535 réponses à ce sujet

[dlux]

Open world with good content is good. Open world with boring filler content is bad.

 

DA:I is the latter.

[Bizantura]

DLC probably will fill that gap off feeling there is not much story driven content yet.

[Ultim Asari]

Totally disagree, the direction of Inquisition is exactly where I had hoped it would go.

[Alejandrawrr]

Gonna have to strongly disagree, it feels like the devs have been trying to find their lane since DAO, and with Inquisition they've finally found it. A good, lengthy storyline and big semi-open worlds are not mutually exclusive. I'm not a dev so my guess is as good as yours, but it feels like a lot of the development time went into the engine and whatnot, basically starting over. Moving forward, assuming they don't try to completely change the formula again, it should take significantly less time and resources to design the areas, so they will be able to make the storyline lengthier than the admittedly somewhat short main story in DA:I.

The large semi-open world approach is one of the absolute high points of this game, with the short main storyline (in addition to the bugs) being the only two real knocks against it. The logical thing is to build on the good, while weeding out the bad, rather than saying "**** it, one aspect wasn't good, let's blow the whole **** up!"

[Natureguy85]

Gonna have to strongly disagree, it feels like the devs have been trying to find their lane since DAO, and with Inquisition they've finally found it. A good, lengthy storyline and big semi-open worlds are not mutually exclusive. I'm not a dev so my guess is as good as yours, but it feels like a lot of the development time went into the engine and whatnot, basically starting over. Moving forward, assuming they don't try to completely change the formula again, it should take significantly less time and resources to design the areas, so they will be able to make the storyline lengthier than the admittedly somewhat short main story in DA:I.

The large semi-open world approach is one of the absolute high points of this game, with the short main storyline (in addition to the bugs) being the only two real knocks against it. The logical thing is to build on the good, while weeding out the bad, rather than saying "**** it, one aspect wasn't good, let's blow the whole **** up!"

 

But why be all over the map? Why go for a 3rd lane instead of going back into "their lane" of Origins after DA2 wasn't well liked? Why would it be bad to "blow this up" but it was fine to make drastic changes from Origins?

[Merlik]

No, do not reduce the exploration. The maps are great. Just utilize them better and give us more of the main story.

[Pi2r Epsilon]

Please DO make a semi-open world again.

 

Being freed from the overly linear structure and main quest linear start - four hubs with associated quest areas - main quest linear endgame, that has been Bioware's approach for the last decade was very pleasing to me. I might dislike other aspects of DA:I such as the crafting and the shitty PC UI, but this aspect is one I think Bioware did right.

 

What we got was a return to the approach that was so successful in Baldur's Gate II - a series of chapters that each open up a number of areas that are mostly optional, resulting in much greater freedom of decision for the player as to what to do next, but with the chapter goals always serving as a way of ensuring that players do not get too lost. They always know exactly what to do to move on, when they decide to get on with the main show.

[WildOrchid]

Please, do make the next DA games open world. I love open world games.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Open world games = optimised for the ADD generation.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

The side quest are okay to extremely boring, where the hell are the choices in them? It's just:

1) Explore someplace

2) Kill everything

3) ???

4) Profit.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Then it fails at everything, fails at being a story driven game like the previous games and fails at being skyrim, its basically a fail, it failed to be DA.

 

I spat out my soup good job   

[dlux]

What we got was a return to the approach that was so successful in Baldur's Gate II - a series of chapters that each open up a number of areas that are mostly optional, resulting in much greater freedom of decision for the player as to what to do next, but with the chapter goals always serving as a way of ensuring that players do not get too lost. They always know exactly what to do to move on, when they decide to get on with the main show.

That would have been great if Bioware would done exactly that, but they didn't, although the approach is indeed similar.

 

DA:I is an overworld hiking simulator with endless amounts of simplistic and boring filler content. BG2 is a dungeon crawler with overworld exploration and incredibly designed content.

[Freygea]

I love the world and the content as they presented it to us. Happy to see a more open world in the series.

[DragonAgeLegend]

IF they indeed continue to go down this route they need to find new and exciting ways to incorporate the story in side quests, keep them engaging and use cut scenes.

[Sondermann]

No, do not reduce the exploration. The maps are great. Just utilize them better and give us more of the main story.

I also love to explore the maps and the world they created surely is beautiful, I just think the payoff for exploration could be better. When I discover a cave I should be thrilled by the prospect of adventure awaiting me there. More often than not in DAI it's a letdown: a small area with some generic loot boxes stashed away.

There should be more "accidental adventure", so to speak. I think that is something Bethesda (or Obsidian) still do better.

[katzenkrimis]

In Origins, this didn't happen to me at all. 

Well, there are a lot of things that happen in these games now, that didn't happen in Origins.

Like, pretty much...everything.

You mean to say that you didn't enjoy running endlessly through the desert outskirts, hoping to find something?

 

Or wearing the same 30% ring for the entire game?
 

[frostajulie]

Dear Bioware

 

Stay big but give us a massive story expansion I will pay for it.

 

Love

A fan

[Pi2r Epsilon]

Open world games = optimised for the ADD generation.

Speak for yourself, whippersnapper.

 

I've been enjoying open world CPRGs since Might and Magic I, Secrets of the Inner Sanctum, back in 1986.

[In Exile]

That would have been great if Bioware would done exactly that, but they didn't, although the approach is indeed similar.

DA:I is an overworld hiking simulator with endless amounts of simplistic and boring filler content. BG2 is a dungeon crawler with overworld exploration and incredibly designed content.

Which is why DAI is exactly like BG1.

[Pi2r Epsilon]

That would have been great if Bioware would done exactly that, but they didn't, although the approach is indeed similar.

 

DA:I is an overworld hiking simulator with endless amounts of simplistic and boring filler content. BG2 is a dungeon crawler with overworld exploration and incredibly designed content.

While I think you go much too far, I'd be the first to concede that you do have a point; The side quests are subpar, and - and this is a pet peeve of mine - the "run around mining/picking flowers/killing the wildlife/looting to collect hundreds of crafting materials to craft items that are superior to anything you find/buy", isn't my cup of tea either, as I prefer games with none or extremely limited crafting. As for shards and mosaics, that's arguably fine - they bring only minor rewards apart from the feeling of accomplishment for those who like exploration and sightseeing, meaning that they are just about as optional as content can be without being utterly irrelevant.

 

I would like to point out, however, that both your complaint about simplistic/filler content and my specific examples are not objections to the use of the open world, which is what this thread is about, they are objections to the quality of the content, and several of them also apply to the last few Bioware non-open world games.

 

EDIT: Heh, just noticed In Exile's post above, and I must agree he has a point. While I think DA:I is more like BG2 than BG1 in terms of how chapters opened up content and in the structure of the open world, it is more like BG1 than BG2 in terms of the quality of the open world experience.

[In Exile]

While I think you go much too far, I'd be the first to concede that you do have a point; The side quests are subpar, and - and this is a pet peeve of mine - the "run around mining/picking flowers/killing the wildlife/looting to collect hundreds of crafting materials to craft items that are superior to anything you find/buy", isn't my cup of tea either, as I prefer games with none or extremely limited crafting. As for shards and mosaics, that's arguably fine - they bring only minor rewards apart from the feeling of accomplishment for those who like exploration and sightseeing, meaning that they are just about as optional as content can be without being utterly irrelevant.

I would like to point out, however, that both your complaint about simplistic/filler content and my specific examples are not objections to the use of the open world, which is what this thread is about, they are objections to the quality of the content, and several of them also apply to the last few Bioware non-open world games.

EDIT: Heh, just noticed In Exile's post above, and I must agree he has a point. While I think DA:I is more like BG2 than BG1 in terms of how chapters opened up content and in the structure of the open world, it is more like BG1 than BG2 in terms of the quality of the open world experience.

If we're going to honestly compare the BG series to DAI we have to come up with an awkward split between combat, exploration/side quests and story/companions. The story/companions side of DAI is clearly influenced by BG2 - including how you get access to zones. The combat is nothing like BG - the only one in the series that was close was DAO (because of the UI and how comically broken mages were in it) but more so to BG2 than BG1 (since that was basically a melee D&D simulator till late-game). The exploration/side-quests in DAI is very much BG1. It's more of a spiritual successor to BG1 on this front than IMO even BG2.

This is why someone like Sylvius genuinely likes it so much.

[MagisterMaximus]

I respectfully disagree, OP.

[Wulfram]

Keep the open world, just cut a couple of areas and shrink the Hinterlands.

 

Though I wonder if Bioware actually planned the game to turn out quite this way, or if maybe their level designers just turned out to be way ahead of target compared to their cinematics types, and so they decided to have a huge world with limited cinematics rather than having their level designers twiddle their thumbs/be fired.

[duckley]

I found the pre Skyhold game was tight - but that it got too loose at Skyhold. I agree more cuts scenes to better tie the side quests together - would have helped.

 

I agree the side quests were not 100% meaningless - at least the ones intended to gain power and renown for the Inquisition.  The collections, puzzle pieces, shards,requisitions, were kind of annoying to me.  I think I will do some of these after the main game is over if possible.

[In Exile]

Keep the open world, just cut a couple of areas and shrink the Hinterlands.

Though I wonder if Bioware actually planned the game to turn out quite this way, or if maybe their level designers just turned out to be way ahead of target compared to their cinematics types, and so they decided to have a huge world with limited cinematics rather than having their level designers twiddle their thumbs/be fired.

I think the had to take a lot of time turning FB3 into an RPG capable engine. They could design environments out of the box is that likely did not require a lot of redesign from the way it was used in e.g. BF.