15883 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

The only thing I wonder about now is why isn't a phrase "these plums are wrecking my stomach" not a meme yet, like 'arrow to the knee' was for Skyrim.

 

I stumble upon it so frequently in fact that I wonder if we shouldn't round those peasants and use heir churning, gas producing stomachs as an ingenious weapon against Nilfgaardians...

 

Also - I think a professional mourner is on some sort of weird world-wide tour. Almost every village I enter, I hear her sobbing....

 

There is some repetition in TW3 and not all NPCs have something unique to say. That is true however of every RPG ever made, and likely will be true of any yet to be made. I think it is accurate however to say that a city like Novigrod is much more alive and fleshed out than Val Royeux or Redcliffe. 

[midnight tea]

There is some repetition in TW3 and not all NPCs have something unique to say. That is true however of every RPG ever made, and likely will be true of any yet to be made. I think it is accurate however to say that a city like Novigrod is much more alive and fleshed out than Val Royeux or Redcliffe. 

 

I don't mind repetition so long as I can make funny jokes or stories about it - in a lighthearted fashion  Though the reason I do so is because I'm too detail-oriented person to just not notice it...

 

I'm also not arguing about Novigrad, though neither Val Royeaux is a fully-realized city, nor is Redcliffe in any way as big as Novigrad. 

[KBomb]

So was I; bears and other predators were not on my list. And you may differentiate between small locales if desired; does not negate the notion that the Dalish in the Exalted Plains have a presence that influences the area.

That is the thing, Elhanan. There are no domesticated farm animals in the villages, sans the demon ram. The only other farm animal present are druffalo and those are only pinned in outskirting farms. The only horses present were at the Horsemaster, the camp in Storm Coast and the Refugee Camp in the Hinterlands, I believe. So, please. If I am mistaken, I welcome you to correct me. 

 

I stated that the villages in TW3 contained various farm animals such as chickens, geese, cats, dogs, pigs, goats, cows and horses and it made the villages feel more lived in. You replied with this:

 

[quoted]Elhanan, on 24 May 2015 - 12:33 AM, said:
Rams, Nugs, horses, Druffalo, Halla, and Mabari can be seen about the populated areas.[/quote]

 

 

I brought up once again that I meant villages and farm animals and you keep saying you mean that, too. The animals you mentioned are not in any of the villages. 

 

As for the dalish camp, when I am discussing villages and villages only, why would I accept the dalish camp as an example just because they have a camp in the Exalted Plains and influence the area? It isn't a village, so when talking about villages, it would make no sense. 

 

 

midnight_tea, on 28 May 2015 - 05:34 AM, said:
Yes, and they do so all day long, until they disappear for a few hours during the night, only to return to the very same activities later (even if it was pointed out to them that they shouldn't). There's no doubt that those activities and animations for them are way more varied than in DAI (though it's not like there's nothing going on in DAI as well, despite the claims), but I think Skyrim - or even Oblivion, or ESO for that matter - actually gave NPCs more complex lives than TW3 gave to most of their NPCs.

 

I will disagree with this. I have seen some NPCs doing laundry, then return later to find them working in the field. I have seen them skinning leather only to see them inside their house sweeping their floor the next time I come 'round. I am not sure how complex their lives are to be. They're simple peasants doing what simple peasants do. The animals do different things, too. I saw a black and white dog outside a pub chasing his tail. When I came back to sell some stuff, he was laying by a man who was sitting outside his house smoking a pipe. One kid was singing a song about something one day, a few days later, he was singing a song about me (Geralt).

 

As for conversation, it's more varied that DAI, but as Hans said, all RPG suffer from that. It isn't perfect, but still more living than DAI and pretty awesome on it's on.

[midnight tea]

That is the thing, Elhanan. There are no domesticated farm animals in the villages, sans the demon ram. The only other farm animal present are druffalo and those are only pinned in outskirting farms. The only horses present were at the Horsemaster, the camp in Storm Coast and the Refugee Camp in the Hinterlands, I believe. So, please. If I am mistaken, I welcome you to correct me. 

 

I stated that the villages in TW3 contained various farm animals such as chickens, geese, cats, dogs, pigs, goats, cows and horses and it made the villages feel more lived in. You replied with this:

 

 

I brought up once again that I meant villages and farm animals and you keep saying you mean that, too. The animals you mentioned are not in any of the villages. 

 

As for the dalish camp, when I am discussing villages and villages only, why would I accept the dalish camp as an example just because they have a camp in the Exalted Plains and influence the area? It isn't a village, so when talking about villages, it would make no sense. 

 

 

Thing is that in Inquisition there weren't really that many villages to begin with - Witcher has A TON of tiny villages, but most of them are built from the same assets - there was a reason to actually add that many elements to provide some diversity, otherwise you'd quickly realize how same things are used over and over again.

 

On the other hand settlements in DAI were either too big (we only see a chunk of Val Royeaux) or nowhere near areas that are actively farmed on significant scale to see that many farm animals to begin with, so most of these 'village assets' would be used too sparsely to put so much work  or designin them in the first place.

 

So it's comparing apples to oranges, really. Not to mention sad... are we stooping so low as to count the amount of farm animals/wildlife now? What will be next then? Counting flowers?

[Innsmouth Dweller]

no. it's a discussion about implementation of open world concept. from what i see TW3 did it much better than DAI because it feels like real open world, it's full of randomness and life, not a WoW map

[Dreadstruck]

You can also scare people with Geralt's powers. In Novigrod when some random NPC calls Geralt a mutant or a freak, you can activate one of the signs. Geralt won't fully cast, but if you've got Igni selected for example he'll snap his fingers at the NPC and sparks will ignite off of him. Because many people fear magic in the Witcherverse, the NPCs will often scream and run away. If you do it to Guards or Witch Hunters, they'll attack.

You can also do something less flashy. Click on the NPCs with the mouse button and Geralt will motion with his fist like he wants to hit them. They either run away in terror or draw their own weapon, telling you to ****** off. Depending on NPC.

 

I imagine you could have a lot of fun with that, if you wanted to roleplay Geralt who has a bad day.

[KaiserShep]

NPC interaction is definitely something that needs to be greatly improved in DA. If I waltz around Val Royeaux and push past some snooty Orlesian, I'd love to see his/her reaction to my rudeness.

[KBomb]

Thing is that in Inquisition there weren't really that many villages to begin with - Witcher has A TON of tiny villages, but most of them are built from the same assets - there was a reason to actually add that many elements to provide some diversity, otherwise you'd quickly realize how same things are used over and over again.

 

On the other hand settlements in DAI were either too big (we only see a chunk of Val Royeaux) or nowhere near areas that are actively farmed on significant scale to see that many farm animals to begin with, so most of these 'village assets' would be used too sparsely to put so much work  or designin them in the first place.

 

So it's comparing apples to oranges, really. Not to mention sad... are we stooping so low as to count the amount of farm animals/wildlife now? What will be next then? Counting flowers?

There certainly aren't many villages in DAI, which is a shame and the ones that do exist are also made from the same assets. There is no diversity at all really. Plain wooden buildings vs. burned and dilapidated houses. Very little effort went into making them appear lived in--compared with TW3, which is what we're doing. Saying that DAI could design better villages. It isn't apples and oranges in what they are, just how they're executed.

 

No need to be flippant about counting animals. It was a discussion about farm animals lending and villagers giving villages flair and substance. It was pointed out by Elhanan that DAI had those same elements, which led into a discussion about the weight behind that statement. Variety is a valid want and the lack of it a valid complaint. 

[midnight tea]

no. it's a discussion about implementation of open world concept. from what i see TW3 did it much better than DAI because it feels like real open world, it's full of randomness and life, not a WoW map

 

Only these aren't worlds that can be straightforwardly compared - both focus on different things. That is not to say that I don't thin there's no room for improvement for DA, as I enjoy things CDPR has done with TW3 (since I live in Poland I have to say... I swear to God, they nailed our countryside PERFECTLY. It sometimes feels as if they've introduced magical elements and transported some shabby houses to my neighborhood), but arguing about how lively villages and counting farm animals is just a hilariously wrong direction to take, when arguing about details in design direction taken by both games. 

[Das Tentakel]

The comparison between Skyrim NPC’s and Witcher III NPC extras made earlier isn’t entirely relevant, as they are few in number, which allows for more complex routines. Apart from the guards, they are also named and are often tied to one or more quests. It’s probably also the reason why Elder Scrolls settlements are very small and way too ‘compacted’ to be really believable (above the hamlet level, that is).
Individual NPC behaviour is therefore better in Skyrim, but the overall impression of the medium-sized and large settlements is better in Witcher III. Ideally, Witcher III would have repetitive ‘basic’ routines for the NPC extras and more complex ones for named secondary NPC’s (artisans, traders, minor questgivers etc.). Perhaps in the next game?

Now regarding DA, large and complex settlements with numerous and more dynamic NPC’s (both extras and ‘dynamic’ named NPC’s) may cause problems because of pathfinding. Not a problem for a single-character game, but having an entire party tagging along is something else. There might be ways around it; perhaps the party could automatically disband (‘yay, we’re back in civilisation, off to the inn etc.’) when entering a larger settlement, but get together automatically when you enter an urban dungeon or during the night, when the streets are empty.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Only these aren't worlds that can be straightforwardly compared - both focus on different things. That is not to say that I don't thin there's no room for improvement for DA, as I enjoy things CDPR has done with TW3 (since I live in Poland I have to say... I swear to God, they nailed our countryside PERFECTLY. It sometimes feels as if they've introduced magical elements and transported some shabby houses to my neighborhood), but arguing about how lively villages and counting farm animals is just a hilariously wrong direction to take, when arguing about details in design direction taken by both games. 

i think the only fair thing to say is:

tbh, i'm not sure what's the 'open world focus' in DAI

 

 

Now regarding DA, large and complex settlements with numerous and more dynamic NPC’s (both extras and ‘dynamic’ named NPC’s) may cause problems because of pathfinding. Not a problem for a single-character game, but having an entire party tagging along is something else. There might be ways around it; perhaps the party could automatically disband (‘yay, we’re back in civilisation, off to the inn etc.’) when entering a lager settlement, but get together automatically when you enter an urban dungeon or during the night, when the streets are empty. 

i'm not sure how dynamic NPCs are relevant to pathfinding. there is no neighbourhood detection algorithm in place? oh right, last gen and new FPS engine

[midnight tea]

There certainly aren't many villages in DAI, which is a shame and the ones that do exist are also made from the same assets. There is no diversity at all really. Plain wooden buildings vs. burned and dilapidated houses. Very little effort went into making them appear lived in--compared with TW3, which is what we're doing. Saying that DAI could design better villages. It isn't apples and oranges in what they are, just how they're executed.

 

No need to be flippant about counting animals. It was a discussion about farm animals lending and villagers giving villages flair and substance. It was pointed out by Elhanan that DAI had those same elements, which led into a discussion about the weight behind that statement. Variety is a valid want and the lack of it a valid complaint. 

 

 

If small settlements are actually an important feature in the game (as it's in case of Witcher) and it isn't as much in DAI, then it IS comparing apples to oranges (in that particular area), which is my entire point.

[midnight tea]

i think the only fair thing to say is:

tbh, i'm not sure what's the 'open world focus' in DAI

 

Exploration, hunting lore, securing alliances and agents, stabilizing region and gaining power and influence... I'm not exactly sure what's NOT sure to be there, when it comes to purpose? Not to mention that different zones have different objectives in them - in one, you hunt for clues that help you eliminate red lyrium mines and track Corypheus' lieutenant, in another you secure horses for Inquisition and help refugees, in yet another you get rid of giant underwater rift, in yet another you occupy the keep in order to re-establish trade routes...

[Innsmouth Dweller]

no, no... i mean the "open world focus". exploration is one of features. i don't think hunting and lore are key elements of open-worldness

[midnight tea]

... Did I mention only 'exploration' or 'lore-hunting' in my post?

[Innsmouth Dweller]

you didn't mention how it applies to 'open world focus' tho. i disregarded them as a part of gameplay that's common among other designes.

[KBomb]

If small settlements are actually an important feature in the game (as it's in case of Witcher) and it isn't as much in DAI, then it IS comparing apples to oranges in (that particular area), which is my entire point.

Both games regarded their "open worldness" as an important feature. Not every single village in TW3 is vital either. Comparing the features of one "open world" game to the features of another, especially when discussing an element both contain, such as villages, it is a very fair comparison to say, "Game A has a much more lively village atmosphere than Game B." If a feature contains similar elements, those elements can be compared. Both have a Masked Ball, both have a major market town, both claim to have open world elements--these are things you can compare, especially when it comes to an ambiance. 

 

Some people seem to be more bothered about what the comparison reveals, rather than what the comparison is. It doesn't have to be that way.

[midnight tea]

you didn't mention how it applies to 'open world focus' tho. i disregarded them as a part of gameplay that's common among other designes.

 

Why would you disregard specific mentions of what Inquisitor does, when his or her actions and objectives are different from those of Geralt, hence giving you idea of DAI's focus? 

 

The Witcher travels around specific area to find his long-lost foster daughter - meanwhile, he fulfills Witcher contracts, while occasionally stumbling on other people problems and more or less random treasure hunt. 

 

Inquisitor and Inquisition on he other hand are focused on things that help build the Inqusition from grounds up - gaining people, agents, allies, recognition, stabilizing regions and playing political games... while occasionally stumbling on other people problems and more or less random treasure hunt.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

because i want to compare open world elements between two games, which were advertised as open-world games, without comparing aspects that are unique to each game.

gaining people equals interacting with people. if that's what inquisitor really does, i don't see the difference between him/her and Geralt's interaction with world. the world of Geralt seems more... interactable than the other.

 

EDIT:

i never played TW3, just relying on reviews/people's comments. i might be wrong, my opinions are my own and all that crap

[midnight tea]

Both games regarded their "open worldness" as an important feature. Not every single village in TW3 is vital either. Comparing the features of one "open world" game to the features of another, especially when discussing an element both contain, such as villages, it is a very fair comparison to say, "Game A has a much more lively village atmosphere than Game B." If a feature contains similar elements, those elements can be compared. Both have a Masked Ball, both have a major market town, both claim to have open world elements--these are things you can compare, especially when it comes to an ambiance. 

 

Some people seem to be more bothered about what the comparison reveals, rather than what the comparison is. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

"Open worldness" doesn't mean "sameness". DAI provides open maps of very different geographic areas with very different landscapes - from snow-covered mountainous areas, through swamps and stormy shores to deserts (and even magical realm of the Fade). Practically every map is visually different (with less variation between desert areas).

 

And so far areas in Witcher are fairly similar (Polish countryside!), which provides multitude of opportunities to recycle similar-looking assets, with no necessity to swapping those to something entirely different. If you think that doesn't impact how world or elements in it are designed - think again. It's all about being smart with what you have.

 

The vitality of every settlement in Witcher is also irrelevant, considering that elements to build those smaller villages are already in the game - they don't have to be designed form grounds up. Add a few wooden huts with straw roof, some animals and peasants here and there for some 'liveliness' and voila - instant little village. 

 

And this isn't about TW3 bothering me in any way - you actually can't imagine how happy I am of success of The Witcher franchise (one of reasons being: more opportunities for game developers on local market which also equals more jobs for people like me) - the only thing that bothers me here is shortsightedness.

[Das Tentakel]

Both games regarded their "open worldness" as an important feature. Not every single village in TW3 is vital either. Comparing the features of one "open world" game to the features of another, especially when discussing an element both contain, such as villages, it is a very fair comparison to say, "Game A has a much more lively village atmosphere than Game B." If a feature contains similar elements, those elements can be compared. Both have a Masked Ball, both have a major market town, both claim to have open world elements--these are things you can compare, especially when it comes to an ambiance.

Some people seem to be more bothered about what the comparison reveals, rather than what the comparison is. It doesn't have to be that way.

Apart from an absolute difference in ‘liveliness’ between, say, Oreton or Midcopse in Witcher III and the Keeps and smaller settlements like Redcliffe and Crestwood: Villages and hamlets in Witcher III form part of the overall ‘visual worldbuilding’ approach. It helps to create an overall impression of an inhabited and developed landscape, which is probably one of the most important reasons why there are so many little settlements.
As such, it probably is too ‘compact’ as a realistic portrayal of even the most densely populated medieval European landscape, but the impression it gives actually feels ‘right’. I’m speaking here as somebody who has a reasonably good knowledge of settlement density in my home country (Netherlands); almost all current cities, villages and hamlets were in existence by the end of the high medieval period (13th century), and they really were in relative close proximity to each other, even by modern standards. The more empty areas of woodland and swamp also give a good impression of where the uninhabited or less densely populated areas would be.

The overall set-up of the villages and hamlets, with a (admittedly repetitive and superficial if you look close enough) fairly high degree of liveliness is an absolutely superior piece of visual worldbuilding in Witcher III. It’s still open to improvement, though, by implementing more visual and behavioural variety. One thing that is clearly missing, for instance, is the existence of more substantial houses belonging to village notables or minor country nobles. That would also add some variety. Another minor thing is that the watermills and windmills are all locked and probably lack the proper interiors. All that, however, is probably a question of future evolution.
Still, in an open world game with plenty of villages and hamlets it’s not all that necessary that they are all unique and chock full of quests: Their mechanical uses are limited, but their worldbuilding / immersion impact is pretty big. Villages were and are in reality usually not that distinctive anyway.

Visual uniqueness, complex questlines and other game-mechanical aspects are a key aspect of the large settlements in an RPG. In Skyrim that would be the ‘cities’ like Whiterun, Solitude and Markarth, in Witcher III Novigrad, Oxenfurt and medium-sized places like Crow’s Perch and Kaer Trolde. In DA:O that was Orzammar and Denerim, in DA:I Haven and Skyhold. Redcliffe and Val Royeaux aren’t that prominent in the game, they are perhaps somewhat comparable to, say, Crow’s Perch (in function, not in looks or atmosphere) but they simply aren’t comparable to Skyrim’s Whiterun, let alone Witcher III’s Novigrad.

Anyway, none of the DA:I zones gave a good impression of an inhabited or formerly inhabited landscape (a single village and a few scattered farms or ruins don’t really count). Skyrim did this better and Witcher III did it best (though far from perfect).

[KBomb]

"Open worldness" doesn't mean "sameness". DAI provides open maps of very different geographic areas with very different landscapes - from snow-covered mountainous areas, through swamps and stormy shores to deserts (and even magical realm of the Fade). Practically every map is visually different (with less variation between desert areas).

 

And so far areas in Witcher are fairly similar (Polish countryside!), which provides multitude of opportunities to recycle similar-looking assets, with no necessity to swapping those to something entirely different. If you think that doesn't impact how world or elements in it are designed - think again. It's all about being smart with what you have.

 

The vitality of every settlement in Witcher is also irrelevant, considering that elements to build those smaller villages are already in the game - they don't have to be designed form grounds up. Add a few wooden huts with straw roof, some animals and peasants here and there for some 'liveliness' and voila - instant little village. 

 

And this isn't about TW3 bothering me in any way - you actually can't imagine how happy I am of success of The Witcher franchise (one of reasons being: more opportunities for game developers on local market which also equals more jobs for people like me) - the only thing that bothers me here is shortsightedness.

I never said they were the same. I said they had similar elements and both games advertised open world. Landscape or geography had nothing to do with my points, either. Both games used copy/paste (over simplification, I know) buildings, NPCs and the like. I am talking about the effort that went into it and while a lot of the houses are the same in TW3, they are spread out and even differ in some places. I agree, it's working with what you have--unfortunately DAI fell a bit short in their village and town design. Val Royeaux should have been much more than it was. 

 

I am not stating that DAI or DA4 should make their villages look just like TW3 or have every element the same, I am saying that DAI could have had more lively feeling places and I wish it would have had more of a lived in feeling to it. It felt stale and I thought that way before TW3 came out. The Summer Bazaar felt lacking in every way. I can wish that it felt more alive, like Novigrad. You can think DAI had wonderful, lively villages and that's okay. I don't feel that way. We don't have to agree. 

 

 

You can call shortsightedness, but it's shortsighted to take every suggestion and constructive criticism as an attack that has to be defended and championed. 

[KBomb]

Apart from an absolute difference in ‘liveliness’ between, say, Oreton or Midcopse in Witcher III and the Keeps and smaller settlements like Redcliffe and Crestwood: Villages and hamlets in Witcher III form part of the overall ‘visual worldbuilding’ approach. It helps to create an overall impression of an inhabited and developed landscape, which is probably one of the most important reasons why there are so many little settlements.
As such, it probably is too ‘compact’ as a realistic portrayal of even the most densely populated medieval European landscape, but the impression it gives actually feels ‘right’. I’m speaking here as somebody who has a reasonably good knowledge of settlement density in my home country (Netherlands); almost all current cities, villages and hamlets were in existence by the end of the high medieval period (13th century), and they really were in relative close proximity to each other, even by modern standards. The more empty areas of woodland and swamp also give a good impression of where the uninhabited or less densely populated areas would be.

The overall set-up of the villages and hamlets, with a (admittedly repetitive and superficial if you look close enough) fairly high degree of liveliness is an absolutely superior piece of visual worldbuilding in Witcher III. It’s still open to improvement, though, by implementing more visual and behavioural variety. One thing that is clearly missing, for instance, is the existence of more substantial houses belonging to village notables or minor country nobles. That would also add some variety. Another minor thing is that the watermills and windmills are all locked and probably lack the proper interiors. All that, however, is probably a question of future evolution.
Still, in an open world game with plenty of villages and hamlets it’s not all that necessary that they are all unique and chock full of quests: Their mechanical uses are limited, but their worldbuilding / immersion impact is pretty big. Villages were and are in reality usually not that distinctive anyway.

Visual uniqueness, complex questlines and other game-mechanical aspects are a key aspect of the large settlements in an RPG. In Skyrim that would be the ‘cities’ like Whiterun, Solitude and Markarth, in Witcher III Novigrad, Oxenfurt and medium-sized places like Crow’s Perch and Kaer Trolde. In DA:O that was Orzammar and Denerim, in DA:I Haven and Skyhold. Redcliffe and Val Royeaux aren’t that prominent in the game, they are perhaps somewhat comparable to, say, Crow’s Perch (in function, not in looks or atmosphere) but they simply aren’t comparable to Skyrim’s Whiterun, let alone Witcher III’s Novigrad.

Anyway, none of the DA:I zones gave a good impression of an inhabited or formerly inhabited landscape (a single village and a few scattered farms or ruins don’t really count). Skyrim did this better and Witcher III did it best (though far from perfect).

This is a very well written post and nicely thought out. Thumbs up. I agree TW3 is far from perfect in every concept, but it did strike the right spots quite often and at least it set up a good foundation for other games to build upon when considering moving on to a more open world concept. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Anyone seen any sales numbers for TW3, outside of the "1.5 million pre-orders" headline before release?

[Grieving Natashina]

That's the only numbers out there, although apparently TW3 is the top debuting game in the UK for 2015.