229 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

but it's not like shyrim at all.

[Ashagar]

Because clearly the Elder Scrolls series is the alpha and omega of all of open worlds...  

 

Seriously just because you didn't find areas NPCs and side quests uninteresting doesn't mean there aren't others who did enjoy them.

[ElementalFury106]

The only similarities it has to Skyrim are random encounters and dynamic environments. Which, to be fair, is a common quality in RPGs of this magnitude. Inquisition is a totally different game.

[Navasha]

Keep making strong stories and great characters... absolutely!!

 

But KEEP the large open explorable areas..    Those are the saving grace that makes the "mainstreamed" game mechanics at least bearable.

[Ashagar]

Of course Random encounters are a RPG staple though they are far less annoying than they were in  some old school computer and console RPGs I've played where sometimes you couldn't move 5 spaces before monsters or bandits would come out of nowhere to attack.

[Lewie]

I got a beta key for ESO online, played it one night with friends and deleted it, absolute guff. 

[Han Shot First]

The Skyrim comparisons are not totally off base.

 

While DA:I is a different game in many respects, it is quite obvious that Skyrim had a large influence on the direction the dev team went with the sequel to DA2. I don't think it is a coincidence that Dragon Age's transition to a partially open-world format occurred immediately on the heels of Skyrim selling over 20 million copies. That isn't exactly 'Call of Duty numbers' but it is as close you're ever likely to get in the RPG market. Any RPG with sales numbers in the tens of millions is guaranteed to have a lot of impact on the industry, like it or not, and we can see that impact with DA:I and the upcoming sequel to The Witcher. Cash is king.

[moxiegraphix]

I've put in over 600 hours into Skyrim (yay for Mods that really expanded my replayability factor). While I can see some influence (and honestly, who can blame them?), this game does not, in any way, feel like Skyrim to me. 

[Lewie]

The Skyrim comparisons are not totally off base.

 

While DA:I is a different game in many respects, it is quite obvious that Skyrim had a large influence on the direction the dev team went with the sequel to DA2. I don't think it is a coincidence that Dragon Age's transition to a partially open-world format occurred immediately on the heels of Skyrim selling over 20 million copies. That isn't exactly 'Call of Duty numbers' but it is as close you're ever likely to get in the RPG market. Any RPG with sales numbers in the tens of millions is guaranteed to have a lot of impact on the industry, like it or not, and we can see that impact with DA:I and the upcoming sequel to The Witcher. Cash is king.

It is a bit strange that. The reason I thought skyrim was so bad as an mmo was because the story was pretty much shat upon, as if it wasn't bad enough.

 

I think people care more about DAI's story, unless I am mistaken.

[Henriks]

The Skyrim comparisons are not totally off base.

 

While DA:I is a different game in many respects, it is quite obvious that Skyrim had a large influence on the direction the dev team went with the sequel to DA2. I don't think it is a coincidence that Dragon Age's transition to a partially open-world format occurred immediately on the heels of Skyrim selling over 20 million copies. That isn't exactly 'Call of Duty numbers' but it is as close you're ever likely to get in the RPG market. Any RPG with sales numbers in the tens of millions is guaranteed to have a lot of impact on the industry, like it or not, and we can see that impact with DA:I and the upcoming sequel to The Witcher. Cash is king.

 

I assume even games like The Crew are going "open world" because of Skyrim. First time I played a ES game was when Morrowind was released years ago, and it already was an open-world one. Open world are becoming a trend right now, but saying its due to Skyrim success is not entirely true.

 

Also, DA: I has almost nothing to do with Skyrim. While ES world games are living, full of priceless and huge side quests, DA: I is like a lifeless world and stationary npc's. The essence of ES games is: you can talk to everyone you want to, every npc has a name and a profile behind them, world has dynamic weather and night/day cycle, its a game about a solo journey.

 

DA: I has almost nothing to do with DA: I. This nonsensical talk started only because Inquisition has larger areas than previous games, and people are calling it an open world game (I dont think its open world at all, its the same as Origins or DA: II, you have some areas that you can go any time you want, but with a bigger scale).

[KaiserShep]

Only real difference I see between Inquisition and Origins is that the former has more elaborate mazes to go through, but it certainly doesn't feel truly open world. It's just more expansive in its environments, and little more than that.

 

I'd be curious to see how BioWare would actually go about creating a truly open world game, where it's all about the minor quests, with no huge story to bind them all together, while somehow maintaining a party dynamic. I don't think Dragon Age should be the one to get this, but I admit that it intrigues me just a little.

[Xiomara]

Well if copying Skyrim means having nice big environments to explore then please don't stop copying Skyrim Bioware.

 

Inquisition has it's faults but the open world style is not one of them.

[guntar74]

Ya I can see where inspiration might come from but they are also way dif. Scrolls games are mostly a giant sandbox where u can travel to and from most all places on that single map. Like above stated inquisition shares pretty much the same separate map lvl design as the previous entry's just bigger.

If I compared quest design for the zones I'd say they took more inspiration from kingdoms of amalur than any of the scrolls

[kaidanluv]

I think the thing that bugs me the most nowadays is that everyone wants an open world, regardless of whether it actually makes sense or not. Skyrim is known for its exploration and off-the-beaten-path side quests - there's almost no point at all to the story that's there, and that's totally fine because it's a super fun game to just get lost in. The DA franchise, on the other hand (and Witcher, which is going this route in 3), are all about story and characters. I think it becomes much harder to be the latter and do it in a "choose your own way forward" kind of way. A tight narrative will by nature be more restrictive, from what I can see, and I'm completely okay with that if it means I get things of the caliber of the previous DA games, ME, or Witcher 2.

 

Boiled down I guess I'd say I'm good with whatever makes sense given a franchise's strong suits. And I just don't see "open world and exploration" fitting well with the lengthy, meaty story I'd expect to see from DA and Witcher.

[Mecha Elf]

i agree. They i think they took too much inspo from it.

[Han Shot First]

I think the thing that bugs me the most nowadays is that everyone wants an open world, regardless of whether it actually makes sense or not. Skyrim is known for its exploration and off-the-beaten-path side quests - there's almost no point at all to the story that's there, and that's totally fine because it's a super fun game to just get lost in. The DA franchise, on the other hand (and Witcher, which is going this route in 3), are all about story and characters. I think it becomes much harder to be the latter and do it in a "choose your own way forward" kind of way. A tight narrative will by nature be more restrictive, from what I can see, and I'm completely okay with that if it means I get things of the caliber of the previous DA games, ME, or Witcher 2.

 

Boiled down I guess I'd say I'm good with whatever makes sense given a franchise's strong suits. And I just don't see "open world and exploration" fitting well with the lengthy, meaty story I'd expect to see from DA and Witcher.

 

I sort of agree with this.

 

While I thought DA:I was a great game overall, I thought it also had some significant flaws. And Bioware's foray into a partially open-world format was not entirely successful. The partially open-world approach came at the cost of a less cinematic feel to conversations (outside main quests & some companion content) and a lot more MMO-style grindy quests to fill up the large maps they had created. Both serve to make the story-telling of this game seem less tight than its predecessors.

 

I'm waiting to see how the Witcher 3 turns out. If it has the same issues, I think it might be fair to criticize a melding of open world gameplay with strong focus on story and characters as an example of being a jack of all trades but master of none. I'd also be less excited about the Mass Effect sequel, since I have feeling it is probably on the same road with all those dev statements about exploration.

[Maniccc]

Whenever this discussion gets started, I think about GTA games.  Sure, they are not RPGs, but they are both open world, and have a linear story, with some side quests, some of which can get a bit intricate.  I do not for a second think that open worlds equates to a thin story, or rich story equates to a linear world.  I think the problem is that some of the best writers in video games are busy making games that are not RPGs.

 

DAI is not even open world.  It is Bioware's typical hub system, but with each zone being quite a bit larger.  As you make areas larger, you must add more content, especially if movement through zones is slow and dull, as it usually in fantasy settings, since we're on foot, not driving a lambo down the street.  Adding more content means adding simple and cheap content to control costs and development time (and time is money).  This leads us to unfulfilling content like requisitions that are meaningless, quests that have impact only off screen, as it were, never within the game that you play.  It also leads to watering down the more deep and intriguing content.  If you shift money towards creating more lighter content, that means fewer resources for your richer story content.

 

So in my view, the problem is not open world, it's a matter of setting, resource allocation, content choices, and so on.

[leaguer of one]

Bioware: "Ok then...then the next games going to be like Assassins creed :black flag and your going to be a pirate. How does that make you feel?"

[KaiserShep]

Oh man, if Dragon Age ever became like Assassin's Creed, the franchise would surely be dead to me.

[leaguer of one]

Oh man, if Dragon Age ever became like Assassin's Creed, the franchise would surely be dead to me.

Just the boat part would be fine.

[addiction21]

Bioware: "Ok then...then the next games going to be like Assassins creed :black flag and your going to be a pirate. How does that make you feel?"

 

I would be fine if it is as good as Blackflag.

 

This Skyrim comparison has been worn out from years back. Yes there are aspects that can be compared but DAI used them for their own thing. That's fine with me

[Lewie]

I decided not to buy another Assassins Creed game after Revelations. I guess waiting, asking people and doing your own research really does pay off.

 

Ezio could not be topped anyway.

[leaguer of one]

I decided not to buy another Assassins Creed game after Revelations. I guess waiting, asking people and doing your own research really does pay off.

I stopped from the first one.

[Realmzmaster]

I do not believe that Bioware borrowed from Skyrim that much. Bioware actually borrowed more from their own game Baldur's Gate 1 design wise. BG1 being Bioware's first entry with a semi open world crpg which came out December 1998. So Bioware tooks design choices from BG and updated them using the Frostbite engine. IMHO.