934 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Citation needed. I'm absolutely sure I would have heard about it if that had ever happened.

Believe that was designed as Multi-Player; not MMO. I have made the same error.

https://www.vg247.co...r-only-project/

[MichaelN7]

It doesn't require a different mindset, not really. It just requires players to understand the game was designed as an MMO. MMO's don't have an 'end', that is sort of the point. They are built to continue to offer content and gaming even beyond some story arc.

Precisely!  DA:I is not a "BioWare classic", so you need to adjust your mindset.

It's like trying to grade an apple on its merits as an orange; both are fruits, but there are several discrepancies that would skew the score unless you factor them in.

 

Citation needed. I'm absolutely sure I would have heard about it if that had ever happened.

And I agree with pdusen here, that's not a piece of information that would slip under the radar.

[OMTING52601]

Believe that was designed as Multi-Player; not MMO. I have made the same error.

https://www.vg247.co...r-only-project/

 

Multiplayer only... Massive multiplayer that was online only. But maybe that isn't an MMO.

 

http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

 

It was actually in production/dev before DA 2 even, fwiw. And this isn't the only article referencing these comments by Darrah, it was just the first that popped up in the google list.

 

ETA: In this article, Darrah also clearly states he believes because so many people played Skyrim as their first RPG, that's what they want in an RPG. He also infers that people are older and have less time; that they want something they can just jump in and jump out of, not something involved, fwiw.

[OMTING52601]

Precisely!  DA:I is not a "BioWare classic", so you need to adjust your mindset.

It's like trying to grade an apple on its merits as an orange; both are fruits, but there are several discrepancies that would skew the score unless you factor them in.

 

And I agree with pdusen here, that's not a piece of information that would slip under the radar.

 

LOL, sure it would slip under the radar, especially right before and right after release, which is why the gamespot article is I think the earliest direct quote from Darrah. But, really, and I am not being an a**hole, but how can anyone play through this game and not recognize the MMO design? MMO's have lots of fetch quests scattered around an open or sand box world that are tied to nothing beyond building resources. These fetch quests act as the motivation (less than the in fighting between MP groups/guilds/houses what have you) to keep players engaged in the game and spending money, with periodic (sometimes sparse, sometimes not) "story" expansions that build more world/lore/backstory, etc.

 

The key here is tons of filler, little story, lots of resource gathering and management. Look, I don't want anyone to think I'm bashing; I'm not. There is nothing wrong with MMO's, they serve a purpose and make tons of people really freaking happy. But an SP MMO? Not so much, for me at least, especially when TES really has done a much better job of this - objectively. They've made more money, sold more units, have a super active modding community with a full on tool kit for modding for the players... I'm not saying they haven't made errors along the way, but overall, they kind of have the SP MMO down pat by now... which, also coupled with a lot of what BW stated prior to DAI release... If that isn't enough to prove the point, I got nothing, lol.

 

And I'm not making a judgment. DA is BW property, they can do what they like with it, fwiw. 

[AlanC9]

That's not true in all games, sometimes it's a corridor, in fact, you could argue FF13 and DA2 successfully pair themselves together in that sense.
 
However, if you try to finish the quests in Tatooine in SWTOR without using the map and playing organically it will take you at least 3 days real time.

OK... now I have absolutely no idea what meaning you're trying to convey with "organically."

[OMTING52601]

OK... now I have absolutely no idea what meaning you're trying to convey with "organically."

 

I think what she means is that one can progress the game just through exploration and stumbling/working the area. I hesitate to use this, omg do I, but in TW the whole map, as it were, is open from the get go. Geralt can quite easily happen upon each and every section of the game without ever using fast travel or looking at the greater map. Now, of course, those games aren't scaled, so as anyone who has ever played a Witcher game can likely tell you, Geralt can be bopping along kicking a** and then all of a sudden jump up some HOLY SH*T I CANNOT BEAT THIS section, wherein much quick stepping the hell out of there must occur and the player kind of sticks that spot in the back of his/her mind.

 

I am not saying TW is entirely organic, that it should or shouldn't be played this way, that it is better or worse than games that are more linear. I'm only hoping the example clarifies what I *think* Guinevere is trying to convey.

[AlanC9]

Well, lmao, honestly I don't think DAI requires or even follows any kind of strategy. My opinion, of course. I guess all I was offering was a way to gain the power to play through the main story arc without having to trudge the whole map and by doing it using only the three areas initially open to the IQ (doing just Vale's quest line in the Hinterlands nets enough power to open Storm Coast and the Mire)

"Strategy" only in the sense of "approach to the game," not as a way to try to beat the game. Like any other game of this type, DAI doesn't require any particular approach to do that.

I just don't see how clearing the early areas helps with boredom. You move around the maps you haven't opened less, but you move around the areas you have opened more.

[OMTING52601]

Believe that was designed as Multi-Player; not MMO. I have made the same error.

https://www.vg247.co...r-only-project/

 

It's not an error. Multiplayer only, online... That is what mmo means, right? Darrah is really clear here, I don't understand the defensiveness. It wasn't designed to be like the MP in the game - that is a whole other horse. It was designed to be like Skyrim, nearly identically, but they changed their mind, which they are totally able to do. It doesn't negate the reality of the game's original intent. I don't get why this would upset folks, I truly don't. Heck, I think if they'd just done a better job on the main story arcs and provided some meaty sidequests (or crit path quests that masqueraded as such) DAI really would have been amazing. 

 

I mean, consumers would get the depth of characters, the hook-em-and-reel-em-in story most of us cite as the best part of DAO, you get NPC's the PC really gets to know, interact with, care about, but then there's also this whole world of sort of busy work/resource collection to give the players a pause between the big set pieces, something that lets the players pace the tale (beyond 'do I have enough power yet'). This is what BW sort of tried to do, they just didn't get there, period. With so much non-essential stuff, the story gets lost in the clutter, and with the story so weakly connected by its parts, the depth of RP is lost too.

 

Maybe they'll really nail it next time, maybe they'll go even more TES-esque and not even bother having a good central story arc (apologies to TES players, but the main 'campaign' in those games is... I feel it's extremely lacking). It's their choice. Consumers just get to choose to go along or not, right?

[AlanC9]

That quote doesn't actually support your point, you know. He limits it to "the techlines, more than any of the development." And if you follow the link to see the actual interview, it's clear that he's not talking about MMOs at all.

He is talking about Skyrim, yes. Is Skyrim also an MMO? I don't know anything about its design history.

[OMTING52601]

"Strategy" only in the sense of "approach to the game," not as a way to try to beat the game. Like any other game of this type, DAI doesn't require any particular approach to do that.

I just don't see how clearing the early areas helps with boredom. You move around the maps you haven't opened less, but you move around the areas you have opened more.

 

Well, I guess my POV is clearing the early areas allows the PC to get a good grasp of the game's mechanics as well as sort of working out the kinks of the crew, gameplay wise, against some pretty easy to beat enemies. Also, it's like a quick hit of boredom, doing those til they are pretty much done, instead of being bored over and over in the 'new' areas. 

 

I mean, the initial visit to all the areas offers excitement, right, of the new and what not. But dude has already played the game through to the end - that newness has worn off. I was just offering a suggestion for more quick paced and engaging (again from my POV) gaming from this point forward. Plus, one doesn't need to open up any areas besides Crestwood after those first three (the WA opens for the Warden section on its own). And one can easily acquire all the resources from those areas with Trespasser DLC or Black Emporium, for crafting I mean.

 

It's like a to each his own, but he said he'd lost interest and was asking for a way to engender some, so I gave my two cents. I didn't infer or state it was right, wrong, best, worst, etc. Just gave my opinion. I have played the game a lot, lol

[Helmetto]

Honestly, I've mentioned in my review that I attempted a completionist's run and had to stop because I thought my computer was going to kill itself, but during that time, everything was pretty much fetch quest after fetch quest.

 

When a player neglects aspects of your game because they find it too boring, that's a hint that you're doing something wrong. If a player trudges through it, that doesn't mean you're not doing it wrong, only that the player is has either a lot of patience or some issues.

[OMTING52601]

That quote doesn't actually support your point, you know. He limits it to "the techlines, more than any of the development." And if you follow the link to see the actual interview, it's clear that he's not talking about MMOs at all.

He is talking about Skyrim, yes. Is Skyrim also an MMO? I don't know anything about its design history.

 

Okay, I'm not sure I have what it takes to debate this. First, 'techline' is not a word. It means nothing, has no gaming/computer/programming definition. It is however a trademarked company name and a trademarked type of tubing, fwiw.

 

What I think he meant was 'framework'. The program and backbone of the game, the (to quote) "core."

 

“That became the core of what became Dragon Age Inquisition, the techlines, more than any of the development, so we’ve actually been looking at this a long time."

 

In English we learn that things set off by commas are not integral to a sentence, but are clarifiers. Not being an a**hole, but lets read it again. 

 

The multiplayer only is the core of Dragon Age: Inquisition. More than any of the development. He isn't saying the design was limited to the erroneously used "techlines". He is saying the multiplayer only is integral, more than any development, to the core of the experience/game. "Techlines," and "more than any of the development," are clarifiers to the point that the Multiplayer Only design is the core of the game - more than other aspects, it is what determined where they went with the game. 

 

The article itself makes that crystal clear as well, stating that where it started isn't necessarily where something will end and the dev'ing is "complex."

[OMTING52601]

When a player neglects aspects of your game because they find it too boring, that's a hint that you're doing something wrong. If a player trudges through it, that doesn't mean you're not doing it wrong, only that the player is has either a lot of patience or some issues.

 

Hey, HEY, ROFLMAO, I resemble that remark :/ I'm just giving you a poke, all in good fun. Not offended nor do I intend to offend

[Elhanan]

Honestly, I've mentioned in my review that I attempted a completionist's run and had to stop because I thought my computer was going to kill itself, but during that time, everything was pretty much fetch quest after fetch quest.
 
When a player neglects aspects of your game because they find it too boring, that's a hint that you're doing something wrong. If a player trudges through it, that doesn't mean you're not doing it wrong, only that the player is has either a lot of patience or some issues.

And I have three fairly complete campaigns at 1110+ hrs, and enjoyed it. While I do try and skip the Bottles of Thedas quests, kinda like the others and/or rewards (eg; not a fan of the Shards, but love the rewards). So... issues then?
 

[OMTING52601]

That quote doesn't actually support your point, you know. He limits it to "the techlines, more than any of the development." And if you follow the link to see the actual interview, it's clear that he's not talking about MMOs at all.

He is talking about Skyrim, yes. Is Skyrim also an MMO? I don't know anything about its design history.

 

I may be using that term somewhat spuriously - in a sneering kind of way, which is disingenuous of me.

 

TES games were designed to be like old school table tops, well mostly. I don't know how much table top gaming you've done, but often these kinds of games sort of take on a life of their own. They can literally last for years, decades, just one game. Hundreds of thousands of hours can and are poured into them. There is usually one main path, one sort of overarching story designed by a Story Person/Game Leader/Grand Poobah, but the bulk of table tops is questing, always the questing, the gaining of power and experience, the creating a character from the ground up who becomes an avatar (often) of the player than can be roleplayed in whatever setting - a way to escape reality and be someone else, some awesome Evil Dude or some amazeballs Hero Dudette. 

 

BG and NWN, KOTOR, TES, heck even VtMB, took this idea and went - what if we could do that in this new medium... The video game? Back when the internet was something that was not readily available to every Joe Blow at the local Mickey D's. People grow up, they move away, they lose touch with their old friends, but that doesn't mean they lose interest in all the stuff they once loved, right? So if these companies (bethesda, bw, et. al) could package up that table-top experience and offer it up to people who didn't have a gamer community any longer... Step 4: Profit.

 

MMO's are the logical extension of the same idea, but in the internet age - give players a TT experience when they can't or won't TT and with actual other living people.

 

Thing is, with DA:O (arguably with BG and NWN and even KOTOR before it) BW changed the somewhat limited definition of RPG or CRPG or ARPG or whatever letter + RPG combo one wants to label BW games as nowadays. They took the D&D framework (for DA especially) - for setting and gameplay and some of the enemy types - but said, "hey, what if we do a hero's journey, where the story of the hero isn't just about the quests, but about the people the hero manages to bring along. What if, we make the story more important than the crafting and the resource management and time fillers? Will that work?"

 

It did. It worked ridiculously well. ME did this a little too, though the left in all that resource management in the first game, lol. So then, RPG didn't just mean "game that takes 80-100 hours to play, with crafting and resources and fetch quests" but it could also mean "game that takes 60+hours to play, with a really strong central narrative, and somewhat dynamic outcomes (player agency) which creates inherent replay value, which can equal 300+ hours of gameplay."

 

However, as things are wont to do in a capitalist system, making good money filling a niche wasn't what EA wanted (or even what BW themselves probably wanted) for the future of the company. The only thing boards (as in governing bodies of companies) care about is profit and making more of it. With the massive success of games like CoD, GoW, TES, the company wanted to snag more of that pie and decided the best way to do that wasn't to continue what got them on the map in the first place, but to try and conform to what was selling hot. Problem is, they were on the backside of that kind of dev'ing, those other companies having had years to perfect the production of their content.

 

BW changed what consumers thought an RPG "had" to be and it garnered a lot of passionate and dedicated consumers to its banner. 

 

So, is Skyrim and MMO - yes and no. It is designed, they are both designed, to offer a certain kind of experience, one which BW used to pay respect to, but chose to change up to offer something different, but which BW now seems to think is a better idea. FWIW, your perspective may vary

[Seraphim24]

OK... now I have absolutely no idea what meaning you're trying to convey with "organically."

 

Ok wow this thread had a lot more going on in it...

 

I guess it's playing according to the rules I've been given, like, if I get a quest in SWTOR to fight the Sand people, it should also give me some indication like "they are in the northern mountains" or something like that.

 

Without any information, I'm left to conclude they may very well be off to the left somewhere, which is invariably some big open space of nothing.

 

Hence, I am forced to use the map, which I may not have even been encouraged to use in the first place, which will essentially pinpoint their exact location, and since it is essentially the only means of finding them, I essentially just play with the map overlay. I'm not playing an RPG, I'm playing Snake where I have to chase the dot.

 

Geography becomes meaningless and the game becomes the map.

 

It's noteworthy because it's almost literally impossible without using the precise marker on the map to complete the game, you would have to scan every single inch of sometimes fairly vast stones searching for one tiny quest trigger.

 

Moreover, geographically it's often messy to navigate those worlds you are running on top of some old spaceship that leads into a bog or something it's very disconnected from a real sense of geography and proportion.

 

Also at times the quest givers won't even say "Here are the coordinates,"

 

Um I haven't read every other post here but it looks like OMG was alluding to this, it's unnatural essentially you aren't like, oh that looks like a sand people camp to the right I should probably go and sort it out, it's often, oh that's empty or something.

[Seraphim24]

MMOs were just one novel thing once upon a time, nothing more, nothing less. The earliest I know about were Ultima, Anarchy, and Everquest. I ended up playing Everquest, I didn't get towards the end but there was a end fundamentally, level 60 could conceivably have been called the end.

 

In fact, modern MMOs tend to feature an "ending" of sorts in fact FFXIV awards you with a credit sequence that pretty clearly explicates the "end."

 

What happened was people meta gamed MMOs, such as by wanting to acquire everything, hence the notion of them being "uncompletable," but people had been doing that in games for some time such as in FF7 trying to max every materia or whatever.

[OMTING52601]

Ok wow this thread had a lot more going on in it...

 

I guess it's playing according to the rules I've been given, like, if I get a quest in SWTOR to fight the Sand people, it should also give me some indication like "they are in the northern mountains" or something like that.

 

Oh, OH! I get you! LOL, okay, so by organic what you mean is follow the quests, which give enough info to at least suss out a general path or direction. Something that doesn't require you to fast travel or map check in order to complete/arrive at a destination.

 

I wouldn't be against that, at all, but I don't know that I have ever run into that in a game. At least not on an initial play through, when I'm not familiar with the setting. Then again, I'm like oldish, rofl, so maybe my memory is not so good. I think Zelda even had a map (not that it was needed, fairly linear).

[Seraphim24]

Oh, OH! I get you! LOL, okay, so by organic what you mean is follow the quests, which give enough info to at least suss out a general path or direction. Something that doesn't require you to fast travel or map check in order to complete/arrive at a destination.

 

I wouldn't be against that, at all, but I don't know that I have ever run into that in a game. At least not on an initial play through, when I'm not familiar with the setting. Then again, I'm like oldish, rofl, so maybe my memory is not so good. I think Zelda even had a map (not that it was needed, fairly linear).

 

Well, Zelda is a pretty diverse series, but if you take Skyward Sword for example they give you a map but it's like completely unnecessary the world is small enough and comprehensible enough to fit what you are seeking in the game.

 

The map was often a fail safe, not an absolute necessity to complete the game.

 

But yeah I mean essentially map reading is the only major skill you are exercising in most modern games, and which is a very limited almost textual experience fundamentally.

[OMTING52601]

MMOs were just one novel thing once upon a time, nothing more, nothing less. The earliest I know about were Ultima, Anarchy, and Everquest. I ended up playing Everquest, I didn't get towards the end but there was a end fundamentally, level 60 could conceivably have been called the end.

 

In fact, modern MMOs tend to feature an "ending" of sorts in fact FFXIV awards you with a credit sequence that pretty clearly explicates the "end."

 

What happened was people meta gamed MMOs, such as by wanting to acquire everything, hence the notion of them being "uncompletable," but people had been doing that in games for some time such as in FF7 trying to max every materia or whatever.

 

 

Well, yeah, that's a solid point. But when MMO's have an 'end' they risk losing players, thus filler and fetch quests and the occasional story expansion. Warring/battling between guilds/groups/etc is also a big factor in keeping people engaged and playing. I don't think the 'end' is the point in an MMO, much like the 'end' isn't really the point in a TT. It's literally the journey, not so much the destination, though humans are programmed to want an ending, at some point.

 

Me, I think anything (game, movie, book, whatever entertainment medium) should be about both, which is probably why I stopped TT years ago and am not interested in MMO's. That said - man, there is something about falling into a world and building up a character and a crew to go kick a** with, like you do when you TT, that I really do/did miss. And that was what BW did for me for a long time, it gave me the feel of camaraderie and world building/changing with a solid finish, instead of an indeterminate end.

[Seraphim24]

Anyway, the ultimate effect of all this map business is the experience feels more constrained and non-immersive, it's all been boiled down into a series of UI tasks or something...

 

..ALTHOUGH as stated I actually kind of enjoyed Skyrim etc, and I definitely have enjoyed SWTOR although also because SWTOR actually does make organic feeling zones and quests at times, such as Dromund Kaas which was much better than Tatooine.

 

It's just I don't think of it as a hardcore RPG experience where I am adventuring and have to keep track of everything, because I was already supposed to rely on the map anyway, I don't think about it and hence it just becomes about the scenery and stuff by default, which is all right.

[pdusen]

Multiplayer only... Massive multiplayer that was online only. But maybe that isn't an MMO.

 

http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

 

It was actually in production/dev before DA 2 even, fwiw. And this isn't the only article referencing these comments by Darrah, it was just the first that popped up in the google list.

 

It's pretty clear in that article that Darrah is saying that the game began its life technically with the Multiplayer component; the same one we ended up getting, effectively a four-player dungeon crawl. All of the things that people find "MMO-like" in this game are in the Singleplayer. There's no basis for believing the multiplayer was ever intended to be an MMO.

 

It's not an error. Multiplayer only, online... That is what mmo means, right?

 

No, that is pretty definitely not what MMO means. You wouldn't call Left 4 Dead an MMO, and it has a lot more in common with DA:I's multiplayer than any MMO does.

 

 

Darrah is really clear here, I don't understand the defensiveness. It wasn't designed to be like the MP in the game - that is a whole other horse. It was designed to be like Skyrim, nearly identically, but they changed their mind, which they are totally able to do. It doesn't negate the reality of the game's original intent. I don't get why this would upset folks, I truly don't.

 

It doesn't upset anyone, as far as I can tell. People are just pointing out to you that the conclusion you drew doesn't make any sense.

[In Exile]

DA:O was going to be a lan-based MP game building on NWN. The genesis of a game is pretty irrelevant to what it becomes.

[OMTING52601]

It doesn't upset anyone, as far as I can tell. People are just pointing out to you that the conclusion you drew doesn't make any sense.

 

Okay, dude "Core of the game," does not translate as "technically." The multiplayer is what the game was built upon not other development. That's verbatim. It's not some weird interpretation of what Darrah said. And it isn't like an insult, um, unlike your little dig about my English language competence and whether I can understand what I read :/

 

Darrah clearly states DAI was dev'd in the Frostbite engine as a multiplayer only game. Then later in the article, he states, DAI was initially created, conceptually, like the old TT games, where you get together with some of your buds and you quest it out, fetch this, build that, then outtie. Oh, also, how Skyrim "changed the world of the RPG" played a role in where DAI went.

 

I'm not going to debate multiplayer only online and massive(ly) multiplayer online because... that's just silly. Darrah is not talking about the MP component that is additional to the SP game - that was not designed or dev'd by the team (Darrah's group) that did the main game, so he wouldn't be commenting on it. 

 

Not to move from this specific point, but you realize my references to the MMO style go beyond Darrah's commentary and actual involve a lot of the game's mechanics, right? Like the need to farm for certain materials (want those superb runes, best get to farming those later rifts), the RNG of necessary quest items, the way req quests recycle and are never finished, the need for power to progress the game... I could go on, but I won't. Only mentioned Darrah as support of what I figured was apparent. I honestly did not realize it was, like, a *thing*. I thought it was generally understood. Heck, I don't know that I've even seen an article written about the game that doesn't specifically point this out too. Sorry if I stepped on a bruise.

 

 

DA:O was going to be a lan-based MP game building on NWN. The genesis of a game is pretty irrelevant to what it becomes.

 

Lost me here. The genesis of anything is only relevant if it's relevant, aka has an impact on the thing as it evolves. DAO LBMP is irrelevant because the final game is nothing like that at all, the entire idea was scrapped very early. Multiplayer is the core, the backbone, more important than other development to DAI, so that is relevant.

 

It's not good or bad. Objectively, DAI isn't better or worse than any other game simply because of its design. Subjectively, yeah, I think it is really lacking, but that's my opinion, not a fact. Like I stated before, I'm not picking on the game because it is MMO like. 

 

Honestly, I'm not picking on the game at all. I have the time in. I'm not some jerk that just played an hour and then started yapping off. If I were picking on the game, as it were, it would not be because of an MMO feel, specifically, but that I thought BW could totally do a meaty, deep, strong central narrative AND offer up some of that MMO vibe, but that isn't how I believe the game turned out.

 

I'd pick on the fact that party banter is still broken so in this (what can be very) long game, there is a lot of no sound, no chatter, no nothing. I'd pick on the fact that none of the main arcs are solidly connected, there is no story based motivation for how it plays out beyond "oh, the demi-deus wants machina" which makes no sense to me at all. I'd pick on Cory being a weak protagonist and using him as the big bad (when Solas and his entire motivation/arc would have made a much more compelling story) was a cop out. I'd pick on removing glitches that allow for unlimited money/ability points in a SP game being addressed, while FPS dropping, tearing, pixelation, load screen entertainment followed by black load screens are not - is ridiculous.

 

I wouldn't pick on filler content if non-filler content wasn't so unevenly proportioned... MMO style has little to do with it because I think BW (maybe of old, maybe its a nostalgic lens and I'm giving the company too much credit) could have done the sh*t outta that and actually given Skyrim or WoW a run for their money. FWIW, of course.

[voteDC]

Yeah, except that the dialogue is always meant to sound the same. I appreciate that to you this is a distinction, but the game was always designed to work the same way, which is why, 100% of the time and without exception, the dialogue is always interpreted to and reacted to in the same way. That doesn't happen when tone is variable. Regardless of your underlying motive, your Cousland always tells Alistair she loved him in the same tone, same voice, etc. 

But that is the beauty of the silent protagonist.

The player can project their thoughts and interpretations, the very voice, of their character without any extra work on the part of the developer.

Bioware may very well have meant every line to have been said in a set manner, yet the choice to have a silent Warden meant that it could be taken in a myriad of different ways.