theirs could not support such an environment. I definitely see the point you are trying to make. That could have potentially made DA2 more tolerable, albeit the game would have still been small even if it was open world.

 

Was the game really rushed? I think the issue was more so BioWare tried to be too ambitious, change their formula too much, and the execution wasn't as strong as they expected. In theory, the idea of seeing the same environment evolve over 10 years sounded incredibly fascinating. In practice? Not much really changed at all, and it felt like a quick way for BioWare to cut corners and spit out a game quicker.

 

They realized immediately they made a mistake, and DAI had to be built from the ground up in order to create an experience the community really wanted, and one the developers always wanted to build. Technological limitations and poor lead design led to the missed opportunities on DA2. Thankfully, I think BioWare learned from their lesson as they took a much longer development cycle to finish DAI.

[AlanC9]

I perfectly understand your point though. I do remember very clearly that the very mild consequences for criminal behavior annoyed me a lot, when I began playing Morrowind. I kinda thought it ruined the game a bit. That it was so easy to be a criminal. What's the point? But eventually I accepted it and forgot about it. It doesn't impact you so much if you live a honest life. And that is the exact same process by which we accept all huge simplifications which exists in all games (I won't call it "flaws" any longer, since some people here want to interpret flaws as something unintended from the developers, rather than as a property of a game that makes it a less satisfactory experience - which was the meaning I put into it).

As one of those "some people," I get the point. Yeah, a single game can't be good at everything.

[In Exile]

Frankly, that's just a phrase that seem born out of some grave jealousy of TES' success.

I don't think TES exactly claims to be 'a' - as in one - simulation. No rpg or combat game can pretend that as long as we still have this always-fight-to-the-death-and-the-last-man-everybody-fights-at-full-ability-until-the-moment-of-death paradigm, which everybody seem to think is so perfectly natural.

But it doesn't matter. All games have huge discrepancies from reality in many places. You just don't think about those which don't bother you too much, or those you have gotten used to. One accepts these in order to have whatever experience one hopes the game will deliver.

 

I perfectly understand your point though. I do remember very clearly that the very mild consequences for criminal behavior annoyed me a lot, when I began playing Morrowind. I kinda thought it ruined the game a bit. That it was so easy to be a criminal. What's the point? But eventually I accepted it and forgot about it. It doesn't impact you so much if you live a honest life. And that is the exact same process by which we accept all huge simplifications which exists in all games (I won't call it "flaws" any longer, since some people here want to interpret flaws as something unintended from the developers, rather than as a property of a game that makes it a less satisfactory experience - which was the meaning I put into it).

 

You're right that I was a bit too overbroad in my criticism. My problem is more that TES prides itself on not being contrived. A game like BG2 or DA:O doesn't pretend to simulate combat in a realistic way. It doesn't hold itself out as creating combat AI that reacts as if you were fighting real people who were part of the world. TES, however, markets itself as trying to do exactly that. TES having these contrivances isn't like DA:O having combat contrivances, but more like DA2 having shitty encounter design. It's something that's more fundamental to the experience, and therefore something the game ought to get right. 

 

I don't want to be taken as bashing open-world RPGs, because I do like them. But I like them when they're like FO:NV. A game focused on reactivity. FO:NV used a pretty simplistic faction mechanic, and it didn't feature its factions enough (especially the Legion and Caesar; it took forever to get to them), but when they were there and you interacted with them you knew exactly where you stood. If you skinned Vulpes alive the Legion let you know it. 

 

Just in terms of being a psycho murderer, the fact that going out of your way to kill faction members puts you on the "To Kill" list is something worth noting. The Legion isn't going to ask me for 500 caps to forgive me for skinning Vulpes - they'll want to skin me in return, until Caesar forgives my sins. And if I put a bullet in his head - which I can do - the game actually reacts to my choice. Perhaps not quite as well as it should, but at least it's trying. 

 

In the end, I just think TES is trying to be a good open world game like GTA wants to be a good open world game - it's an amusement park set in a fantasy world where relativity and reality give way to the freedom to do nonsensical things with little to no consequences. And I see that as being pretty antithetical to an RPG. 

[In Exile]

First, I think claiming TES to be a "simulation" is a flawed argument and lack of understanding of the franchise to begin with. It's very much a sandbox in many ways, and the point is to go where you want and do what you want. That being said, it's still very much a "game," and the goal is to build systems that ultimately are fun, and not necessarily realistic or believable. While the more hardcore role players may enjoy harsher experiences such as the need to eat, sleep, heal wounds, wear armor and clothing based on weather conditions, etc., not everybody enjoys that level of realism. Some things in real life actually aren't fun, and so it becomes a matter of determining what elements of real life should stay and what should be altered.

I really hate hypocrisy, so I'm going to have to call you out for contradict yourself, especially the part where you outright praise for being "such a believable ... world" before apparently you go on to say that the goal isn't to make a believable world. Let's have some fun:

 

One reason why I believe TES is one of the few open world franchises that works is because their major character and story is actually the environment. The create such a believable and immersive world that one never grows tired of revisiting areas. This is not the case in most open world games where they lose value after being explored once.

 

One of the aspects I feel BioWare has always done a poor job of is bringing the world to life.

 

BGS is much more concerned with creating a real world, so they focus more on culture, places, environments, and the various things that inhabit them. 

 

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

 

[i]It's the Radiant AI system, that I mentioned earlier, that changes it from just being another redundant encounter. Unlike most open world games, BGS games are actually unpredictable, and it's in large part because of the NPC behavior. You will never come across the same encounter or experience twice. Walking along the same road five times will in almost all cases lead to five different experiences.

 

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

 

If the whole experience is meant to be a game-y theme park that ignores reality and provides only the most childish and unbelievable interactions for the purposes of fun, maybe dial back the rhetoric. 

[Revan Reborn]

You're right that I was a bit too overbroad in my criticism. My problem is more that TES prides itself on not being contrived. A game like BG2 or DA:O doesn't pretend to simulate combat in a realistic way. It doesn't hold itself out as creating combat AI that reacts as if you were fighting real people who were part of the world. TES, however, markets itself as trying to do exactly that. TES having these contrivances isn't like DA:O having combat contrivances, but more like DA2 having shitty encounter design. It's something that's more fundamental to the experience, and therefore something the game ought to get right. 

 

I don't want to be taken as bashing open-world RPGs, because I do like them. But I like them when they're like FO:NV. A game focused on reactivity. FO:NV used a pretty simplistic faction mechanic, and it didn't feature its factions enough (especially the Legion and Caesar; it took forever to get to them), but when they were there and you interacted with them you knew exactly where you stood. If you skinned Vulpes alive the Legion let you know it. 

 

Just in terms of being a psycho murderer, the fact that going out of your way to kill faction members puts you on the "To Kill" list is something worth noting. The Legion isn't going to ask me for 500 caps to forgive me for skinning Vulpes - they'll want to skin me in return, until Caesar forgives my sins. And if I put a bullet in his head - which I can do - the game actually reacts to my choice. Perhaps not quite as well as it should, but at least it's trying. 

 

In the end, I just think TES is trying to be a good open world game like GTA wants to be a good open world game - it's an amusement park set in a fantasy world where relativity and reality give way to the freedom to do nonsensical things with little to no consequences. And I see that as being pretty antithetical to an RPG. 

I'd like to see where BGS ever claimed their combat was "realistic" or their AI simulated "real people fighting." You seem to have some underlying grudge because TES isn't good enough and doesn't live up to your fantasy of a true RPG?

 

Todd Howard has always been rather transparent about the games. The only moment one can argue he can be criticized for was the scaling back of Radiant AI in Oblivion from the demo that was shown at E3 in 2005. It had little to do with the fact that Oblivion couldn't simulate more realistic  NPC behavior. The problem was that Radiant AI was causing the NPCs to break the game because they would behave solely in their own best interest. This generally led to chaos and anarchy, which isn't good even for a TES game. There are plenty of stories you can find on the internet of how Radiant AI unlocked was more trouble than it was worth.

 

While I agree the morality and factions systems in Fallout New Vegas showed promise, they were far from perfect or ideal. The only phrase you continuously bring up is "reactivity" as that seems to be the only real aspect you deem necessary in an RPG. I also find it somewhat perplexing that you differentiate FO:NV so much from FO3 and other BGS titles as it's built with the same BGS game philosophy and engine, regardless of the fact Obsidian made it. As I stated before, the only real element Obsidian brought to the table was that many of their developers worked on Fallout and Fallout 2.

 

When you constantly compare TES to GTA, of which have nothing in common, I really lose whatever argument you are trying to make. As best I can understand, you are frustrated that your choices aren't meaningful enough and you seem to believe BGS falsely advertises their games for being something they are not. This is my issue with your argument. You make a lot of broad and sweeping criticisms, yet you provide very little to no context and just expect people to believe it.

 

I can make the argument that BioWare games are not mature enough, their characters aren't believable enough, and the story isn't compelling enough all day. However, if I don't provide support or explanations for such broad assertions, there really is no point to saying them to begin with.

[Revan Reborn]

I really hate hypocrisy, so I'm going to have to call you out for contradict yourself, especially the part where you outright praise for being "such a believable ... world" before apparently you go on to say that the goal isn't to make a believable world. Let's have some fun:

 

One reason why I believe TES is one of the few open world franchises that works is because their major character and story is actually the environment. The create such a believable and immersive world that one never grows tired of revisiting areas. This is not the case in most open world games where they lose value after being explored once.

 

One of the aspects I feel BioWare has always done a poor job of is bringing the world to life.

 

BGS is much more concerned with creating a real world, so they focus more on culture, places, environments, and the various things that inhabit them. 

 

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

 

[i]It's the Radiant AI system, that I mentioned earlier, that changes it from just being another redundant encounter. Unlike most open world games, BGS games are actually unpredictable, and it's in large part because of the NPC behavior. You will never come across the same encounter or experience twice. Walking along the same road five times will in almost all cases lead to five different experiences.

 

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

 

If the whole experience is meant to be a game-y theme park that ignores reality and provides only the most childish and unbelievable interactions for the purposes of fun, maybe dial back the rhetoric. 

Your posts are really growing tiresome as you love to try and misconstrue or manipulate everything I'll say. Here we go again:

 

First, I'd like to preface that TES has always been a sandbox experience. It has never been a simulation. A simulation denotes a complete emulation of real life, in every way and facet. Simulations are not games. TES, on the other hand, is and has always been a game. Now, lets see what you have misinterpreted next.

 

First things first, "believable" does not mean "simulation" or "real life." What believable actually suggests is something that is reasonable, credible, or possible. Within the context of what you extracted from these various paragraphs, I was referring to what you described as "emergent gameplay." This is simply providing unpredictability and unknowable encounters that keep the experience fresh and new. That is what BGS does and that is what they always have done.

 

I will agree that Radiant AI is meant to "simulate" human behavior to an extent. Not because TES is a simulation itself, but merely to add to the emergent gameplay that TES has always been known for. Rather than having the cookie cutter enemies that most games have, with basic threat meters based on "indifferent/cautious/hostile," BGS wanted something more complex and intuitive to add more flare to their games.

 

Did I ever use the phrase "theme park"? No I did not. For one, that is a phrase that is synonymous with MMORPGs, such as WoW, which TES is clearly not. But honestly, keep placing your foot in your mouth trying to make me look foolish, but only doing yourself a disservice in the end. TES has always been a game. What makes it different from others is it's a game where BGS promotes freedom, choice, and exploration over everything else. You continue to show your lack of understanding of TES as you fail to differentiate the difference between a simulation, such as Car Mechanic 2014 or Farming Simulator 2014, versus TES. Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim have been complex and very in-depth experiences admittedly, but they've always been games.

 

Any other posts you want to misconstrue? Feel free.