429 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Right.

 

The thing with DAI is it just seems too long, especially for a completionist run.  I would rather MEA be shorter, but have more replayability.

 

Bioware was genuinely befuddled that people were completionists to such an extent. They just never anticipated people would try and run through all this content in one go, so it was mostly there as a "stuff to do while running around" or "stuff to do while meeting the minimum influence cut-off". There's either some twitter exchanges with Laidlaw or an interview where, basically, he expresses the deer-in-headlights reaction. So I anticipate ME:A will approach the issue differently. 

[Kabraxal]

Bioware was genuinely befuddled that people were completionists to such an extent. They just never anticipated people would try and run through all this content in one go, so it was mostly there as a "stuff to do while running around" or "stuff to do while meeting the minimum influence cut-off". There's either some twitter exchanges with Laidlaw or an interview where, basically, he expresses the deer-in-headlights reaction. So I anticipate ME:A will approach the issue differently. 

 

I think some didn't leave the Hinterlands before completing it was due to instances in Dragon Age games where certain regions get locked or quests are failed/abandoned once you reach a certain point.  I didn't think it would myself, but I could see where some might have thought the Hinterlands or sections of it would turn into Lothering.

[Sartoz]

Bioware was genuinely befuddled that people were completionists to such an extent. They just never anticipated people would try and run through all this content in one go, so it was mostly there as a "stuff to do while running around" or "stuff to do while meeting the minimum influence cut-off". There's either some twitter exchanges with Laidlaw or an interview where, basically, he expresses the deer-in-headlights reaction. So I anticipate ME:A will approach the issue differently. 

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>

 

With 100s of planets? With explorable areas that are supposedly huge? Where the studio said they want you to stick around after a mission?

 

If, the studio actually learned a lesson and decided to do something different, here are my thoughts:

 

Of the supposed 100s of planets -

1. 70 are AI only explorable

2. 5 are the Home Worlds of the major local races.

3. A Citadel like HUB is where we will meet the major players.

 

Of the remaining 25 planets to explore.

4. 15 planets are visited via major missions.

5. 10 planets are visited via NPC quests and via minor missions.

 

Note on 3 + 4-5:

The HUB will contain quests + we may revisit some of the 25 planets also via quests. Also, the HUB may contain alien mercenary recruitment centres.

 

6. 10 of the 25 planets will be very well designed and filled with "good stuff". Settlements, bars, way points. mercenary recruitment centres from large human settlements, animal hunting, ancient Remnant ruins / labs / outposts.. etc.

 

Why those numbers? My jaded persona says it's to contain costs and time and resources + my tea leaves reading skills are always in need of improvement. Nevertheless, the breakdown provides for the major story arc and plenty of side quests to do and allows for Bio's "sticking around" comment and for their "focus on exploration" statement.

 

What do you think?

[In Exile]

I think some didn't leave the Hinterlands before completing it was due to instances in Dragon Age games where certain regions get locked or quests are failed/abandoned once you reach a certain point.  I didn't think it would myself, but I could see where some might have thought the Hinterlands or sections of it would turn into Lothering.

 

People just naturally assume that quests in regions are meant to be done sequentially. There are lots of reasons for this, including our most basic nature: we tend to think related **** is located nearby geophysically, because that's how it usually works. In fact it's a rare exception that you basically location hop constantly. But Bioware is also totally incapable of understanding the concept of travel (see: the number of times the Inquisitor randomly crosses 50% of Orlais for dinner). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The truth is AAA RPGs are at a convergence point that convergence is open world with strong narratively driven stores that has a relatively predefined character. If you don't like any of these aspects you are not going to like today's AAA RPGs. This is just the reality. The success of DA:I, witcher 3 and fallout 4 all point that there is zero reason for any other these studios to do a 180 from this position.

You think DAI had a predefined character?

The strong narrative can work if we're not forced to engage with it on the developer's terms (DAI did this well, FO4 did not). But the pre-defined character is a game-breaker for me, and I don't think DAI did that at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

People just naturally assume that quests in regions are meant to be done sequentially.

That's stupid.

But Bioware is also totally incapable of understanding the concept of travel (see: the number of times the Inquisitor randomly crosses 50% of Orlais for dinner).

That is also stupid.

[In Exile]

That's stupid.
That is also stupid.

Sorry, sequentially is the wrong word (or better said, imprecise). The natural assumption is that events and requests that arise at the same (or similar) time and are to the same (or similar) events are related, and so are naturally handled in related fashion. DA:I of course freezes the world in a perpetual limbo where time has no meaning, but where there is passage of time, the mere fact that you're travelling away from these places should change what's happening. Have you ever played Age of Decadence (it's a decedent RPG, I recommend it if you haven't)? Travelling from far away towns leads to auto-resolutions for quests - events are in motion without you and leaving leads to things running their course. And in fact depending on your faction choices your arrival times differ too. 

[Kabraxal]

Sorry, sequentially is the wrong word (or better said, imprecise). The natural assumption is that events and requests that arise at the same (or similar) time and are to the same (or similar) events are related, and so are naturally handled in related fashion. DA:I of course freezes the world in a perpetual limbo where time has no meaning, but where there is passage of time, the mere fact that you're travelling away from these places should change what's happening. Have you ever played Age of Decadence (it's a decedent RPG, I recommend it if you haven't)? Travelling from far away towns leads to auto-resolutions for quests - events are in motion without you and leaving leads to things running their course. And in fact depending on your faction choices your arrival times differ too. 

 

That's gaming in general though.. most people actually do not want to be so restricted to having to do side quests in a certain timeframe or within a certain region before being able to move on.  There are very few games that actually do what you describe.  It just wouldn't be too popular.

[Gothfather]

You think DAI had a predefined character?

The strong narrative can work if we're not forced to engage with it on the developer's terms (DAI did this well, FO4 did not). But the pre-defined character is a game-breaker for me, and I don't think DAI did that at all.

Yes I do.

 

You are the Inquisitor period. You are limited in how said inquisitor can behave to a certain extent which is why i am surprised you like the game because the limits on the character are the same as most Bioware games that you complain about. As with ALL bioware games you have a very predefined character that as always can have limited variations on their background. It is impossible to play a Qunari who is an ex member of the Qun. You were NEVER part of the Qun your parents were Tal-Vashoth. You can not be a Human commoner that isn't an option you are a Noble period no ands ifs or buts about it. You can not play a city elf that isn't an option. The point i am making is that the divergent backgrounds for character concepts just don't exist in DA:I. I personally don't feel this is a problem because I have NEVER ascribed role playing to player agency or character creation, especially character concept creation. They key has always been taking a role other than your own and making choices based on what you think would motive this new role.

 

You are limited in player agency in DA:I with the choices you can choose as well. In DA:O it was possible to be a psychotic warden. It isn't possible in DA:I to be a Psychotic Inquisitor again clear limits on player agency and yet again I think this is a sign of good game development. The Narrative in DA:I has no room for a psychotic and thus the player isn't given the option which I think is a sign of strength of design because they are not trying to force in agency for the player where is doesn't fit the story they are trying to tell. This limit is part of how predefined the Inquisitor is, I found the inquistor as predefined as Shepard, Reven in Kotor and so on. They have all been relatively predefined with variations allowed within limits.

 

It has always been my contention that the player has a responsibility to make a character that FITS the game not just make a character they want to make because they think it is a cool concept. Players are minor partners to the cRPG story and it has always been that way but now with more complex and detailed stories being told by games it is more difficult if not impossible to hide the fact the player doesn't really have as much agency as they thought they did.

[Guanxii]

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>

 

With 100s of planets? With explorable areas that are supposedly huge? Where the studio said they want you to stick around after a mission?

 

If, the studio actually learned a lesson and decided to do something different, here are my thoughts:

 

Of the supposed 100s of planets -

1. 70 are AI only explorable

2. 5 are the Home Worlds of the major local races.

3. A Citadel like HUB is where we will meet the major players.

 

Of the remaining 25 planets to explore.

4. 15 planets are visited via major missions.

5. 10 planets are visited via NPC quests and via minor missions.

 

Note on 3 + 4-5:

The HUB will contain quests + we may revisit some of the 25 planets also via quests. Also, the HUB may contain alien mercenary recruitment centres.

 

6. 10 of the 25 planets will be very well designed and filled with "good stuff". Settlements, bars, way points. mercenary recruitment centres from large human settlements, animal hunting, ancient Remnant ruins / labs / outposts.. etc.

 

Why those numbers? My jaded persona says it's to contain costs and time and resources + my tea leaves reading skills are always in need of improvement. Nevertheless, the breakdown provides for the major story arc and plenty of side quests to do and allows for Bio's "sticking around" comment and for their "focus on exploration" statement.

 

What do you think?

 

Some decent guestimating there. I think you have to bare in mind though that the Helios cluster is probably about the size of the Perseus-Veil and if we were outsiders visiting there that would give us a pretty warped view of the milky way galaxy. That is to say I believe it's highly unlikely that more than one of the major species in Andromeda has a homeworld here. Outposts, colonies and trade-worlds though sure. But it's too soon to see new homeworlds besides a codex entry imo. It takes years of writing, interaction & concept art to hone the culture and values of a species to inform their architectural styles & landscape. If BioWare rushed Thessia in ME1 not only would have been way off base but it would have killed off a lot of the mystery & allure of the species wouldn't it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes I do.

You are the Inquisitor period. You are limited in how said inquisitor can behave to a certain extent which is why i am surprised you like the game because the limits on the character are the same as most Bioware games that you complain about. As with ALL bioware games you have a very predefined character that as always can have limited variations on their background. It is impossible to play a Qunari who is an ex member of the Qun. You were NEVER part of the Qun your parents were Tal-Vashoth. You can not be a Human commoner that isn't an option you are a Noble period no ands ifs or buts about it. You can not play a city elf that isn't an option. The point i am making is that the divergent backgrounds for character concepts just don't exist in DA:I. I personally don't feel this is a problem because I have NEVER ascribed role playing to player agency or character creation, especially character concept creation. They key has always been taking a role other than your own and making choices based on what you think would motive this new role.

You are limited in player agency in DA:I with the choices you can choose as well. In DA:O it was possible to be a psychotic warden. It isn't possible in DA:I to be a Psychotic Inquisitor again clear limits on player agency and yet again I think this is a sign of good game development. The Narrative in DA:I has no room for a psychotic and thus the player isn't given the option which I think is a sign of strength of design because they are not trying to force in agency for the player where is doesn't fit the story they are trying to tell. This limit is part of how predefined the Inquisitor is, I found the inquistor as predefined as Shepard, Reven in Kotor and so on. They have all been relatively predefined with variations allowed within limits.

It has always been my contention that the player has a responsibility to make a character that FITS the game not just make a character they want to make because they think it is a cool concept. Players are minor partners to the cRPG story and it has always been that way but now with more complex and detailed stories being told by games it is more difficult if not impossible to hide the fact the player doesn't really have as much agency as they thought they did.

I try to make characters I can play, which means I look for the gaps that are available. I don't intentionally create unsupported characters.

My complaint with ME and DA2 isn't that there are no gaps (though there aren't enough in ME3); it's that the gaps are invisible until it's too late to take advantage of them.

I do make characters who fit the game (if possible). What I don't do is make characters who fit the narrative, because I don't grant the narrative any particular importance. I won't even necessarily concede that it's there; instead, I'll see a great many discrete events which might not be related.

Yes, at some point in DAI my character will become the Inquisitor (assuming she lives that long). But that tells me nothing about whether she wants to be the Inquisitor, or whether she thinks making her the Inquisitor was a good idea, or what she thinks the Inquisitor's job is, or if she cares. Being the Inquisitor might not even be something she considered relevant.

Being the Warden is arguably more of a burden, because being a Warden is ultimately fatal (though that can also create motives).

I'm not claiming I can design any character and see DAI support it, nor do I think CRPGs should even aspire to do that. What I think CRPGs should do is leave us alone to engage with the content as we see fit, and I think DAI (and DAO) do that really well.

At least on the uncharted worlds, so does Mass Effect.

BioWare has made CRPGs that allow us near total freedom to define our characters' backgrounds, but they've only done that twice, in NWN and KotOR. Clearly that's not a make-or-break for me; KotOR is only my fifth or sixth favourite BioWare game.

Oh, and if we thought we had agency, we had agency. No one else can judge that. I made all the decisions for my characters that I thought I did. Remember: Death of Author. The devs' intent never matters, not even a little bit.

[straykat]

I try to make characters I can play, which means I look for the gaps that are available. I don't intentionally create unsupported characters.
 

 

That's admirable.. and I try to do that. But I think it's especially restrictive when it gets in the way of a class archetype. I can work with it, but no one really plays rogues to be a Sebastian (like I mentioned earlier).

 

For all of their focused presentation, Shepard and Hawke never got in the way of that.

 

The DAI backstory for mages worked effortlessly for me, but it's the opposite problem. I just don't like how they played. Not sure what's worse.

[Patricia08]

I REALLY hope they go with the Witcher 3 route and give unique characters, cutscenes and story to every side quest. 

 

I wonder why you do that because lately i see a lot of you out there who compare Bioware games with The Witcher 3.

[straykat]

I wonder why you do that because lately i see a lot of you out there who compare Bioware games with The Witcher 3.

 

One thing I will say is that it's something Bioware did themselves more once. So you don't even have to mention the Witcher.

 

The Witcher devs were Bioware fans... they even got help from Bioware once.

[Nitrocuban]

A fetch quest once in a while isn't that bad imho, it really depends on how rare they are and what we do in between.

[straykat]

A fetch quest once in a while isn't that bad imho, it really depends on how rare they are and what we do in between.

 

How was DA2 to you? It has it's share of bad fetch quests. But at the same time, it had a lot of story based ones too.

[AngryFrozenWater]

For some reason everyone points to DA:I when it comes to bad fetch quests, but people seem to forget the horrible ME3 ones.

 

The quest givers were usually found on the Citadel and the quest items usually found elsewhere. You could get the quests, by passing NPCs or listening to their conversations. In that case you got the quest automatically. You were unable to refuse them. Sometimes the names of logs indicated where to find the quest giver or where to find the item, but this "system" was random. Their log entries were confusing, because it was hard to find out whether or not you'd found an item. To complete them you had to visit the Citadel and check the maps of each level to find the quest giver. If some NPC showed up there then you probably found an item. There was no way you could find that info on the Normandy. Some of these quests were extremely buggy and a few worked fine in one run and in the next playthrough could not be completed.

 

The buggy fetch quests didn't bother the ME-team at all. As long as these didn't crash the system, they couldn't care less.

[Patricia08]

One thing I will say is that it's something Bioware did themselves more once. So you don't even have to mention the Witcher.

 

The Witcher devs were Bioware fans... they even got help from Bioware once.

 

Okay i did not know that. 

[Patricia08]

Dear BioWare,

 

Please no stupid fetch quests like in DA: Inquisition.

 

Thank you!

 

For me personally i don't mind the fetch quests at all and i 'm glad that they are there. 

[Gwydden]

That's admirable.. and I try to do that. But I think it's especially restrictive when it gets in the way of a class archetype. I can work with it, but no one really plays rogues to be a Sebastian (like I mentioned earlier).

I do. Rogue versus warrior is just about combat style. A devious knight sounds just as plausible as a noble archer.

[Sartoz]

Some decent guestimating there. I think you have to bare in mind though that the Helios cluster is probably about the size of the Perseus-Veil and if we were outsiders visiting there that would give us a pretty warped view of the milky way galaxy. That is to say I believe it's highly unlikely that more than one of the major species in Andromeda has a homeworld here. Outposts, colonies and trade-worlds though sure. But it's too soon to see new homeworlds besides a codex entry imo. It takes years of writing, interaction & concept art to hone the culture and values of a species to inform their architectural styles & landscape. If BioWare rushed Thessia in ME1 not only would have been way off base but it would have killed off a lot of the mystery & allure of the species wouldn't it?

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Your probably right about the number of Home Worlds. Still, the studio needs to build a foundation for the next game.  Didn't ME1 have the three Council races ?  I figured three major races (one we can ally with) + Khet in the cluster = 4 at minimum.

[straykat]

I do. Rogue versus warrior is just about combat style. A devious knight sounds just as plausible as a noble archer.

 

I'm not talking about plausibility. I'm just saying it sucks. But you go ahead and think of Sebastian when you hear "Rogue". I'll go and of think of the Han Solos and Tom Sawyers of the world. 

 

This game had it too, once. Until they got the bright idea of making extra races at the last minute. Open ended personalities to me are more important for RP than races.  Especially races I'm not going to play. If you can have both (like Skyrim or D&D), that'd be cool, but I wouldn't sacrifice it for races.

 

They released a DAI stat on that btw and they didn't even list dwarf/qunari players. While dwarves only made up 5% of DAO.  I imagine it wasn't better for DAI, since they didn't list anything. All they ended up doing is putting people in little spaces. But numbers never really shifted. The highest played combo was still the Human Rogue... despite this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's admirable.. and I try to do that. But I think it's especially restrictive when it gets in the way of a class archetype. I can work with it, but no one really plays rogues to be a Sebastian (like I mentioned earlier).

For all of their focused presentation, Shepard and Hawke never got in the way of that.

I like to play against type. Hawke and Shepard constantly got in the way of that.

The DAI backstory for mages worked effortlessly for me, but it's the opposite problem. I just don't like how they played. Not sure what's worse.

DAI mages benefitted tremendously from the tactical camera. That's where I think they worked best (unlike melee rogues, who were basically unplayable with the tactical camera).

I liked playing melee rogues in DAO, but in DAI they were a disaster. The Parry ability became worthless in the hands of the AI, as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not talking about plausibility. I'm just saying it sucks. But you go ahead and think of Sebastian when you hear "Rogue". I'll go and of think of the Han Solos and Tom Sawyers of the world.

This game had it too, once. Until they got the bright idea of making extra races at the last minute. Open ended personalities to me are more important for RP than races. Especially races I'm not going to play. If you can have both (like Skyrim or D&D), that'd be cool, but I wouldn't sacrifice it for races.

They released a DAI stat on that btw and they didn't even list dwarf/qunari players. While dwarves only made up 5% of DAO. I imagine it wasn't better for DAI, since they didn't list anything. All they ended up doing is putting people in little spaces. But numbers never really shifted. The highest played combo was still the Human Rogue... despite this.

I think the way to do this is to have neither the classes nor the races have any RP relevance. Just let us play people, with the classes and races just being mechanically different (like Skyrim or D&D, as you say).

[straykat]

Yeah, I didn't like Parry either. I just got rid of it. It was easier for me to blink and jump around.