I think everyone is aware that anything that goes into a game also goes through cost/benefit analysis.
It should be done however if the game is going to be partially open world.
Well then, since you're 'aware' that it goes through a cost benefit analysis, what kind of features or benefits would be acceptable to forgo? Graphics, story branches, levels, dialogue? Companion content? Player character content?
Well then, since you're 'aware' that it goes through a cost benefit analysis, what kind of features or benefits would be acceptable to forgo? Graphics, story branches, levels, dialogue? Companion content? Player character content?
I'd rather they dropped the partially open world approach if it can't be done right.
Mmm. So would that mean dropping hub locations? And what about the player's ship itself, which I'm sure will have plenty of crewmembers?
Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'partial open world approach.' Is that anything other than a linear game?
While I agree, it can be done. The Witcher 3 did it with its NPCs in villages, towns, and cities. It is part of the reason why the game world feels much more alive than the world in Dragon Age: Inquisition.
I'm sure we'll see some better pathing now that old-gen is cut out. In fact, the upcoming DA:I DLC will be a good illustration of what Bioware could do with a greater memory resource.
If they want to compete with CDPR within the RPG sphere in terms of quality, no its not.
I'd rather they dropped the partially open world approach if it can't be done right.
Mmm. So would that mean dropping hub locations? And what about the player's ship itself, which I'm sure will have plenty of crewmembers?
Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'partial open world approach.' Is that anything other than a linear game?
Nothing in ME has ever been open world.
What we saw in DA:I was a partially open world and they didn't get it right. Making the maps bigger doesn't change that you still have to zone between maps and the occasional patrol and wildly respawning wildlife (bears!) don't make the environment any more interactive.
To quote wikipedia:
Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "Open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game.
Nothing of that applies to ME or DA.
I'd rather they dropped the partially open world approach if it can't be done right.
No matter what design approach BioWare takes, they need to work on their hubs and towns. Their seventh gen games felt dated and often lifeless even then and that certainly isn't going to cut it now.
I wonder what goes through the mind of an NPC..
"Oh look, xxjohnnyawesomexx is running towards me... and now he's on top me... now he's AFK... Well, not like I can just move... And I can't talk to him until he talks to me first..."
There sure seem to be a lot of people whining this is 'no longer acceptable' to do when there's been a total of...three AAA franchises that have done differently? Assassin's Creed, GTA, and the Witcher? Plenty of games have sold well and continue to sell well with the same towns full of the same static NPCs as ever.
Also, there doesn't seem to be many people considering the rather obvious differences in size between cities in those games and BioWare games.
Is that in response to me?
Obviously. You're acting like a making routines is the most taxing thing a game developer could ever do, and yet somehow a small, relatively, studio found it something that they could implement into their game. There's really no excuse for a AAA developer like BioWare to create yet another static world, and then talk about how "Thedas is coming alive." The costs obviously don't grossly outweigh the benefits, and it's really not a valid argument.
Obviously. You're acting like a making routines is the most taxing thing a game developer could ever do, and yet somehow a small, relatively, studio found it something that they could implement into their game. There's really no excuse for a AAA developer like BioWare to create yet another static world, and then talk about how Thedas is coming alive.
I see.
Tell me, do you understand the concept of 'limited resources'? The concept if 'If you spend more resources on one thing, you need you to spend fewer resources on something else'? Because resources are limited? Or is that something I need to explain to you? Because I don't think someone who grasps that concept would say something as nonsensical as 'one company spent resources on this, therefore there's no excuse why everyone else shouldn't spend just as many resources on this'
Do you understand that BioWare has far more resources than CPR does? Than someone like Bethesda does? They are far larger, with an even larger parent company to set the budget. Have a little less David and a little more common sense, and that would be obvious to you. BioWare didn't make those environments because they didn't want to, not because they couldn't afford to. It wasn't resources that made Val Royeaux a single, static marketplace. It was a clear design choice. Sell that stupid someplace else. Or do you honestly have a convincing argument as to why the supposed greatest city in Thedas besides Minrathous, and the seat of the Chantry, looks terrible. I really want to hear this. No one is arguing that it needs to be the same as the Witcher, but the complete lack of effort is obvious.
There sure seem to be a lot of people whining this is 'no longer acceptable' to do when there's been a total of...three AAA franchises that have done differently? Assassin's Creed, GTA, and the Witcher? Plenty of games have sold well and continue to sell well with the same towns full of the same static NPCs as ever.
Also, there doesn't seem to be many people considering the rather obvious differences in size between cities in those games and BioWare games.
One WRPG series and two industry titans are the only games that don't have static NPCs?
ayy lmao
Obviously. You're acting like a making routines is the most taxing thing a game developer could ever do, and yet somehow a small, relatively, studio found it something that they could implement into their game. There's really no excuse for a AAA developer like BioWare to create yet another static world, and then talk about how "Thedas is coming alive." The costs obviously don't grossly outweigh the benefits, and it's really not a valid argument.
Jade Empire on the OG Xbox had more NPC activity in its towns than many of BioWare's seventh gen games.
But yeah its totally unreasonable to ask that we get some activity in a hub area other than a handful of mannequins rooted to a spot.
Simple squish the lazy fools teach them that lollygagging will not be tolerated.
Retour en haut