Guest_Roly Voly_*
For those laughing at belethor the shop owner give me a dai equivalent (non companion).
FWIW, when I brought that up, I wasn't actually talking about Belethor. I meant his helper whose name escapes me (because he's so damned irritating I now murder knife him asap) at the moment.
It's not all or nothing. Why couldn't NPCs have their own lives and have conversations to overhear? Walking around in circles and never talking to anyone else isn't what I would view as an NpC having a life either. Also a lot of DAIs ambient conversations were bad. Take Crossroads - an area everyone would have seen by now. Overhearing "Did you hear the news?"' With no follow up over what the news is... Whatever. Or the battlements in the Dales. Multiple characters had the same lines - about being bored or that demons were coming. This felt like a broken record. There were some, and I mean some, good moments a like finding a few stationary campers who made comments, though this was rare.
The world is not alive at all. What you described is a world frozen in time, a snapshot of how something is at a given moment with no evolution. The changes that are made in some zones are night and day - changing from one frozen world state to another. It's a change, I guess, but in no way alive. It's like someone taking a photo and then returning a year later and taking a photo again.
I didn't say it's not all or nothing, just that the World felt alive to me.
Most games who want to create a living world do one of two things with their NPCs, have them walk around spouting random phrases or have them occupy a single area talking. Since having NPCs march around a small town like they are an animal in a zoo patrolling their cage annoys me and takes me out of the world, I prefer the standing around and chatting.
It is of course possible to do both or just use more NPCs over a larger area like GTA to give the city a feeling of life, but most games do one or the other.
Again a Day & Night cycle doesn't make the world alive. Kirkwall in DA2, felt very much alive and it didn't have a proper Day & Night cycle. The environments of Spira in FFX or the city of Midgar in FFVII felt alive without a day night cycle.
Seeing people and animals live in an world and seeing that environment change based on my actions or the actions of others is what makes a world alive to me.
Seeing the camps of hunters in the Hissing Wastes and the burning wreckage of an area ravaged by war in the Exalted Plains, defending the men Fairbanks has sent on patrol in the Emerald Graves or hearing NPCs conversation change based my actions, all make the world feel alive for me.
It doesn't have to be big game features, little touches, like camps of NPCs telling their stories of how the escaped the Mage Templar War, can really make the world come alive.
And for me DA:I succeed because it used these little touches.
Lol at Kirkwall feeling alive. The city that didn't change over 7+ years. Had npcs that never moved because they were in fact a part of the scenery. Oh, and you can walk through them. I don't ever think i've been anywhere in a game that felt less alive.
Kirkwall in DA2, felt very much alive
Lol at Kirkwall feeling alive. The city that didn't change over 7+ years. Had npcs that never moved because they were in fact a part of the scenery. Oh, and you can walk through them. I don't ever think i've been anywhere in a game that felt less alive.
Oh I'd say there are quite a few places... 2D people at Winter palace with only a few scripted movements? Absolutely stationary crowds?
Or maybe it's Val Royeaux? With, like, no changes at all?..
Lol at Kirkwall feeling alive. The city that didn't change over 7+ years. Had npcs that never moved because they were in fact a part of the scenery. Oh, and you can walk through them. I don't ever think i've been anywhere in a game that felt less alive.
What are you talking about? NPCs moved around & were different NPCs in each act.
Some examples off the top of my head;
The Mother walking around talking to people in Lowtown & then later the Docks
The Templar searching for a blood mage was there in one act but not the others
Lowtown, Hightown, Darktown and the Docks had a number of NCPs walking around talking about their day
Apart from superficial changes to the city layout, why would a city that has remained the basically same for 100's of years, change much in 7?
Different people were in different places - 7 years is not much in terms of city development so of course much of the look of the city would remain the same.
I thought BioWare did a good job with Kirkwall, which is why I was so disappointed when I got to Val Royeaux.
What are you talking about? NPCs moved around & were different NPCs in each act.
Some examples off the top of my head;
The Mother walking around talking to people in Lowtown & then later the Docks
The Templar searching for a blood mage was there in one act but not the others
Lowtown, Hightown, Darktown and the Docks had a number of NCPs walking around talking about their day
Apart from superficial changes to the city layout, why would a city that has remained the basically same for 100's of years, change much in 7?
Different people were in different places - 7 years is not much in terms of city development so of course much of the look of the city would remain the same.
I thought BioWare did a good job with Kirkwall, which is why I was so disappointed when I got to Val Royeaux.
Speaking of NPCs moving around. In witcher 1, any time it rained NPCs would run for cover from the rain. The first time I saw that my mind was literally blown. It's sad that bioware can't implement things because of time and money....who am I kidding they are just lazy.
It rains inside houses in Inquisition.
It rains inside houses in Inquisition.
It's sad that bioware can't implement things because of time and money....who am I kidding they are just lazy.
These are simply development priority choices, not a piece of work that some developer can't be arsed to do.
It's sad that you struggle to write posts without being unpleasant about people, based on no evidence.
No, it doesn't. The houses are just poorly made and they leak.
It rains inside houses in Inquisition.
Like drinking a poultice, this is something that should never change.
Feeling so troubled right now. Should I exclude myself from Bioware/Dragon Age fans after your 'seems legit' words or rather tell you're subjective at best (and a liar at worst)?
You proved my point that too many fans don't understand subjective vs objective. You think because I used the term FAN that I am speaking subjectively but that just shows your tentative and fragile understanding of what objective and subjective mean. When I talked about industry acclaim and fan acclaim I was not subjectively speaking. You think you are being oh so clever but you are not. It is objective to state that DA:I has received FAN acclaim/accolades because these are facts. DA:I has won numerous Gamer choice/player choice awards. So fans have given the game acclaim. This is a fact and an objective statement. As a fan I think DA:I is the best game of the year is a SUBJECTIVE statement. But saying Fans gave Dragon age numerous awards is OBJECTIVE because it is a fact. And that statement of fact does not means that the fans made an objective choice when they awarded DA:I game of the year, either because the awards are made via subjective criteria. But while the individual vote of any given award is a subjective measure the totality of all the awards can be used as an objective means to gauge the success or failure of the game. Simply because the fact that the game won the awards can be measured objectively what can't be measured objectively is why the game won, but the game either won x award or it did not a simple objective measure.
If one does take an objective look at Bioware and DA:I the the following statement must be view as false.
I think bioware is done for, sorry but DAI was a disappointment to any practical and objective person.
So what are the objective facts we can look at here?
1) Sales: unit sales show how a game is monetarily successful a vital factor because if a game does not make money for a company then they will not make similar games.
Sources
According to Electronic Arts' fiscal 2015 third quarter earnings report, Dragon Age: Inquisition is the most successful launch in BioWare history based on units sold.
citation: Phil Savage (2015-01-29). "Dragon Age: Inquisition had most successful launch in Bioware history". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2015-01-29. http://www.pcgamer.c...ioware-history/
2) Acclaim/Accolades
Dragon Age: Inquisition has received numerous awards and nominations from gaming publications. The game has received the Game of the Year awards from Game Informer,[72]IGN,[73]Electronic Gaming Monthly,[74]Hardcore Gamer,[75]Gamereactor,[76]SXSW Gaming Awards,[77]Good Game,[66]Game Revolution,[78]Ars Technica,[79]Associated Press,[80]The Escapist,[81]Polygon,[82]Shacknews,[83]The Game Awards,[84] and the DICE Awards.[85] and was nominated Game of the Year by Destructoid[86] and IGN Australia.[87] It was also placed on various lists of the best games of 2014, GamesRadar placed it at 2nd,[88]Joystiq at 2nd,[55]Cheat Code Central at 2nd,[89]USA Today at 2nd,[90]Empire at 9th,[91]GameFront at 3rd,[92]Wired at 8th,[93]Slant Magazine at 17th[94] and The Guardian at 14th[95] and was considered one of the ten best games released in 2014 by Mirror.co.uk.[96] The game also won Role-Playing Game of the Year from GamesRadar,[88]Cheat Code Central,[97]Game Revolution,[98]Hardcore Gamer,[99]Game Informer,[100]IGN,[101]USGamer,[102]The Escapist,[103]The Game Awards[84] and the DICE Awards [85] as well as Best Singleplayer from PC Gamer.[104] Developer BioWare was nominated Best Developer by Game Revolution[105] and won the Developer of the Year Award from Hardcore Gamer.[106]
Source http://en.wikipedia....ition#Accolades
By any RATIONAL objective standard Dragon age is a success and Bioware is in zero danger of the being "done for," it has been a financial success ensuring that EA will want another instalment of the series which is a major pillar of a games success. Second it wasn't just a case of people bought it but all have buyer's remorse because the game has won numerous FAN awards. As well as industry awards showing across the board people liked the game more than the number of people who dislike it.
It is not my fault that so many people simply have limited understanding of what objective and subjective mean.
You proved my point that too many fans don't understand subjective vs objective. You think because I used the term FAN that I am speaking subjectively but that just shows your tentative and fragile understanding of what objective and subjective mean. When I talked about industry acclaim and fan acclaim I was not subjectively speaking. You think you are being oh so clever but you are not. It is objective to state that DA:I has received FAN acclaim/accolades because these are facts. DA:I has won numerous Gamer choice/player choice awards. So fans have given the game acclaim. This is a fact and an objective statement. As a fan I think DA:I is the best game of the year is a SUBJECTIVE statement. But saying Fans gave Dragon age numerous awards is OBJECTIVE because it is a fact. And that statement of fact does not means that the fans made an objective choice when they awarded DA:I game of the year, either because the awards are made via subjective criteria. But while the individual vote of any given award is a subjective measure the totality of all the awards can be used as an objective means to gauge the success or failure of the game. Simply because the fact that the game won the awards can be measured objectively what can't be measured objectively is why the game won, but the game either won x award or it did not a simple objective measure.
If one does take an objective look at Bioware and DA:I the the following statement must be view as false.
So what are the objective facts we can look at here?
1) Sales: unit sales show how a game is monetarily successful a vital factor because if a game does not make money for a company then they will not make similar games.
Sources
citation: Phil Savage (2015-01-29). "Dragon Age: Inquisition had most successful launch in Bioware history". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2015-01-29. http://www.pcgamer.c...ioware-history/
2) Acclaim/Accolades
Source http://en.wikipedia....ition#Accolades
By any RATIONAL objective standard Dragon age is a success and Bioware is in zero danger of the being "done for," it has been a financial success ensuring that EA will want another instalment of the series which is a major pillar of a games success. Second it wasn't just a case of people bought it but all have buyer's remorse because the game has won numerous FAN awards. As well as industry awards showing across the board people liked the game more than the number of people who dislike it.
It is not my fault that so many people simply have limited understanding of what objective and subjective mean.
First of all, you wouldn't pass a scientific logics exam if I was the examinator. No chances at all. Speaking plainly:
1. Subjective involves personal view/tastes on something, your social, political, sexual etc. preferences attached.
2. Objective does not involve personal view/tastes on something, and should be judged from a standalone perspective.
Everything you've noted there, including accolades, is only subjective (aside from sells, which is contradictory. Call of Duty sells, too - but it's obviously a bullshit).
And I find it highly amusing that you ignore existing technical and content problems of the DA:I. Ignoring the flaws - obvious, objective, glaring holes - while pointing out the accolades... I'm going to redirect you here.
"But, but!... It won GOTY!.."
It's the Fallow Mire! You live in a swamp where it rains 24/7, you gotta expect a little moisture.
First of all, you wouldn't pass a scientific logics exam if I was the examinator. No chances at all. Speaking plainly:
1. Subjective involves personal view/tastes on something, your social, political, sexual etc. preferences attached.
2. Objective does not involve personal view/tastes on something, and should be judged from a standalone perspective.
Everything you've noted there, including accolades, is only subjective (aside from sells, which is contradictory. Call of Duty sells, too - but it's obviously a bullshit).
And I find it highly amusing that you ignore existing technical and content problems of the DA:I. Ignoring the flaws - obvious, objective, glaring holes - while pointing out the accolades... I'm going to redirect you here.
"But, but!... It won GOTY!.."
You've missed the point Gothfather was trying to make.
You might think that DA:I was terrible & BioWare is done for, but all the evidence of how the game actually performed is to the contrary of that.
DA:I made a lot of money and got a lot of awards. It is unlikely EA will look a DA:I and say to themselves 'let's kill the studio that made this game, that made us lots of money and won a tons of awards'
You may not like DA:I but it did perform well.
Personally I don't like the Witcher or COD, but both of these series have done well, are very popular and their studios will continue to make games.
Also please don't link to your own review and call it objective. It was your own subjective review, your opinion of the game.
I don't agree with many of your points, most of them were your opinion of the game, which is absolutely fine, but don't call it objective.
Bioware RPGs have always been light on the settlements and development. They focus on dialogue and major characters. They'll never have a lot of large, populated locations.
I am not gonna get in the which game is more alive debate but the main thing that DA:I did that I disliked besides the disappointment Val Royeaux turned out to be was how they handled the Inquisition on the field. It was both a hit and a miss for them, I remember after they built that bridge in Western Approach there was some Inquisition members fighting enemies which I thought was awesome and cool that was the hit. The miss comes in two spots, when we set up camp if a bear is following me instead of turning around when I get near the camp my soldiers should rush out to help fight the bear if they get a certain distance near the camp. But the biggest miss for me is when they bring me random supplies on the field which would be a hit if they didnt just stand there with there hands behind there back while I get attacked by a enemy. That was the biggest what the heck moment for me, like your my soldier and your standing right there bringing me supplies behind enemy lines and you expect me to protect you soldier #567 while you do nothing?
You've missed the point Gothfather was trying to make.
You might think that DA:I was terrible & BioWare is done for, but all the evidence of how the game actually performed is to the contrary of that.
DA:I made a lot of money and got a lot of awards. It is unlikely EA will look a DA:I and say to themselves 'let's kill the studio that made this game, that made us lots of money and won a tons of awards'
You may not like DA:I but it did perform well.
Personally I don't like the Witcher or COD, but both of these series have done well, are very popular and their studios will continue to make games.
Also please don't link to your own review and call it objective. It was your own subjective review, your opinion of the game.
I don't agree with many of your points, most of them were your opinion of the game, which is absolutely fine, but don't call it objective.
You, people like you and OP are the exact reason I've stopped most of my activities here. What's the point in writing when only a few people can read it?
You fail to read a single sentence where I state that there are objective HOLES in the game. I've never said that the review about them is any objective.
Actually, it's subjective as hell and exaggerating here and there in sakes of the storytelling - but the main problem (secondary content and lazy writing) - is still there.
And it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.
Something what was copy-pasted from other source without any significant change is lazy writing. Gaider level.
Retour en haut