69 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Make it like... The Witcher 3.

*Runs away*

In this respect, I agree.  Well as long as they copy the good elements of TW3s open world and not the bad ones.  If they copy the bad ones I'll slit my wrists. 

[Phoe77]

I, too, want them to do more good things and fewer bad things.

[ESTAQ99]

I think the answer is simple. If they develop an open world for the next game, just fill it with interesting things to do on it. I don't want to spend my gaming dollars on another DA game that offer a bad starting, a weak, disjointed plot, rushed ending and that it's plagued with the most inane, endless number of fetch quests just because it has a beautiful scenery. If you don't have the resources/time to fill your own creation with interesting quests, objects and characters, just don't do it.

[squirrely1]

Here it is folks.  In order for DA:I's open World to be more effective in my humble opinion of course, is it has to be truly open world.  Unfortunately DA:I barely qualifies for open world in the first place.  There are invisible walls all over the place, self contained map/world areas,  no swimming allowed, in many of the quests you are basically herded through "channels or tunnels" creatively giving you the feel that it's open world when actually it's not. 

 

Did I like the game?  Yes!  I really enjoyed this game and logged tons of hours playing it and I'm on my 3rd play through.  But I loved Skyrim too and to try and compare both of them it's just crazy because they both were so very different. 

 

Skyrim was truly open world, you could pretty much go anywhere and do anything ie: Run from town to town and avoid most loading screens until you went inside a larger town or Cave, etc.  You could swim and explore a **** ton under water, etc. You could jump off of a bridge and fall from a height and if you survived the fall you could continue exploring the lower level you just fell to.  Once I jumped from the Mages College down to the area below and somehow survived and then continued my exploration.  BUT, Skyrim lacked the character moments and role play elements that I grew to love in Bioware games.  The characters in Skyrim just fell flat to me.  Voices were recycled and they were pretty much card board stand ups.  Your decisions really didn't have that much impact on the world state of the game and the story was ok but it just didn't have a great grandiose feel that DA:I had in many of their main story quests.

 

With DA:I you had self contained maps that within those maps were "fairly" open world and I use that term loosely, but you still had invisible walls and you were not able to swim. If you attempted to jump from a safe zone area your character just gagged and almost died but you were reset to a safe zone.  That to me really doesn't qualify as open world at all.  

 

So really arguing this is sort of pointless when DA:I doesn't really even qualify IMO.  HOWEVER, I still enjoyed the game, because I just focused on what was enjoyable to me and with the DA;I game it was the story and character bits period.  Even crafting while it was fun got to be a grind and you didn't want to ever commit to use your best materials because you were afraid you'd find yet another bigger better schematic and then not have good materials to use.   The variety of the landscape, the fact that I could take my companions with me (wish I could've talked to them though aside from just random banter).  But the real prize of DA:I was the wonderful cut scene main story line quests that gave you wonderful character moments, decisions that mattered to some degree on the main outcome of the story.  But I still enjoyed the game and I am replaying it.  The sheer variety you get with this game I think out matches Skyrim and even to a point Witcher3 in how you can create your protag in 4 different races and the genders really lends the replayability of this game over Skyrim and Witcher3.  

 

If they could solve the Open World issue and actually make it truly open world then they could have a real gem!

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

Here it is folks.  In order for DA:I's open World to be more effective in my humble opinion of course, is it has to be truly open world.  Unfortunately DA:I barely qualifies for open world in the first place.  There are invisible walls all over the place, self contained map/world areas,  no swimming allowed, in many of the quests you are basically herded through "channels or tunnels" creatively giving you the feel that it's open world when actually it's not. 

 

Did I like the game?  Yes!  I really enjoyed this game and logged tons of hours playing it and I'm on my 3rd play through.  But I loved Skyrim too and to try and compare both of them it's just crazy because they both were so very different. 

 

Skyrim was truly open world, you could pretty much go anywhere and do anything ie: Run from town to town and avoid most loading screens until you went inside a larger town or Cave, etc.  You could swim and explore a **** ton under water, etc. You could jump off of a bridge and fall from a height and if you survived the fall you could continue exploring the lower level you just fell to.  Once I jumped from the Mages College down to the area below and somehow survived and then continued my exploration.  BUT, Skyrim lacked the character moments and role play elements that I grew to love in Bioware games.  The characters in Skyrim just fell flat to me.  Voices were recycled and they were pretty much card board stand ups.  Your decisions really didn't have that much impact on the world state of the game and the story was ok but it just didn't have a great grandiose feel that DA:I had in many of their main story quests.

 

With DA:I you had self contained maps that within those maps were "fairly" open world and I use that term loosely, but you still had invisible walls and you were not able to swim. If you attempted to jump from a safe zone area your character just gagged and almost died but you were reset to a safe zone.  That to me really doesn't qualify as open world at all.  

 

So really arguing this is sort of pointless when DA:I doesn't really even qualify IMO.  HOWEVER, I still enjoyed the game, because I just focused on what was enjoyable to me and with the DA;I game it was the story and character bits period.  Even crafting while it was fun got to be a grind and you didn't want to ever commit to use your best materials because you were afraid you'd find yet another bigger better schematic and then not have good materials to use.   The variety of the landscape, the fact that I could take my companions with me (wish I could've talked to them though aside from just random banter).  But the real prize of DA:I was the wonderful cut scene main story line quests that gave you wonderful character moments, decisions that mattered to some degree on the main outcome of the story.  But I still enjoyed the game and I am replaying it.  The sheer variety you get with this game I think out matches Skyrim and even to a point Witcher3 in how you can create your protag in 4 different races and the genders really lends the replayability of this game over Skyrim and Witcher3.  

 

If they could solve the Open World issue and actually make it truly open world then they could have a real gem!

No lawl.
You can't have a linear narrative in an open world, which is the entire thing with DA. It failed because it's like making open world minesweeper.

[squirrely1]

No lawl.
You can't have a linear narrative in an open world, which is the entire thing with DA. It failed because it's like making open world minesweeper.

Sure you can.  Witcher3 did it and even some elements of Far Cry 3 and 4 did it pretty successfully.  You have to develop ways to trigger events in a specific sequence, either by spawning new areas that open up after you advance to a specific level in the game or have the war table type deal where areas are locked until you reach a specific level, etc.  It can be done but there has to be thought put into it in order that it doesn't come off as forced or give you a boxed in feeling.

[Samahl na Revas]

Make it like... The Witcher 3.

*Runs away*

Yes, like Witcher 3 and not Elder Scrolls.

 

I spent over 300 hours in both Oblivion and Skyrim avoiding the main story doing my own things for fun. In Oblivion with the create your own spell dlc trying out the limitations of what I could create took up most of my time and it was fun. In skyrim I was doing silly stuff like trying to knock someone of a ledge with my wind spell to see how far they would fly and then track the body down, a lot of silly stuff that was fun.

 

DA:I is not even truly open world, its roots are still in games like Baldur's Gate and NW where you go for area to area, modules. I'm confused when people say don't make it open world which is really saying don't make it expansive. Therefore, I agree that the next DA would benefit from being closer to its roots like Witcher which used the Bioware Aurora engine at one point . Choice driven content, areas that have their own conflicts even if it is minor that can be solved at least two different ways or that is integral to the plot.

 

The DA:I game that we heard about during marketing is the DA game I hope that is created for the next installment.

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

Sure you can.  Witcher3 did it and even some elements of Far Cry 3 and 4 did it pretty successfully.  You have to develop ways to trigger events in a specific sequence, either by spawning new areas that open up after you advance to a specific level in the game or have the war table type deal where areas are locked until you reach a specific level, etc.  It can be done but there has to be thought put into it in order that it doesn't come off as forced or give you a boxed in feeling.

He wanted Dragon age but as an elder scrolls game.
Which is doomed to failure.

[atum]

There is nothing inherently wrong with open world.  I loved that about DAI.  The problem is what they put in it.

 

It would not have taken a monumental effort to put in more quests like the mysterious Chantry woman and remove nonsense like shards.

 

Open world does not have to mean sacrificing quality.  BW needs to let go of the fetch quests regardless if they have just a few resources to add a tiny bit more to the game.  These quests had the opposite effect and I think distracted them from making a more real world.

[Al Foley]

There is nothing inherently wrong with open world.  I loved that about DAI.  The problem is what they put in it.

 

It would not have taken a monumental effort to put in more quests like the mysterious Chantry woman and remove nonsense like shards.

 

Open world does not have to mean sacrificing quality.  BW needs to let go of the fetch quests regardless if they have just a few resources to add a tiny bit more to the game.  These quests had the opposite effect and I think distracted them from making a more real world.

Mysterious Chantry Woman?  

 

The problem is how DA I had so much stacked against it going in and limiting what they could do with it.  New engine, multiple console genrations and plat forms, etc.  Its amazing we got a game as amazing as it was.  My favorite game of all time.  And I think in both terms of the Next gen only DLCs we got in Descent and Trespasser plus what the Witcher 3 did, the first truly next gen RPG, the future looks very bright indeed for DA 4 to exceed DA I and adress many of these concerns...whether they go open world or not.

[atum]

Mysterious Chantry Woman?  

 

The problem is how DA I had so much stacked against it going in and limiting what they could do with it.  New engine, multiple console genrations and plat forms, etc.  Its amazing we got a game as amazing as it was.  My favorite game of all time.  And I think in both terms of the Next gen only DLCs we got in Descent and Trespasser plus what the Witcher 3 did, the first truly next gen RPG, the future looks very bright indeed for DA 4 to exceed DA I and adress many of these concerns...whether they go open world or not.

 

In Hissing Wastes has a "..." dialog above her

 

Spoiler

[Al Foley]

In Hissing Wastes has a "..." dialog above her

 

Spoiler

thought so...but what is interestng about her, she is just an easter egg, a gag.  No plot relevance or quest that I'm aware of.

[atum]

thought so...but what is interestng about her, she is just an easter egg, a gag.  No plot relevance or quest that I'm aware of.

 

It was one of those mysterious things that made exploring more interesting for me.  This is one of the things Bethesda does really well actually (and BW can do really well with too).  There are a lot of mini stories you can stumble upon that, despite being disconnected from the main plot, are interesting little stories themselves.

 

I contrast this with types of quests like "get the item and return it to me" and "find 10 ram meat".

 

Another example of a good quest from BW was in DAO where you stumble upon the "inviting" campsite in the Brecilian
Forrest.  Or finding the clues for Gaxkang.  That is what they needed more of.  And these didn't have to be huge elaborate DLC sized quests, they just needed to have a little something... a little mystery/story/something  to them.

[Al Foley]

It was one of those mysterious things that made exploring more interesting for me.  This is one of the things Bethesda does really well actually (and BW can do really well with too).  There are a lot of mini stories you can stumble upon that, despite being disconnected from the main plot, are interesting little stories themselves.

 

I contrast this with types of quests like "get the item and return it to me" and "find 10 ram meat".

 

Another example of a good quest from BW was in DAO where you stumble upon the "inviting" campsite in the Brecilian
Forrest.  Or finding the clues for Gaxkang.  That is what they needed more of.  And these didn't have to be huge elaborate DLC sized quests, they just needed to have a little something... a little mystery/story/something  to them.

Loved Unbound.  Probably my favorite quest from Origins, side quests anyways. 

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

There is nothing inherently wrong with open world.  I loved that about DAI.  The problem is what they put in it.

 

It would not have taken a monumental effort to put in more quests like the mysterious Chantry woman and remove nonsense like shards.

 

Open world does not have to mean sacrificing quality.  BW needs to let go of the fetch quests regardless if they have just a few resources to add a tiny bit more to the game.  These quests had the opposite effect and I think distracted them from making a more real world.

I mean they could have cut half the zones and filled the remaining one's with coolio stuff and it would have been much better.
It's like skryim. It's too big.

[Evamitchelle]

One of the big problems with DAI's open-world is that you never really interact with anyone in a meaningful way outside of main story quests. A lot of side-quests don't even require you talking to anyone at all (most of the 'kill the region's enemy boss' quests for example), and when you do talk to the occasional NPC it's impersonal, nothing more than 'what's the problem and how can I fix it'. The fact that the camera is zoomed out so far away that you can't really see their faces doesn't help either. Jaws of Hakkon was a marked improvement in that regard. Pretty much all the side-quests involve talking to at least one person, and there are a handful of NPCs you can talk about things other than your current quest (the Professor, the Thane, the Augur etc.) 

 

Adding choices to side-quests was also a welcome addition. In the main game the only choice you have regarding side-quests is whether to do it or not (not counting companion quests). In JoH there are several quests that give you a choice in how to complete them: do you give the offerings to Finn or to the Huntsman, do you kill Grandin or let him live, do you let the woman include you in her prayers or not etc. Trespasser also does that as well in letting you choose who to arrest, or whether to tell the Council about the Qunari or not. Those choices might be inconsequential in the end, but from a role-playing standpoint they add a lot to the experience IMO. 

[atum]

I mean they could have cut half the zones and filled the remaining one's with coolio stuff and it would have been much better.
It's like skryim. It's too big.

 

It's not too big.  Maybe they were too ambitious with the keep-capturing mechanic, but it's not too big.  I know people like to think you cant have both story and an open world but Witcher 3 proved this wasn't true.  Also Skyrim was an amazing game.  It helped redefine what is possible.

 

DAI gave us classic awesome BioWare story and companions with the addition of an amazingly beautiful open world.  Going back to a linear world would be a terrible regression.

 

They had a monumental task ahead of them when they began building DAI.  Unfortunately they focused too much on dumb quests and some areas (especially the Hinterlands) were filled with un-fun stuff.   I think it could also be argued that the multiplayer had a detrimental impact on gameplay (probably not on budget though).

 

Now they are more familiar with the new engine, and dont have to deal with old consoles. All they need to do is to flesh out these worlds -- bring some life to the npcs, add some quests with small bits of story, and not get overly ambitions to slap a giant macro RTS on top of an RPG.

 

"Too big" is too simplistic a complaint.  Maybe you like linear games, and that's fine, but it is not a trade-off nor a negative aspect of DAI.

 

I'm kinda shocked at how much the "too big" line of thinking has taken a hold of BSN to be honest.

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

It's not too big.  Maybe they were too ambitious with the keep-capturing mechanic, but it's not too big.  I know people like to think you cant have both story and an open world but Witcher 3 proved this wasn't true.  Also Skyrim was an amazing game.  It helped redefine what is possible.

 

DAI gave us classic awesome BioWare story and companions with the addition of an amazingly beautiful open world.  Going back to a linear world would be a terrible regression.

 

They had a monumental task ahead of them when they began building DAI.  Unfortunately they focused too much on dumb quests and some areas (especially the Hinterlands) were filled with un-fun stuff.   I think it could also be argued that the multiplayer had a detrimental impact on gameplay (probably not on budget though).

 

Now they are more familiar with the new engine, and dont have to deal with old consoles. All they need to do is to flesh out these worlds -- bring some life to the npcs, add some quests with small bits of story, and not get overly ambitions to slap a giant macro RTS on top of an RPG.

 

"Too big" is too simplistic a complaint.  Maybe you like linear games, and that's fine, but it is not a trade-off nor a negative aspect of DAI.

 

I'm kinda shocked at how much the "too big" line of thinking has taken a hold of BSN to be honest.

Skyrim was actually awful and entirely pointless. I like how you took "Make less areas so you can fill your area's you make with interesting stuff" as "Linear gameplay"
Aside from that DA is a focused narrative. This is the open world you wanted so badly, filled to the brim with irrelevance and pointlessness. Unless were remembering skyrims 500+ drauger caves differently.

 

 

One of the big problems with DAI's open-world is that you never really interact with anyone in a meaningful way outside of main story quests. A lot of side-quests don't even require you talking to anyone at all (most of the 'kill the region's enemy boss' quests for example), and when you do talk to the occasional NPC it's impersonal, nothing more than 'what's the problem and how can I fix it'. The fact that the camera is zoomed out so far away that you can't really see their faces doesn't help either. Jaws of Hakkon was a marked improvement in that regard. Pretty much all the side-quests involve talking to at least one person, and there are a handful of NPCs you can talk about things other than your current quest (the Professor, the Thane, the Augur etc.) 

 

Adding choices to side-quests was also a welcome addition. In the main game the only choice you have regarding side-quests is whether to do it or not (not counting companion quests). In JoH there are several quests that give you a choice in how to complete them: do you give the offerings to Finn or to the Huntsman, do you kill Grandin or let him live, do you let the woman include you in her prayers or not etc. Trespasser also does that as well in letting you choose who to arrest, or whether to tell the Council about the Qunari or not. Those choices might be inconsequential in the end, but from a role-playing standpoint they add a lot to the experience IMO. 

 

Sometimes you don't even tell them you'll help them. The elf chick in the hinterlands with the templars you don't even SAY ANYTHING.
10/10

[Phoe77]

I would be sort of disappointed if Bioware just abandoned their open-er world efforts and went back to more linear worlds.  There is definitely a good deal of room for improvement on what Inquisition offered, but I thought that it was a pretty good first foray.  I'd rather see them improve and refine since what we saw in Inquisition holds promise, in my mind.

 

And man, I must really like objectively awful games.  I've heard that Skyrim and Inquisition are both just terrible and yet I liked both.  

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

I would be sort of disappointed if Bioware just abandoned their open-er world efforts and went back to more linear worlds.  There is definitely a good deal of room for improvement on what Inquisition offered, but I thought that it was a pretty good first foray.  I'd rather see them improve and refine since what we saw in Inquisition holds promise, in my mind.

 

And man, I must really like objectively awful games.  I've heard that Skyrim and Inquisition are both just terrible and yet I liked both.  

Skyrim was just so boring. How could you actually play it? >.>
Aside from that I have no idea who you've been hanging out with because I literally met the first 2 people who said they didn't like skyrim in this thread.

[Phoe77]

It comes up all the time when you're talking with big video game fans.  The only thing greater than the amount of love that a lot of people have for their favorite game is the amount of hate that they have for most others. 

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

It comes up all the time when you're talking with big video game fans.  The only thing greater than the amount of love that a lot of people have for their favorite game is the amount of hate that they have for most others. 

People who love are guaranteed to hate.
IT's human nature.

(That word doesn't look right... >.>)

[Al Foley]

Honestly not sure I would cut any of the zones per se but what you do in them, why not instead of closing 75 rifts you make it like thirty?   And add more quests in there. 

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

Honestly not sure I would cut any of the zones per se but what you do in them, why not instead of closing 75 rifts you make it like thirty?   And add more quests in there. 

Because that costs more money.

[squirrely1]

In Hissing Wastes has a "..." dialog above her

 

Spoiler

awesome!  How do you find her? I've run all around Hissing Wastes and never run into her. But I have completed the main story so maybe you have to find her pre story end?