125 réponses à ce sujet

[Nitrocuban]

[ApocAlypsE007]

The problem with ME1 was that the planets were too empty and the planets with the sharp rocks were a nightmare to navigate.

The problem with DAI was that the side quest were not interesting, not enough motivation to go out there outside the promise of powerful schematics.

 

I am willing to sacrifice map size in favor of interesting quests and maps that are not empty.

[SolNebula]

Soo I think It would be a mistake to ask for one thing (more story) at the expense of another one (exploration). In my book both things are important for a successful RPG.

In principle I agree that DA:I had way too many open areas and too little story content, however the solution is not to remove exploration altogether because that would result in a poorer game. ME2 and 3 while having great stories had no exploration whatsovever, their level design was very linear like shooting galleries and they grew boring for me after one campaign. The best thing is to combine the best of both worlds into a winning formula. Exploration if done correctly greatly enhance immersion. ME1 had a great idea, though its execution was very primitive but the concept was very valid and provided for great immersion values in exploring uncharted lands.

 

One would ask how to get this right combination of open-world and story?

I don't have the right formula but as a consumed player I noticed a couple of things based on my personal RPG gamer (with OCD tendencies) experience:

 

1) Exploration is great if is connected with the storyline in one way or the other. Let's say we go in one planet for a specific main quest mission. We are introduced to the situation in the planet let's provide a stupid example.

Main quest: The colonists are attacked by a native race of bug aliens that want destroy them. Your main objective is to find the Queen.

 

After an initial cutscene you take control in the main city of the colonists which is also the planetary hub. By visiting the city you find NPC that with ACTUAL cutscenes offer you sub-quests and other type of missions that encourage you to explore the planet. ALL subquest should be connected with the main conflict of planet. You explore the planet completing these quests which provides additional background story to the main storyline quest. By helping the colonist in these subquests you strenghten their hold on the planet and see more patrols and better supply in the hub shops. Your reputation with the colonists increase and offer you better alternatives in how you are going to tackle the main storyline. Let's say the final mission is to take out the Queen nest. If you helped the colonists in their sub-quest they are going to provide some support to your assault. In this way doing sub-quests enhance the storyline rewarding players that explored and did all the subquests.

 

2) The planets should be big but not enormous. Gamers tend to be frustrated when overwhelmed by  quests in a huge planet to explore. My idea would be to design compact maps where you can explore but are not wasting time moving from one side to the other of the map doing nothing. In size something slightly bigger than the uncharted planets map in ME1 will do IMO (this time full of quests though). Tone down the randon enemies encounters because they tend to get annoying really fast.

 

3) The entire planets exploration is devoted into supporting the main-storyline quests. All subquests are related with the main-quest of the planet. You should explore the entire planet as you are tackling the main quest of the area. Once you leave the planet you are done with everything there. This create the psychological feeling inside the player of having completed everything in that area so he/she could move on a different planet with different storyline. This is critically important because many RPG players are OCD and we saw in DA:I how many players were stuck in the Hinterlands before moving on to other areas. The Hinterlands wasn't connected to any particular plot and it felt like a grindfest area. To avoid this 1 and 2 should be respected.

 

In conclusion the main-quests should be integrated into the planet we are going to explore. The size of this planet should not be overwhelming.All the sub-quests should be devoted to support the main-storyline quest and ideally influence the outcome of the main-quest.

 

These are my suggestions.

[Pasquale1234]

@SolNebula - I agree with most of what you said, and would like to add some bits to the discussion

-- I've been thinking about maps. Part of me likes the idea that we are mapping as we explore, revealing portions in a fog-of-war sort of way. Another part of me thinks we might have maps with some degree of detail from scanners on the ship before we land. Either way, if these worlds were uncharted, I think mapping should happen in some form.

-- Along with that, we may have been monitoring communications on inhabited world, and have learned how to communicate with the inhabitants.

-- I'd like there to be some explorable planets uninhabited and untouched by higher life forms. Not hundreds by any means, but maybe a couple dozen or so. Maybe we would discover resources, collect crafting materials, etc. To me, that adds to the immersion - I don't want everything in the world to have a specific story purpose. Stuff that serves no story purpose can still help to create atmosphere.

-- The size of the ME1 planet maps might be good for uninhabited worlds, but I think worlds that are inhabited or that we might settle could be bigger. Some could have multiple landing zones, like Tuchanka and Rannoch in ME3, where we would choose the LZ based on which quest we were pursuing at the time.

-- I wouldn't mind seeing multiple aspects of the same planet. Maybe we find a fairly advanced civilization and we can visit a farming village, mining and manufacturing area, and metropolis with higher culture, all on the same planet.

Okay, I promised myself I wouldn't start getting hyped about this until it's released - so I better quit now.

[wolfhowwl]

We live in a world of finite resources and time?

[Torgette]

The problem with ME1 was that the planets were too empty and the planets with the sharp rocks were a nightmare to navigate.

The problem with DAI was that the side quest were not interesting, not enough motivation to go out there outside the promise of powerful schematics.

 

I am willing to sacrifice map size in favor of interesting quests and maps that are not empty.

 

DAI isn't the first open world rpg to encourage grinding even if unnecessary, Oblivion was rife with that stuff too. For me the problem for DAI was that grinding and exploring just wasn't as fun as it should've been, I don't mind collecting items or doing fetch quests if it's easy and fun - but DAI felt like walking through mud for that stuff. The side quests were actually written decently well but too many told you rather than showed you. I think Mass Effect is an inherently more fun series than Dragon Age (just my opinion) so I have more hope for an open world style ME, if nothing else the combat and vehicle parts will be a lot more fun. Hopefully the side quests show you some stuff too rather than just telling you.

[goishen]

We live in a world of finite resources and time?

 

 

The SR series did it.

 

I mean, hell, I just started a game of SR3 again the other day.

[RoboticWater]

The SR series did it.

 

I mean, hell, I just started a game of SR3 again the other day.

As fun as the Saints Row franchise is, I wouldn't describe its open world as particularly good nor its story incredibly deep. The world itself is neither visually distinct nor well detailed, the level design is nonexistent, missions are largely repetitive, there's hardly any enemy diversity, most of the weapons are bland, and the whole thing's unbalanced as hell. The story is lighthearted and occasionally quite insightful, but doesn't even attempt to delve deeper themes than power and friendship.

 

Saints Row (at least the third onward) gets away with a half-assed open world and superficial story because everything is so absurd. You're not meant to take it seriously. SR doesn't create a world to explore, it creates a sandbox to satiate an insane power fantasy. It sacrifices depth in nearly every one of its systems to achieve its scale, and that's not a thing I want for Mass Effect.

[goishen]

As fun as the Saints Row franchise is, I wouldn't describe its open world as particularly good nor its story incredibly deep. The world itself is neither visually distinct nor well detailed, the level design is nonexistent, missions are largely repetitive, there's hardly any enemy diversity, most of the weapons are bland, and the whole thing's unbalanced as hell. The story is lighthearted and occasionally quite insightful, but doesn't even attempt to delve deeper themes than power and friendship.

 

Saints Row (at least the third onward) gets away with a half-assed open world and superficial story because everything is so absurd. You're not meant to take it seriously. SR doesn't create a world to explore, it creates a sandbox to satiate an insane power fantasy. It sacrifices depth in nearly every one of its systems to achieve its scale, and that's not a thing I want for Mass Effect.

 

 

I could argue with you on most of these points...   However, I'll only agree with you that it doesn't delve deeper than power and friendship, seeing as these aren't the SR boards.

[NackterGolfer]

While I can see why people dislike the linearity of the levels in ME2/3 with their shooting gallery feel, I cannot agree. What I really like about ME is the combat, and how it changes depending on your build/class/squadmates, and also how it is woven in with cinematic cutscenes, decisions etc.

My main fear with an exploration heavy title would be that most of the combat gets generic and pointless like in DAI. Exploring interrupted all 30 seconds with a bear, some spiders or a band of raiders to kill? with practically no threat to the group seems too much like MMO-grinding. (for the lack of a better term)

In ME2/3 I had the feeling that many encounters were handcrafted and had a uniqueness to them. Just remember how the Atlas was introduced in Priority: Sur'kesh, or the Banshee in that monastery. A prime example would also be the Geth Colossus on Haestrom in ME2, lots of possibilites to deal with it. For me this adds replayability with all those different classes.

 

well enough of that.

 

I wonder though, what makes exploration fun? I cannot see the appeal in DAI. Running around the map collecting all the shards for that temple, materials for crafting etc. felt like a chore, the thing I thought I left behind when quitting all kinds of MMO.

Is it the reward of finding some hidden treasure or hidden boss monster or what is it exactly that people like about it?

[JeffZero]

It's a mixture of that and the opportunity to get immersed in beautiful landscapes without the constant dread of routine loading screens. To many, this simple concept, this form of enormity applied to exploration, probably makes video games begin to feel more like holodeck representations of their worlds, and less like narrow corridors.

 

I get the rationale behind the allure, I guess, but I've never found the idea even a fifth as captivating as most. I'd take segmented linearity with a tight storyline and handcrafted setpiece design philosophy over enormous playspaces with stilted and awkwardly-implemented narrative "sections" and rote routine combat encounters any day. I'm just not a big open world player... which makes the past couple of years in gaming a bit tedious for me. Everyone is obsessed with it, including BioWare. I'll have to continue digging through the "vastness" of their "vast" new titles for the content I play BioWare (#IPlayBioWare ) for, I suppose, as I did with Inquisition.

 

Yeah... like I said. This past couple of years has been kinda rough. I know it's bad when IGN asks Naughty Dog if they feel the pressure to make Uncharted 4 less of a linear experience. You've taken the relative linearity from my BioWare games, industry trends. You leave my Naughty Dog games alone dammit.

[Enrychan]

in a perfect world I would agree with those who say "why not both" - and yes both the story and exploration are important for a good RPG - but I know from experience that generally more open world = less resources dedicated to the actual storyline. And while I play Skyrim FOR its open world, I've always played the Bioware games for their stories and characters. That's the most important aspect for me that I really hope they won't water down just to give me "dozens of planets" to explore.

 

That's why I'm extremely concerned about that leak - it sounds terribly DAI-ish to me. I don't hate DAI, but I found the main storyline to be... not very interesting and/or engaging. The main antagonist was weak, the Breach-mcguffin was resolved with almost nothing of the "demonic apocalypse" the trailers promised. I even think that some of the DAI companions, like Blackwall and Vivienne, weren't perfectly fleshed out - which worries me a lot, since the companions were usually the saving grace of the Bioware games?

 

I just hope DAI was kind of an "experiment" to bring exploration back into their RPGs, but they will invest more in the ME4 storyline&characters, that's what I care for the most

[JeffZero]

That's the thing. I think the demon apocalypse is supposed to have been represented by all the rifts in the wild. For some this is preferable. "Show, don't tell."

For me, show me the emotionally resonant cinematics, please. I am not going to care that a rift occasionally spawns demons who circle around one-another at the base of some mountain that has two goats and a nug on it. Make me care; introduce me to a plethora of gripping characters and then kill one in front of my eyes. It's not rocket science, but open world games ain't got no time for all that; there be more mountains to render, with more rifts and goats and nugs, yo.

[Torgette]

That's the thing. I think the demon apocalypse is supposed to have been represented by all the rifts in the wild. For some this is preferable. "Show, don't tell."

For me, show me the emotionally resonant cinematics, please. I am not going to care that a rift occasionally spawns demons who circle around one-another at the base of some mountain that has two goats and a nug on it. Make me care; introduce me to a plethora of gripping characters and then kill one in front of my eyes. It's not rocket science, but open world games ain't got no time for all that; there be more mountains to render, with more rifts and goats and nugs, yo.

 

I thought Far Cry 4 did a good job of making you care about the locals with stuff like hostage situations and defending people from hordes of wild animals. Stuff like that could've very easily been incorporated into DAI, ie: there's a small village in the Exalted Plains with rifts in it but it's completely abandoned, they could've made closing that rift very rewarding if the village wasn't abandoned, same goes for the rift just outside the farm in the Hinterlands, etc. On the other hand you have rifts in the mage/templar missions that are incorporated into those stories, and you have the cult in the Hinterlands that doesn't trust you until you close a rift as well. A lot of the rifts though just feel randomly placed to fill the map with stuff to do.

[Daemul]

It's a mixture of that and the opportunity to get immersed in beautiful landscapes without the constant dread of routine loading screens. To many, this simple concept, this form of enormity applied to exploration, probably makes video games begin to feel more like holodeck representations of their worlds, and less like narrow corridors.

 

I get the rationale behind the allure, I guess, but I've never found the idea even a fifth as captivating as most. I'd take segmented linearity with a tight storyline and handcrafted setpiece design philosophy over enormous playspaces with stilted and awkwardly-implemented narrative "sections" and rote routine combat encounters any day. I'm just not a big open world player... which makes the past couple of years in gaming a bit tedious for me. Everyone is obsessed with it, including BioWare. I'll have to continue digging through the "vastness" of their "vast" new titles for the content I play BioWare (#IPlayBioWare ) for, I suppose, as I did with Inquisition.

 

Yeah... like I said. This past couple of years has been kinda rough. I know it's bad when IGN asks Naughty Dog if they feel the pressure to make Uncharted 4 less of a linear experience. You've taken the relative linearity from my BioWare games, industry trends. You leave my Naughty Dog games alone dammit.

 

Honestly, this is why over the past couple of years I've found myself moving more and more towards just playing straight up shooters like COD and Titanfall, since they're in one of the genres that completely rely on having tightly built and well designed levels in order for them to be enjoyable, otherwise they would suck. An open world COD, Titanfall or Battlefield would not work, so I can rest easy knowing that at least one genre of games will be free from the plague that is open world design, and I can just stick to playing it and games from other open world immune genres, like sports games, until the open world fad passes and everyone starts trying to copy something else. 

 

I know it sounds like I hate open world games but I really don't, what I hate is how terribly designed most of them are. Devs spend so much time building these massive worlds, but spend little time actually making them interesting and fun to explore. They think that fetch quests and boring side quests will be enough to give the world depth, but they never do, they actually make the games worse. It doesn't help that what all devs are actually doing is copy/pasting the model of, in my eyes, the biggest offenders of boring open worlds, Ubisoft. There's a reason the term "Ubisoft Open World" is now a meme, their open worlds are infamous for being filled with useless fetch quests and boring as f**k side stuff. 

 

If all ME4 is doing is copying the Ubisoft open world design then I ain't buying the game. It wouldn't surprise me since for the past number of years all Bioware have been doing is trying to copy whatever is popular at the time, so copying Ubisoft will be continuing the trend I guess. At least it shows that Bioware can actually be consistent in something 

[Majestic Jazz]

 

Like the OP said, Bioware tried to do both in DAI but it wasn't balanced well. Instead of an even experience, DAI's core story was probably like 10% of the entire game while the other 90% was more so of doing fetch quest in the dull open world. 

[Daemul]

I feel the same way

I'm sick of open world games at this point, people are (and as a result the developers) obsessed with it, I'm already afraid for TW 3 because like with DA:I the open world approach could really screw up the story

 

MGS V, DA:, ME4, TW3 etc. everything has to be turned into an open world game these days its a shame

I would rather have story and character focused games like The Last of Us or the ME Trilogy

sadly it seems we are in the minority with this

 

Everyone is trying to copy the Ubisoft Open World model since it's brought Ubisoft great success, but their games aren't actually selling as well as Ubisoft's do (Ubisoft games usually sell in the 10m+ range). That's the problem with clones, they never sell as much as the originals, since people will choose to buy the original over the copy instead. You'd think publishers would have learnt this after so many of them tried to copy COD last gen in an attempt to get the COD audience to buy their games, something which ended up failing in spectacular fashion. People who like COD players will play COD, not their clones, the same goes for people who like Ubisoft Open World games.  

[NackterGolfer]

So obviously exploring is like go somewhere and find something. The motivation behind it is challenge, reward and immersion. I don't necessarily see open world as evil/bad etc. But just for the sake of it?

 

I'm beginning to think if there wasn't every map in DAI cluttered with those shards, and there wasn't a trashmob every 10 metres, this would feel a lot different. A lot more immersive. I mean, you come to this desert place, and the whole desert is full of guys trying to kill you, like behind every dune is a whole camp of them. I guess maybe sometimes: less is more.

 

And maybe exploring would be a lot more interesting if you just know: yeah somewhere in this huge place there is a temple and in there is a fine handcrafted challenging dungeon, it's linear but it's awesome, you know and there isnt an arrow pointing straight towards it. And maybe you don't get ambushed every two steps by giant lizards, who then call their rhino friends, who then aggro another kind of giant lizard.

 

I guess I just feel, that in DA:I a lot of this random combat seems so unchallenging, because it's just some random monsters placed somewhere.

And it's not immersive to find random enemies behind every tree, corner, dune or whatever. At least they got the reward right. Here is your shard. Find a shitload more of them now.

 

But maybe exploring can be fun, even if it is only to try to complete a explore-mission as fast as possible. Ahh good old firewalker pack, you grew on me, seriously.

[Enigmatick]

I don't know about less "open world" but less collectable/dull wave fight/Ubisoft Tower bullshit is what it needs. Essentially it needs to take the Rockstar/Witcher 3 approach instead of the Ubisoft one.

 

Spoiler

It won't, the Ubisoft way is the cheapest way to produce an open world game

[goishen]

Honestly, this is why over the past couple of years I've found myself moving more and more towards just playing straight up shooters like COD and Titanfall, since they're in one of the genres that completely rely on having tightly built and well designed levels in order for them to be enjoyable, otherwise they would suck. An open world COD, Titanfall or Battlefield would not work, so I can rest easy knowing that at least one genre of games will be free from the plague that is open world design, and I can just stick to playing it and games from other open world immune genres, like sports games, until the open world fad passes and everyone starts trying to copy something else. 

 

 

 

Every few years this happens though.  It happened with Morrowwind (or is it Morrowind?).  It didn't really happen with Oblivion.  But now it's back with full force, with Skyrim.  I'd like to see Bethesda go out of business, but we all know that's not going to happen.  So, instead I'd just like to say to the dev's of this game, "Do what you're good at and don't copy anyone else."

 

Even if that means no penetrator.

 

Dammit.

[ApocAlypsE007]

DAI isn't the first open world rpg to encourage grinding even if unnecessary, Oblivion was rife with that stuff too. For me the problem for DAI was that grinding and exploring just wasn't as fun as it should've been, I don't mind collecting items or doing fetch quests if it's easy and fun - but DAI felt like walking through mud for that stuff. The side quests were actually written decently well but too many told you rather than showed you. I think Mass Effect is an inherently more fun series than Dragon Age (just my opinion) so I have more hope for an open world style ME, if nothing else the combat and vehicle parts will be a lot more fun. Hopefully the side quests show you some stuff too rather than just telling you.

I didn't say DAI is about grinding. You don't know what grinding is until you play something like Path of Exile (at least the loot there is far more extensive), I think outside of shard and mosiac chasing DAI got "grinding" right, it is a fun game to play, if a bit on the easy side after getting Skyhold. I couldn't stand oblivion because of the shallowness of everything.

 

Mass Effect 1 was much more of a chore to play, it was far emptier and the loot was far too simple, you didn't get reward outside of some generic 1 stat armor pieces that if you are lucky you sell them for a decent amount of money and buy Spectre guns. To this day I consider Mass Effect 2 the greatest Bioware game I've played, and I would be happy for a new Mass Effect game that repeats the formula but with more open ended stages instead of large empty maps.

[Torgette]

I didn't say DAI is about grinding. You don't know what grinding is until you play something like Path of Exile (at least the loot there is far more extensive), I think outside of shard and mosiac chasing DAI got "grinding" right, it is a fun game to play, if a bit on the easy side after getting Skyhold. I couldn't stand oblivion because of the shallowness of everything.

 

Mass Effect 1 was much more of a chore to play, it was far emptier and the loot was far too simple, you didn't get reward outside of some generic 1 stat armor pieces that if you are lucky you sell them for a decent amount of money and buy Spectre guns. To this day I consider Mass Effect 2 the greatest Bioware game I've played, and I would be happy for a new Mass Effect game that repeats the formula but with more open ended stages instead of large empty maps.

 

I actually played a lot of Path of Exile, game was fun! 

 

I agree that ME1 was a chore and I really don't want a clone of that game, but it had elements that if polished up to snuff and added to a modern open world game would make things inherently more fun. Personally I loved playing ME2 and 3, so I wouldn't mind another "linear" experience, but that's obviously not going to happen.

[von uber]

Part of the reason skyrim has been (and still is) popular and selling is down to the modding community.
Bethesda gave a world and a toolkit for people to use and create their own stories or content, which made the game richer (hell just a simple thing as being able to fix the ui through a mod meant that I played it much more than I would've; also means I am better disposed towards a sequel).


This is not going to happen with mass effect.