535 réponses à ce sujet

[Sondermann]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

That's BS. Flower collecting, bottle collecting, fetch quests etc. are not unavoidable and surely don't make up 80% of all content. I played BG I+II and liked them well enough without thinking they are the gold standard to which each and every rpg must somehow aspire.

If you don't like picking flowers, don't do it. You can buy flowers at vendors or use wartable missions to get them. If you don't like a boring sounding side quest, don't do it - the game has so much content you will have to skip a lot of it anyway in a single playthrough if you don't want to end up overlevelled.

 

 

 

 

[In Exile]

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.

FO:NV was phenomenal, but as an isometric RPG fan praising Bestheda for what they did to FO should be heresy. We'll never see an isometric FO game now. And without Obsidian writing on it again we'll never even see a spiritual successor to FO:NV.

[Nefla]

I would just like a world that is fleshed out and makes me care. In DA:O even the littlest quests had cutscenes and interaction (such as getting Camen and Gheyna together or breaking them up, finding Bevin in Redcliffe, etc...) it made me feel like a part of the world and like what I did mattered. Hearing my character talk to an NPC while standing emotionless and still as the camera hovered far away was bad enough, but the quests given by these interactions were dull fetch quests with no choices or interactions. "Find this ring for me" "bring back my prize winning nug" "bring me elfroot" it was like the kind of MMORPG that I hate (but not like BioWare's own SWtOR where quests are interactive and have cutscenes). If they kept that big beautiful world (even if it needed to be shaved down by a few zones) but filled it with more quests that matter and added cutscenes(or at least scripted scenes like Skyrim where the characters are actually doing something) it would be perfect. 

 

Something else I really felt the loss of were towns/villages/safe hubs. In DA:O you have Ostagar, Lothering, Redcliffe, Orzammar, the Dalish camp, Denerim (which was big and had several zones), and your personal camp. All of those besides the personal camp had quests to do within them and quests started there that required venturing out. In DA:I you have Skyhold, and Haven (the only quests there are "talk to the alchemist" or "upgrade a weapon" which I don't consider real quests) where you can talk to your companions but that's it. They're the equivalent of the DA:O party camp. Then you have Val Royeaux which has relevance the first time you go there (talking to the revered mother and getting locations of Sera and Vivienne) but it's silent and small and although there are a few companion quests that take you to a room or back alley there, you can't interact with any NPCs there or get new quests from them.

[keyip]

Any game that garners almost universal critical acclaim, numerous GOTY awards, and sells millions of copies is a hit. Don't move the goalposts or play fast and loose with the word "hit." You made a mistake, just accept it and move on.

 

You're defining "hit" wrong. The term "hit" relates to a venture's level of financial success, that is how it is defined and that is how I used it. The number of GOTY awards it received has nothing to do with whether the game was a "hit."

 

Furthermore, Reckonings sold millions of copies and failed dismally. So obviously "selling millions of copies" doesn't guarantee you "hit status". I tend to think of the 10 million mark as the magic goal for AAA ventures to achieve "hit status." That's just my opinion though.

[Seishoujyo]

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.

 

A lot of nonsense here, I hate Bethesda and The Elder Scroll but I m totally in love with DAI it's way better than Skyrim or Oblivion.

 

So no I hope Bioware will keep this for DA4 because it's great and DAI is a lot of fun, this exploration etc.

[Il Divo]

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.

 

I'd argue this is a bit of a cop-out. Sure, you can ignore all side content in BG1. But the main experience (like DA:I) isn't all that substantial, not to mention most of that side content itself is pretty bland even if you do decide to undertake it.

 

So really, we have two games that rely quite a bit on filler to keep them going. Not to mention in BG a lot of that game length stems from how slowly your party moves across the map.  

[bEVEsthda]

The semi-open environment is not the problem of DA:I.  IMO. Neither is "filler" content. I generally disregard complaints about "fetch quests", crafting etc, because I believe it's valid and important content in a game to make it alive and non-linear. At this point, all of you who just want a long movie-story broken up with sessions of typical video-game violence in-between, just leave and play FF or something, I don't want to listen to you.

Because if anything (except the hopeless PC-interface) is the central issue that needs more refinement in DA, it's exactly that DA:I is in way too much danger of just being yet another typical action-kill-kill console video game. It comes way too close. Way, way too close for comfort. What Bioware should concentrate on in sequels (aside from the PC-interface), is the question: 'why is it an RPG? what sets it apart?'. Certainly not that it has a story and cut-scenes, because all games have that nowdays.

[In Exile]

I'd argue this is a bit of a cop-out. Sure, you can ignore all side content in BG1. But the main experience (like DA:I) isn't all that substantial, not to mention most of that side content itself is pretty bland even if you do decide to undertake it.

So really, we have two games that rely quite a bit on filler to keep them going. Not to mention in BG a lot of that game length stems from how slowly your party moves across the map.

You can't really ignore the side content in BG1 in full. You'll be under levelled if you do, and unless you can power game d&d really well you're dead

[Gel214th]

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. 

 Many of the issues you notice are caused by :

 

A) They want to build a Dragon Age MMO, so they tested the waters with this.

Multiplayer is supposed to be a cash cow, so the powers, and gameplay are geared towards multiplayer.

C) The Consoles were the primary platform and control type so their limitations in terms of audience expectation, technical limits etc. defined the game's development.

 

We will probably hear about all this in a year or so when Bioware does one of their fan events to pitch their next game. 

[In Exile]

The semi-open environment is not the problem of DA:I. IMO. Neither is "filler" content. I generally disregard complaints about "fetch quests", crafting etc, because I believe it's valid and important content in a game to make it alive and non-linear. At this point, all of you who just want a long movie-story broken up with sessions of typical video-game violence in-between, just leave and play FF or something, I don't want to listen to you.
Because if anything (except the hopeless PC-interface) is the central issue that needs more refinement in DA, it's exactly that DA:I is in way too much danger of just being yet another typical action-kill-kill console video game. It comes way too close. Way, way too close for comfort. What Bioware should concentrate on in sequels (aside from the PC-interface), is the question: 'why is it an RPG? what sets it apart?'. Certainly not that it has a story and cut-scenes, because all games have that nowdays.

Hell is freezing over. We generally agree over a Bioware game!

[Osena109]

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 agree Bioware is damned if they do damned if they don't id like no loading times next game and a  larger world

[keyip]

Look pal, I know hating on Bethesda is a popular activity around here but you are simply wrong. A hit is very much defined by its critical as well as its financial success. 

 

"define:hit" in google yields - a successful venture, especially a film, pop record, or song.

 

Whether something is a "success" depends on how much MONEY is received. I think you're confusing "hit" with "acclaimed"

[Il Divo]

You can't really ignore the side content in BG1 in full. You'll be under levelled if you do, and unless you can power game d&d really well you're dead

 

I was thinking about that too, since I had that issue during my first attempt at playing through BG1. I bum-rushed to the Cloakwood mines and found I was getting my ass kicked due to my party being only level 2. But I figured it would be followed by multiple accusations of me needing to "L2P" afterwards. 

 

So you're right, it's more "semi-mandatory" depending on how well you can game DnD 2.0. 

[Seboist]

"define:hit" in google yields - a successful venture, especially a film, pop record, or song.

 

Whether something is a "success" depends on how much MONEY is received. I think you're confusing "hit" with "acclaimed"

 

A shining example of what isn't a success is Bioware's own DA2 and TOR. Those bombed harder than Hiroshima.

[Lanavis]

I disagree. I mean I did get lost in the world but I loved it. Every moment. I don't want a return to the linearity and 'smallness' of Origins. Would I love to see more story content within the semi open world ? Absolutely, I always love more story. But I found plenty in Inquisition to keep me going, far more than in titles like Oblivion and Skyrim.

I agree.

I fully enjoyed the semi-open world aspect of the game. It made the whole world feel larger and more in-depth because it now was due to the open world aspects.

The only addition I would make would be to create more of the actual main quest lines.

[keyip]

A shining example of what isn't a success is Bioware's own DA2 and TOR. Those bombed harder than Hiroshima.

 

To be fair on TOR I think MOST online games bomb these days, certainly subscription models. Bethesda is usually said to make single player MMO's but even their online game isn't doing that well. I think it peaked at something like 700k subscribers and has been slowly losing them?

[dreamgazer]

A hit is very much defined by its critical as well as its financial success.

Depends on who you ask. I agree in a general sense, but it's not that cut and dry of a science.

Film studio suits might (do) consider the Twilight, Saw, and Paranormal Activity movie franchises "hits" because of their financial success, despite the critical pounding they took.

Movie-goers might consider movies like Pacific Rim and Edge of Tomorrow "hits" because they were entertaining blockbusters and better than expected, though they underperformed at the box office.

[tself55]

To be fair on TOR I think MOST online games bomb these days, certainly subscription models. Bethesda is usually said to make single player MMO's but even their online game isn't doing that well. I think it peaked at something like 700k subscribers and has been slowly losing them?

Sure but bethesda didnt make ESO... They're separate companies with separate dev teams.

[keyip]

Sure but bethesda didnt make ESO... They're separate companies with separate dev teams.

 

Really? 0.0

 

Now that's just stupid, why didn't they make ESO?

[Eldrid]

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.

 

Don't assume that just because people like this type of open-world that they are a fan of Bethesda. I personally don't like the Elder's Scroll Franchise, I tried playing skyrim but never liked it and I'm sure some people do too. I actually like how they did the massive map, gives you space to explore too. Most of the good gears is not even from the minor quests, I've got mine from the main quests (besides the storyline) from each map, I haven't even completed the collectables quests.  Sidequests are there not for you to be obligated to do them. You have the choice to skip it. Boring sidequest? Lazy to collect things? skip easy as that. 

 

I like the idea on how I can explore and look at different areas of thedas and somewhat have a visual feel on what you have just read in the codex. But I do agree to the OP that at least incorporate the different maps to the actual story that at least make it still involved on what you are currently doing. Hinterlands at first was like that with quests for Redcliffe is also included in the map then it eventually deviated from there.  It felt that some of the maps are just there for you to do side quests. It's just a waste for it not to be included to the main storyline.  That's what makes it different from DA:O, where in every map is part of the story.

 

Overall, it is still a good experience for me. I appreciate what Bioware has done to this game and at least corrected some of the mishaps they've done w/ DAII, You can actually see the effort they've done in this game. The story is well written and the characters are well develop. Give some credit where credit is due.  

[Gel214th]

Are you seriously expecting BioWare to run two MMOs at the same time?

 

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

 

"Weirdly, we actually had a project code-named Blackfoot which was the first game we had that was looking at Frostbite," Inquisition executive producer Mark Darrah told GamesIndustry International. "It was a Dragon Age game, multiplayer only, that was in development before Dragon Age II came out. 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 [multiplayer] a long time."