535 réponses à ce sujet

[N7 Spectre525]

Skyrim is an empty walking simulator. Just because it had a lot of caves to go spelunking in and AI that simulates the behaviour of humans if they were lobotomised worker ants does not make it a living world.

 

 Skyrim tries at least to give the appearance of a living world, DAI is content to half ass it with npcs that are damn statues...I mean literally they dont talk or move at all. You might be able to get away with this in a smaller game, but a game thats supposed to be semi open world it just looks lazy as hell.

[Nefla]

 Skyrim tries at least to give the appearance of a living world, DAI is content to half ass it with npcs that are damn statues...I mean literally they dont talk or move at all. You might be able to get away with this in a smaller game, but a game thats supposed to be semi open world it just looks lazy as hell.

I agree. I'll take Skyrim's NPCs who all have at least something to say to the player with some having quite a bit of dialogue and all have daily routines, will stop and talk to each other, react to being attacked, run from danger or help fight it, etc...to statues glued in one place the entire game and if you're lucky a prerecorded conversation will play as you walk by.

[In Exile]

Skyrim tries at least to give the appearance of a living world, DAI is content to half ass it with npcs that are damn statues...I mean literally they dont talk or move at all. You might be able to get away with this in a smaller game, but a game thats supposed to be semi open world it just looks lazy as hell.

I disagree completely. What Skyrim does is the opposite of everything that makes a world alive.

You could replace every character in Skyrim with a dog and you would have the same complexity of behaviour.

People don't act like people at all!

You slaughter hundreds and they're all cool because you paid a fine. That's insane. *They can stare at you murdering someone* and they act like it's nothing if you a pay a free. That alone breaks the game.

And that's ignoring how, again, a scripted routine is the furthest thing from how real people act.

The only way you could say Skyrim is realistic is if your entire experience with people is watching them from a distance, never talking or interacting with them. And even then, only during something like army boot camp or someone else where people follow an identical routine.

[Astylith]

I disagree completely. What Skyrim does is the opposite of everything that makes a world alive.

You could replace every character in Skyrim with a dog and you would have the same complexity of behaviour.

People don't act like people at all!

You slaughter hundreds and they're all cool because you paid a fine. That's insane. *They can stare at you murdering someone* and they act like it's nothing if you a pay a free. That alone breaks the game.

And that's ignoring how, again, a scripted routine is the furthest thing from how real people act.

The only way you could say Skyrim is realistic is if your entire experience with people is watching them from a distance, never talking or interacting with them. And even then, only during something like army boot camp or someone else where people follow an identical routine.

 

This does not make sense. You could replace every character in Skyrim with a dog and have the same complexity of behaviour? You mean replacing the model with dog models? Or having actual dogs control the characters? I agree that the people in Skyrim 'don't behave like real people', that's probably because they're not 'real people'. 

 

At least Skyrim gives you the choice to kill about anyone in the game if you feel like it. In Dragon Age Inquisition NPC's are invincible and just 'stare at you' while you attack them using your elite combo attacks and they act like it's nothing, you don't even have to pay a fee.

 

The Radiant AI in TES games isn't all that great, but it sure is one of the best systems for open world AI there is out there, especially when spicing it up with mods.

[In Exile]

This does not make sense. You could replace every character in Skyrim with a dog and have the same complexity of behaviour? You mean replacing the model with dog models? Or having actual dogs control the characters? I agree that the people in Skyrim 'don't behave like real people', that's probably because they're not 'real people'.

At least Skyrim gives you the choice to kill about anyone in the game if you feel like it. In Dragon Age Inquisition NPC's are invincible and just 'stare at you' while you attack them using your elite combo attacks and they act like it's nothing, you don't even have to pay a fee.

The Radiant AI in TES games isn't all that great, but it sure is one of the best systems for open world AI there is out there, especially when spicing it up with mods.

I mean that the level of behavioural complexity we see is akin to that of a non-pet owner's perception of an animal. Dogs are actually really complex and even they wouldn't get modelled right by Skyrim.

And killing everyone is wrong. Because mass murder is not something people get over. To say you have a living world because you can commit murders that no one ever reacts to realistically is ridiculous.

[N7 Spectre525]

I disagree completely. What Skyrim does is the opposite of everything that makes a world alive.

You could replace every character in Skyrim with a dog and you would have the same complexity of behaviour.

People don't act like people at all!

You slaughter hundreds and they're all cool because you paid a fine. That's insane. *They can stare at you murdering someone* and they act like it's nothing if you a pay a free. That alone breaks the game.

And that's ignoring how, again, a scripted routine is the furthest thing from how real people act.

The only way you could say Skyrim is realistic is if your entire experience with people is watching them from a distance, never talking or interacting with them. And even then, only during something like army boot camp or someone else where people follow an identical routine.

I never said Skyrim was realistic but that it gives the player the ILLUSION of a living world. You may have a problem with the AI routines being nonsensical but at least they HAVE a routine. Yes you can go on a crime spree then pay a fine and all is right with the world, but when you are crime spreeing the world actually reacts to your actions and npcsdo more than stand in one position never moving like a piece of the landscape.

[Maconbar]

I never said Skyrim was realistic but that it gives the player the ILLUSION of a living world. You may have a problem with the AI routines being nonsensical but at least they HAVE a routine. Yes you can go on a crime spree then pay a fine and all is right with the world, but when you are crime spreeing the world actually reacts to your actions and npcsdo more than stand in one position never moving like a piece of the landscape.

Skyrim is a more living world. I took an arrow to the knee is all the proof that I need.

[Riven326]

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Dragon Age Inquisition, the story was amazingly done, the cameos were perfect and so were some of the little quests on the war table that incorporated characters known to us from the past games and even the books. 

 

The only thing that disappointed me (other than the primitive and clunky PC controls) was the length of the story. As I was playing I always had a thought in the back of my head telling me that the story will be over soon and to go and waste time at the Storm Coast or Emprise Du Lion doing pointless side quests. Because of the lack of cut scenes for these, I felt disconnected from the quest givers at certain moments and found myself spinning the camera around as they were talking to me and so didn't really want to help them but I felt forced too in a way. I think the lack of cut scenes for these was somewhat the fault of having semi large open worlds. 

 

I think the exploration aspect of Inquisition was certainly achieved, there are tonnes of things to find in each diverse location, and they really are diverse. Completely opposite to Dragon Age 2. Various caves, puzzles and crafting ingredients to find as well as the shards to pick up and the astronomical puzzles to do. That part was fun to me, to an extent. I feel that since the locations were so big they detracted from the story at hand, I saw myself forgetting what was happening in regards to the story constantly as I was running around one of the areas. It felt off to me. I remember Mike Laidlaw saying something about someone who finished the story and didn't even visit one area. To me, all the areas should be incorporated to the full story and something like that shouldn't be happening. It's almost like what's the point of creating that area if it's not used for the story? Is it for more exploration? We have more then enough of that already.

 

In Origins, this didn't happen to me at all and I think this has to do with the linear areas. Since all the areas we visited were part of the story. The areas were a lot smaller indeed, and I think that is why I felt a lot more involved within the story there. There wasn't an overwhelming number of things to do that made you forget about the story completely and make you think of wasting time so as to not make it end quicker. Smaller worlds to me make me feel closer to what is actually going on, I would sacrifice exploration for a deeper and longer story. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that since Dragon Age Inquisition was a semi open world game I believe that it impacted the length of the story negatively. I really, really hope the next game is filled with smaller areas with a deeper and extremely longer story. There can be a balance with exploration and story, sadly, I don't think DAI found that balance. 

I'm fairly certain the only reason Inquisition features a semi-open world is because Skyrim sold 12 million copies. I imagine it had little to do with making Dragon Age itself a better product or trying out some new gameplay mechanic.

 

 

"We're checking [Skyrim] out aggressively," - Ray Muzyka.

Source

[sandalisthemaker]

My problem with the story is that nothing was explored deeply enough.  There were some major things happening, and the books- Asunder and The Masked Empire, were building up detailed and nuanced plot lines that simply were not given enough time in game. Things were glossed over and/or ignored, and things like the Mage/Templar war, the civil war, and Briala and the eluvians just seemed so small compared to their build-up in the novels.

 

Whether this tied directly to the large open world or not, I don't know, but the huge areas only served to make these plot lines seem even smaller by comparison.

[AlanC9]

I never said Skyrim was realistic but that it gives the player the ILLUSION of a living world. You may have a problem with the AI routines being nonsensical but at least they HAVE a routine. Yes you can go on a crime spree then pay a fine and all is right with the world, but when you are crime spreeing the world actually reacts to your actions and npcsdo more than stand in one position never moving like a piece of the landscape.

I believe In Exile's point is precisely that it didn't actually give him that illusion, and a failed illusion is worse than not attempting it.

[In Exile]

I never said Skyrim was realistic but that it gives the player the ILLUSION of a living world. You may have a problem with the AI routines being nonsensical but at least they HAVE a routine. Yes you can go on a crime spree then pay a fine and all is right with the world, but when you are crime spreeing the world actually reacts to your actions and npcsdo more than stand in one position never moving like a piece of the landscape.

But the world doesn't react to my actions. If I massacre an entire towm because I'm evil people should be sending armies to hunt me down. I should be a pariah everywhere.

This is the opposite of reactive. It's so unrealistic as a reaction. Even Saint's Row IV has a more realistic reaction.

[TheodoricFriede]

I believe a good compromise to this would be to focus on making open areas that are smaller, story relevant, and more focused, like Crestwood and Western Approach, rather than sprawling areas full of nothing, like Hinterlands, Hissing Wastes, and Emerald Graved.

 

And to cut out areas that are ultimately completely irrelevant, like Storm Coast and Forbidden Oasis, and turn their dungeons into stand alone areas.

[DragonAgeLegend]

My problem with the story is that nothing was explored deeply enough.  There were some major things happening, and the books- Asunder and The Masked Empire, were building up detailed and nuanced plot lines that simply were not given enough time in game. Things were glossed over and/or ignored, and things like the Mage/Templar war, the civil war, and Briala and the eluvians just seemed so small compared to their build-up in the novels.

 

Whether this tied directly to the large open world or not, I don't know, but the huge areas only served to make these plot lines seem even smaller by comparison.

Yes exactly, it made some of these main choices seem minute. 

[Natureguy85]

But the world doesn't react to my actions. If I massacre an entire towm because I'm evil people should be sending armies to hunt me down. I should be a pariah everywhere.

This is the opposite of reactive. It's so unrealistic as a reaction. Even Saint's Row IV has a more realistic reaction.

 

Obviously murder isn't as big a deal in The Elder Scrolls lol

[wepeel_]

Skyrim's level of immersion has a tendency to backfire imo. Whereas you can do a lot of things in the game, the fact that there are no reactions to it and the game in general doesn't register it actually serves to reduce immersion rather than increase it. Beyond being able to slaughter people with no one reacting there are more basic things like the standard: "if you have the aptitude, you should join the Mage's College in Winterhold" line where you after awhile just want to yell "I AM THE ARCHMAGE ALREADY!"

[Nefla]

Skyrim's level of immersion has a tendency to backfire imo. Whereas you can do a lot of things in the game, the fact that there are no reactions to it and the game in general doesn't register it actually serves to reduce immersion rather than increase it. Beyond being able to slaughter people with no one reacting there are more basic things like the standard: "if you have the aptitude, you should join the Mage's College in Winterhold" line where you after awhile just want to yell "I AM THE ARCHMAGE ALREADY!"

I just figure he is a racist bastard and all filthy greyskins look the same to him XD

 

But really, give me a few awkward moments with an otherwise good system over silent, non interactive, non responsive statues any day. I'd rather have somewhat weird and funny people populating the game than silent creepy statues. DA:I style "NPCs" make the world feel so dead and empty.

[zambingo]

I like the open world, I don't mind the types of open world quests that fill it, I like the story and that I want more indicates to me the story part is good. I don't mind resource management/gathering, I like that things stack per named-item, but wish the inventory was larger.

My biggest request for change is more close up/cinematic style camera placements for conversations, this lacks to the point I feel disconnected from the characters during the conversations.

[CronoDragoon]

This is the opposite of reactive. It's so unrealistic as a reaction. Even Saint's Row IV has a more realistic reaction.

 

Back in the day GTA III was pretty great for this*. If you killed someone with no one around you were fine. If you killed someone and it was seen you'd have cops after you. If you killed a cop you got the SWAT team and helicopters. If you blew up a helicopter they sent the ****** army in.

 

*I haven't played a GTA since but I imagine they function similarly.

[bowlfreak_not]

Can you just picture the development meetings that obviously went on at Bioware?

 

Marketing guy: "And as this next chart proves we need to capitalize on the recent success of open-world games like Skyrim to game their market share...  while still maintaining the strong, linear narrative Bioware is known for, and yet it should have the playability of an action game - to draw in this percentage of the market, but not shirking its roleplaying elements - to capture this percentage of the market.  So that only leaves the under 18 market share, which if we release a family friendly version of the game, we will be able to sell to 100% of our market."

 

(Stunned silence and polite coughs from the board room)

 

Senior Dev:  "And how long do you estimate this miraculous, all-encompassing game will take us to get to market, exactly?"

 

Marketing guy: "I'm estimating 6 months development time."

 

(another stunned silence followed by all developers throwing marketing guy out the window)

[Natureguy85]

Back in the day GTA III was pretty great for this*. If you killed someone with no one around you were fine. If you killed someone and it was seen you'd have cops after you. If you killed a cop you got the SWAT team and helicopters. If you blew up a helicopter they sent the ****** army in.

 

*I haven't played a GTA since but I imagine they function similarly.

 

And then you are fine if you get your car painted or go into a safe house even with Police right behind you.

 

 

I know there have to be limits and you're right, but I had to point this out.

[Skeevley]

I don't necessarily *mind* the open-worldness, but I do feel that in DAI, because the open-world is filled with mindless, boring, fetch-quests it does little except detract from the story. Also, the mind-numbingly quick respawns make it difficult to actually go and enjoy the world.

 

Basically, to me it seems almost like 2 different games squished together into one game in a way which really didn't work: There is the main story, and then there is just tons and tons of random junk filling up these lovely areas. If each of those areas had just two or three fully-developed story-line (immersive) quests instead of all the junk quests and combat, I think it would be a much better game. (Heck, put in a respawn-timer-preference, so that people who like fighting the same fights over and over every three or four minutes can do so, but don't force everyone to grind through that crap!)

 

It's just kind of a disjointed mess. I think maybe the best open-world RPG recently would be Fallout 3. It was open-world, and often what you were doing didn't directly have anything at all to do with your main quest, but somehow the melding was done so seamlessly that it worked very well. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why it worked so well - maybe it's simply because you are established from the very beginning as a character who should be completely fascinated with the world outside the vault. The urge to explore absolutely everything seemed like an integral part of your character's personality, so the exploration never seemed unnecessary or like sheer drudgery as it so often does in DAI. If something similar had been put into DAI, I think a lot of us would get more enjoyment out of the basic exploration. (Plus, if everything didn't respawn at least you would have a sense of accomplishment. As it is, I just can't find any real justification for, or enjoyment from, unnecessary exploration.)

[ev76]

Love the open world! Love the game! Move on haters!!!!!

[DaveHoffman]

If they're going to stick with this, they badly need to get into day/night cycles, weather, NPC routines etc. If you're going to be spending a long time in one region it needs to feel alive. Inquisition's world is pretty, but at no point was I allowed to forget that it was a static video game world.

The insane amount of resource collecting needs to die too.

 

I would tend to agree with the static world.  I like how there is progression with things, like how an old cob-webby abandoned dwelling can get cleaned up and occupied, but it is a fairly static world.  At every location, it will always be the same time of day, same weather (mostly), NPCs in the same places.  It's really my only detraction with the look and feel.

 

With TES, particularly Oblivion, some of the sunsets made me just stop and look around.  Kind of kooky, but it did give me the feel that the world was alive.

[SomeUsername]

I mean that the level of behavioural complexity we see is akin to that of a non-pet owner's perception of an animal. Dogs are actually really complex and even they wouldn't get modelled right by Skyrim.

And killing everyone is wrong. Because mass murder is not something people get over. To say you have a living world because you can commit murders that no one ever reacts to realistically is ridiculous.

Okay so Skyrim is messed up. I assume by this you are trying to defend DAI where all the npcs are braindead. The point is that Skyrim has more of a "living world" than DAI. If you commit crimes in towns, you actually get a bounty, and can spend prison time if caught. I am not trying to defend Skyrim because I don't like it to begin with but if I wanted to play an open world game, Skyrim gets that better done than DAI.