535 réponses à ce sujet

[Kantr]

Fewer cutscenes so you have more control. Save them for the really epic.

 

DA:I wouldnt be as fun if you just travelled from small quest zone to quest zone.

[dlux]

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.

Well, BG1 has more free roaming overworld exploration than BG2.

 

Anyway, DA:I is full of busywork filler content which is something that BG1 doesn't have, not to mention that maps in BG1 are of course much smaller than in DA:I. Unlocking areas also works very differently in both games too, many areas are gated in DA:I unlike in BG1.

[In Exile]

Well, BG1 has more free roaming overworld exploration than BG2.

 

Anyway, DA:I is full of busywork filler content which is something that BG1 doesn't have, not to mention that maps in BG1 are of course much smaller than in DA:I. Unlocking areas also works very differently in both games too, many areas are gated in DA:I unlike in BG1.

 

At this point I'm convinced you've never played BG1. 

[dlux]

At this point I'm convinced you've never played BG1. 

Played it at least 5 times.

 

BG doesn't have any busywork filler content like picking thousands of flowers, collecting bottles and doing endless amounts of fetch quests (kill 10 rams and bring back meat, etc.).

[In Exile]

Played it at least 5 times.

 

BG doesn't have any busywork filler content like picking thousands of flowers, collecting bottles and doing endless amounts of fetch quests (kill 10 rams and bring back meat, etc.).

 

It doesn't. But it has busywork filler. Mostly in the vein of 0 dialogue kill quests or find item X fetch quest. 

[hong]

It doesn't. But it has busywork filler. Mostly in the vein of 0 dialogue kill quests or find item X fetch quest.

BG1 also had a lot more slapstick/comedy elements (the polymorphed chicken, the Three Stooges parody, the fastest knife-thrower on the Sword Coast, etc). IIRC it was because they ran out of time to put proper quests in, so in desperation they threw in the funny stuff as filler. That kind of thing would get eviscerated today.

[DameMagpie]

I am a big TES fan. I've never played other DAs but feel any return to linear story telling would not be an improvement. I am a fan of Bioware's NWN, but even though the company has shredded my emotions with great plots, I always wanted to roam with my cohorts.

 

I hope DA:I sells. Making a game this good must cost a fortune. I will be looking for other DA titles now, regardless.

[bzombo]

I'm fine with the way the world is now. The semi-open world is pretty cool. Bioware kept the story and improved over DA2, which was underwhelming at best. So far I'm enjoying it a lot.

[ioannisdenton]

Some of the open world maps' sub quests are actually well done. The Crestwood flood story had me shocked and appalled but at the same time somewhat sorry for the mayor too.

 

I think what they need to do was to add more close up cinematic to the side quests, and maybe better attempts at tying in the side quests to the main ones.

 

I mean the main quests mechanics were mostly the same as the side quests', but the cinematic made them so much more epic.

this exactly!!! still have not finished the game though

[FrontlinerDelta]

Everyone that likes this change should go and just stay with their Bethesda games and stop ruining other franchises GAMES DONT HAVE TO BE OPEN WORLD all the time, we bought DA not friging skyrim.

 

Everyone that dislikes this change should go and just stay with their linear RPG games and stop ruining other franchises GAMES DON'T HAVE TO BE LINEAR all the time, we bought Dragon Age INQUISITION, not Dragon Age ORIGINS. 

 

 

 

No but really, if they made the side quests have even basic cinematic (focus on the face of whoever is talking) it would go a long way to making it feel more like a Bioware game. That said, DA:I is infinitely superior to Skyrim. Skyrim is shallow and bland, all it's good for is to mod so that it no longer looks like the bland and boring game it is. 

[Il Divo]

Played it at least 5 times.

 

BG doesn't have any busywork filler content like picking thousands of flowers, collecting bottles and doing endless amounts of fetch quests (kill 10 rams and bring back meat, etc.).

 

Well, there is the "go kill spiders in this basement" quest line. And the "get this belt off this ogre" and "go get me a copy of this book" style quests. Stuff that feels designed to toss the player XP from npcs looking to assign some random stranger a quest line. 

 

Baldur's Gate 1 really had weak side quests, minus some stuff from Tales of the Sword Coast (imo). 

[Dervim]

Open maps are great! They just need more purpose and less,"bring back Drufallo," BS.

 

 Seriously, I'm supposed to be a goddarn Herald of Andraste and later on Grand-freaking-Inquisitor! You mean to tell me I can't just send some yokel recriut to lead the stupid thing back?!

[ORTesc]

This is the same problem Watch_Dogs had. Huge world with nothing to do in it but filler content. The only people that do open world right is Rockstar and Bethesda. You can't emulate what works so well by throwing in filler content. It takes both Rockstar and Bethesda years to make their games, we're still waiting on Fallout 4. That's because most of the content in the game is quality. You're not fetching 10 ram meats for the entire game. There are things to find because everything isn't already placed on the map. It's not about "go here and see something cool". It's about "I FOUND this cool thing that wasn't marked on the map because I CHOSE to explore".

[ORTesc]

Fewer cutscenes so you have more control. Save them for the really epic.

 

DA:I wouldnt be as fun if you just travelled from small quest zone to quest zone.

 

I'd much rather have a smaller world packed with cool things to do and explore than a large world full of filler content.

[keyip]

It takes both Rockstar and Bethesda years to make their games, we're still waiting on Fallout 4. That's because most of the content in the game is quality. You're not fetching 10 ram meats for the entire game.

 

Pffft, Bethesda make ONE hit game and suddenly everybody forgets how **** they were before that.

 

Obsidian made a better open-world Fallout than Bethesda did.

[Firky]

Oh! Were you active on the Bio boards back then? The only names I still recognise from those days are Beerfish and Sylvius.

 

Hi. Yeah. I used to be super shy so I had a different name. And I lurked a lot, trying to learn how to kill Firkraag, the dragon. (Which pretty much began my love affair with combat in party based games, really. OMG, Carsomyr. And stuff like how strict the system was. If you wanted to use Carsomyr, you had to be a really strict class or take Keldorn.)

 

When it comes to exploration, there is an absolute world of difference between this style of game and the Baldur's Gates, in my opinion. (And the previous DAs.) It's everything from controls, to horses, to how the loot system works, to jumping, to quest progression, to combat encounter design, to isometric vs over the shoulder etc etc. All of these elements are linked to overall exploring experience. (IMO.)

 

It's the difference between knowing that there is lots of elfroot around Haven to upgrade your potions for combat - in DAI - and finding a beljuril gem in a very surprising place in Baldur's Gate 2, recalling which merchant can craft a cool item from it and then working this item into the way you play. No, you didn't have to do any of that to progress the main BG2 quest, but it was a cool thing unto itself. It was more contrived than, "here is elfroot, do what you want with it," but it felt like a story you were uncovering rather than controlling, necessarily. (I like that a lot.)

 

The only genuinely open world game I've ever really enjoyed was Ultima VII. (And the prior Ultimas.) This was because the world was really important, beyond exploration and pretty levels. If you had to go overland from Britain to Minoc to progress the main quest, or just because you wanted to, you had to hunt to stock up on food, find swamp boots so you wouldn't get poisoned. Or, buy/steal a ship and go the long way, stopping off to look at some weird shrine or kill sea monsters. Or, learn how the moongates worked. Etc.

 

Divinity came a bit close to this. But, "open world" only seems to work (for me) when there is a purpose to everything in it. Otherwise, I was really happy with story, combat, more story in DA2.

 

I'm sure I'll finish Inquisition. I'm surprised that I got burned out by exploring this quickly, to be honest. It's a massive shame.

[ORTesc]

Pffft, Bethesda make ONE hit game and suddenly everybody forgets how **** they were before that.

 

Obsidian made a better open-world Fallout than Bethesda did.

 

Morrowind was good. Oblivion was okay. Skyim was good. Define "hit" game.

 

Obsidian took what Fallout 3 was, including it's engine and resources, and built on it. That's the only reason why many people see NV as better. Neither game does story well, but Obsidian isn't a bad developer (as long as they're not rushed).

 

Regardless, Bethesda continue to improve it's open world take on RPGs. I wouldn't call them a bad developer/publisher though.

[keyip]

Morrowind was good. Oblivion was okay. Skyim was good. Define "hit" game.

 

Morrowind was GOTY and had a lot of hard-core fans. Oblivion was their transition game, it didn't sell anywhere near as well as Skyrim because it had a ****-ton of problems (massive level-scaling issues, empty world, laughable RPG mechanics [you could lockpick any lock with barely any points in the skill,] stupid dialogue "mini-game", random loot which made exploration pointless, decrease in skills... axes are blunt weapons and etc etc.) It did moderately well even though it was a **** game.

 

Fallout 3 did moderately well, even though New Vegas eclipsed them in almost every way. Once again, Fallout 3 had ridiculous level scaling, silly ideas all over the place, lack of armour and guns, writing was mediocre, black and white morality and shitty quests just to name a few. The ONLY thing they nailed was the atmosphere. 

 

Skyrim they hit the formula for success, their sales exploded upwards. It's ONE game though, let's not forget their previous games were riddled with problems.

[dlux]

It doesn't. But it has busywork filler. Mostly in the vein of 0 dialogue kill quests or find item X fetch quest. 

Every combat oriented RPG has a few simple kill quests or fetch quests. *facepalm*

 

The point was that BG1 doesn't have any busywork filler like picking thousands of flowers, collecting bottles, doing endless amounts of fetch quests ("kill 10 rams and bring back meat, herpa derp") killing constant respawns that fall from the sky, etc.

 

This type of content makes up probably about 80% of all content in DA:I. It is busywork filler, because most of it is unavoidable (content gating), whereas all side content is completely optional in BG1.

 

Big difference.

[TheJiveDJ]

People will complain if they go back to the "small" levels of Origins and claim it's a step back. People will complain if they just keeping doing where they're doing now, claiming it's a too "different" than Origins. DAI Won them Game of the Year so I think it's fairly likely they're going to stick to the type of DA game they have now. I believe I heard the devs say (in a stream) what they want to do next in regards to future DA games is to make the environments seem even more "alive". With that being said it's very unlikely they meant they were going to do this with small Origin sized levels.

I don't think BW would have to worry about something like this. The total area of all the exploration zones is so huge that even if they cut them all in half to focus more on story, we'd still have a massive semi open world to explore.

[keyip]

 

Say what? Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim were all major financial and critical successes. All four games got Game of the Year and numerous other awards and have sold millions. You need to get your head checked if you think Bethesda has only made just one hit.

 

 

Oblivion sold... I keep hearing "7 million" units, compared to Skyrim's 20 million units sold. Skyrim's a "hit", Oblivion was a "financial success".

[keyip]

You do understand that units sold were significantly smaller across the industry back in 2006, right?

 

How many copies did GTA4 move again?