267 réponses à ce sujet

[Jewellzify]

So go play a Bethesda game...   One of Bioware strengths is that they are not Bethesda, nor should they try to be.. if more exploration and less story is what your looking for, then please by all means have at it.. Just please leave ME:A out of it...   

[Eyelidsz]

How about more story, more exploration?

[Eelectrica]

TW3s writing was rather weak in many areas (politics and poor continuation from TW2), with massive issues popping up in act 3 along with its ending that is a hot mess.

 

And all of this can be attributed to the game being open world.

 

Compare the main game to HoS expac, which was better written and took place in a small new area of Novigrad.

Actually I'm quite happy for companies when producing a sequel to pick out what they think is going to make for the best story in the next game and toss out what doesn't fit. Trying to cater to all the choices just doesn't work. Never has. Let me make my choices when playing the game, the more the merrier in a given game. I  know they can't cater to every choice ever, so don't try, just make canon choices for the next one and get on with it. So what if some choices made last game get altered to better fit the new narrative

 

For ME:A, I'd like the exploring aspect to stay, but each planet we visit should still relate to the story and advance the plot in some way, with a few, well written side quests to reward the explorers. Perhaps some unique gear and schemetics can be found off the beaten path to reward to the explorers who want to wander the vast landscapes.

[Laughing_Man]

When Bioware "agressively checked out" Skyrim, what they failed to understand is that a large part of the reason for Skyrim's success is

the complete freedom the game offers.

 

* The freedom to spec your character in any way you want.

* The freedom to "Fus Ro Dah" anyone off the top of a cliff.

* The freedom to mod and use mods in any kind shape and form imaginable. (some that you wouldn't have imagined...)

* The freedom to easily cheat (if you so desire) and/or force your way through the occasional bug via the in game coonsole.

 

If anything, aside from the fact that DA:I was in a semi open-world, it was lacking any kind of freedom whatsoever.

 

You want to be Skyrim when you grow up? Great. Just be sure to actually understand what made it so successful.

[Mr.House]

Actually I'm quite happy for companies when producing a sequel to pick out what they think is going to make for the best story in the next game and toss out what doesn't fit. Trying to cater to all the choices just doesn't work. Never has. Let me make my choices when playing the game, the more the merrier in a given game. I  know they can't cater to every choice ever, so don't try, just make canon choices for the next one and get on with it. So what if some choices made last game get altered to better fit the new narrative

 

For ME:A, I'd like the exploring aspect to stay, but each planet we visit should still relate to the story and advance the plot in some way, with a few, well written side quests to reward the explorers. Perhaps some unique gear and schemetics can be found off the beaten path to reward to the explorers who want to wander the vast landscapes.

Explain to me how throwing away plotlines, making everything lead to the same outcome, making characters like Radovid massively OOC, having characters like Iorveth and Anais not even show up do any good? It didn't, it did alot of damage and turned TW3 politics into something worse then Biowares politics.

 

TW3 is very good outside a few hiccups in act 1+2, but act 3 is just a fricken nightmare unless you think act 3 Diijkstra is in character.

[Eelectrica]

Explain to me how throwing away plotlines, making everything lead to the same outcome, making characters like Radovid massively OOC, having characters like Iorveth and Anais not even show up do any good? It didn't, it did alot of damage and turned TW3 politics into something worse then Biowares politics.

 

TW3 is very good outside a few hiccups in act 1+2, but act 3 is just a fricken nightmare unless you think act 3 Diijkstra is in character.

Didn't lead to the same out come. I've completed Witcher 3 twice so far and had two completely different outcomes based on the different choices I made.

Radovids Character was explained. He wasn't really a fan of Mages and Witchers, drove him nuts- literally. Insane people aren't known for their rationality.

Iorveth showing up would have been nice, but the story wasn't about the scoia'tel so his role would have been lip service at best.

Had no problem with Act 3, either.

 

With Nilfgaard coming in and poleaxing Temeria, their wasn't really anything lift so no need for Anais.

Djikstra wanted whats best for Redania, and a mad king wasn't it, nor was Nilfgaard taking over.

[Mr.House]

Didn't lead to the same out come. I've completed Witcher 3 twice so far and had two completely different outcomes based on the different choices I made.

Radovids Character was explained. He wasn't really a fan of Mages and Witchers, drove him nuts- literally. Insane people aren't known for their rationality.

Iorveth showing up would have been nice, but the story wasn't about the scoia'tel so his role would have been lip service at best.

Had no problem with Act 3, either.

 

With Nilfgaard coming in and poleaxing Temeria, their wasn't really anything lift so no need for Anais.

Djikstra wanted whats best for Redania, and a mad king wasn't it, nor was Nilfgaard taking over.

You do know it was possible to stop the witch hunts from ever happening in TW2 along with Radovid outright being stated that this event started to change him for the better? All dropped in TW3 with no account for it.

 

Saskia, Iorveth and Anaise without any mention or worse, the state of Vergan? Had to be told in a comic shipped with HoS (which showst that even CDP knows they messed up) Roche and Geralt always buddy buddy even if oyu did not do his route, the fact that Hensalt is always dead because somehow Radovid was able to bring his entire army over a giant mountain without anyone knowing.

 

Hell how about the fact that if Roche takes Anaise, she is no longer with him in TW3 and the fact that Dijkstra does things in act 3 that are simply OOC for him. There is much more wrong with bs like Ciri and Avallac'h working together despite the fact  he screwed her over in the books or that Ciri is this powerful despite that never being the case (people wanted her blood or womb, she herself never mattered) or 12 line Eredin. There is so much wrong with the politics, continuity and act 3 of TW3 it's sad at this point.

[Augustei]

You do know it was possible to stop the witch hunts from ever happening in TW2 along with Radovid outright being stated that this event started to change him for the better? All dropped in TW3 with no account for it.

 

Saskia, Iorveth and Anaise without any mention or worse, the state of Vergan? Had to be told in a comic shipped with HoS (which showst that even CDP knows they messed up) Roche and Geralt always buddy buddy even if oyu did not do his route, the fact that Hensalt is always dead because somehow Radovid was able to bring his entire army over a giant mountain without anyone knowing.

 

Hell how about the fact that if Roche takes Anaise, she is no longer with him in TW3 and the fact that Dijkstra does things in act 3 that are simply OOC for him. There is much more wrong with bs like Ciri and Avallac'h working together despite the fact  he screwed her over in the books or that Ciri is this powerful despite that never being the case (people wanted her blood or womb, she herself never mattered) or 12 line Eredin. There is so much wrong with the politics, continuity and act 3 of TW3 it's sad at this point.

100x this, They completely botched Radovid and all the witcher 2 decisions, CD Projekt did well with side content but there is plenty they completely stuffed up, especially act 3. Cyberpunk better be freakin' awesome considering all the good writers left to work on it.

Didn't actually know about that comic tbh, what happens to Vergan and Saskia etc?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nah I liked Skyrim but just stopped caring for the story it was an afterthought.

I usually don't care much about the story being told in RPGs. I want to create my own, and I do. But ME2 and ME3 gave me very little room in which to do so (which is why I didn't like them).

[Ariella]

When Bioware "agressively checked out" Skyrim, what they failed to understand is that a large part of the reason for Skyrim's success is
the complete freedom the game offers.
 
* The freedom to spec your character in any way you want.
* The freedom to "Fus Ro Dah" anyone off the top of a cliff.
* The freedom to mod and use mods in any kind shape and form imaginable. (some that you wouldn't have imagined...)
* The freedom to easily cheat (if you so desire) and/or force your way through the occasional bug via the in game coonsole.
 
If anything, aside from the fact that DA:I was in a semi open-world, it was lacking any kind of freedom whatsoever.
 
You want to be Skyrim when you grow up? Great. Just be sure to actually understand what made it so successful.

If I may point out. The big Skyrim push came as much from the fans, and a part of it was legitimate in the fact that DA2 was pretty much a city campaign. If it'd had time to be more polished I don't see that people would have complained as much about the small areas (after all there were areas just as small and repeated in DAO). But people wanted open world and screamed about how Skyrim was going to destroy DAI.

So Bioware listened, at least to the "we want open world" and worked it out in a way that would fit the DA game style. I've said this before, but the biggest area in DAI, the Hinterlands, would have been four or so zones in DAO. Movement is much more organic. And honestly, after popping in to Skyrim recently (and I can't get mods on the 360) I have to say that the Hinterlands are much more visually interesting than the plains outside of Whiterun for me. But YMMV.

Open areas that are of decent size, but not open world. Little zoning from place to place. Have the areas tied to defined mission goals, like in ME2 side missions (not Overlord or the Firewalker missions). At the same time have enough side work to do to give the space life, but not feel bogged down. Environmental change over time when setting up colonies etc.

This is just my opinion of course, but I think it's the best balance for the game.

[Degrees1991]

God damn it these Witcher spoilers argh!

[Mr.House]

God damn it these Witcher spoilers argh!

I see no spoilers, I simply see common knowledge.

[Laughing_Man]

If I may point out. The big Skyrim push came as much from the fans, and a part of it was legitimate in the fact that DA2 was pretty much a city campaign. If it'd had time to be more polished I don't see that people would have complained as much about the small areas (after all there were areas just as small and repeated in DAO). But people wanted open world and screamed about how Skyrim was going to destroy DAI.

So Bioware listened, at least to the "we want open world" and worked it out in a way that would fit the DA game style. I've said this before, but the biggest area in DAI, the Hinterlands, would have been four or so zones in DAO. Movement is much more organic. And honestly, after popping in to Skyrim recently (and I can't get mods on the 360) I have to say that the Hinterlands are much more visually interesting than the plains outside of Whiterun for me. But YMMV.

Open areas that are of decent size, but not open world. Little zoning from place to place. Have the areas tied to defined mission goals, like in ME2 side missions (not Overlord or the Firewalker missions). At the same time have enough side work to do to give the space life, but not feel bogged down. Environmental change over time when setting up colonies etc.

This is just my opinion of course, but I think it's the best balance for the game.

 

You are missing the point.

 

I was not claiming to know what exact degree of "open worldness" is perfect for a DA game, I merely pointed out that Skyrim's appeal had little to do with it being an open world, but rather with other aspects that I mentioned above.

 

And in the same vain, DA:I fell flat into mediocrity not because it was a semi open world game, but due to other reasons.

[Ahglock]

You are missing the point.

 

I was not claiming to know what exact degree of "open worldness" is perfect for a DA game, I merely pointed out that Skyrim's appeal had little to do with it being an open world, but rather with other aspects that I mentioned above.

 

And in the same vain, DA:I fell flat into mediocrity not because it was a semi open world game, but due to other reasons.

 

 

Yeah I'm going to agree. Open world is really being used as a term open map for most games.  But for games like Skyrim its really more about it being a open game play experience.

[Linkenski]

Yeah, I'd rather just play that game when Bethesda makes it instead of Bioware who got ahold of me as a fan because of their unique story-branded RPGs. You take away the emphasis on narrative and you've completely lost me, because good game designers Bioware will never be, not when compared to the top and especially not compared to the top of open-world game design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I see no spoilers, I simply see common knowledge.

How widely known a spoiler is has no bearing on whether it is a spoiler.

[mopotter]

*sigh* Although I think this topic seems like trolling, I'm going to be serious here: They need more story in addition to the exploration stuff. Though I liked DA:I and the main quests, it could have done with more story-related main quests in the base game and a wider variety of side quests that were more fleshed-out/involved. I thought the DLC was pretty good overall and liked some of the things they did in Trespasser a lot, so really, they should be doing more of that (including more environmental puzzles, etc.).

 

EDIT: I like Skyrim and do like exploration a lot - but I want a world with story content equal to the amount of exploration that I can do.

Mostly agree with you.  

 

I love Skyrim, (all of the elder scroll games); FO3 and FONV.   With FO3 I found every town in the game during one play through, but two of the things I love about BioWare  is their story telling and dialogue and I would have loved more dialogue and story related events included with the explorations,

 

On the other hand, the way it's set up I can do different things with different characters, Mage goes after all of the shards, Rogue doesn't.   Also enjoyed Trespasser a lot, but I suck at puzzles so as long as they are optional, or I can google the answer, I'm fine with them.  

 

So yes, having more exploration would be fun for me, but I also need the dialogue fix for my story addiction.

[Black Jimmy]

Personally, I feel the opposite. I'd rather more story than exploration.

If I wanted a big open world to explore, I'd look to Bethesda, which I shall do on the 10th.

The size of Inquisition made or the story elements seem more spread apart that I felt they should have been.

Heretically, I got more satisfaction playing DA2. Which had several overlapping story arcs which you were rarely not involved in.

I think both are awesome though.

[mopotter]

The Reason for the Elder Scrolls games success is the mods.  Lets be honest,  this is the main reason why the games have such a strong community is because you can actively add and change things within the game with your own created content or the content of others.  This is probably why the main stories tend to be so simple and repetitive (name a main Elder Scrolls game were you don't start out as a prisoner that coincidentally has a great destiny that has you face off against a Daedra in some form).

 

Hell the running joke is that Bethesda doesn't bug check there games is because the community can fix that stuff for them.

I tend to agree about the mods and Skyrim.  I enjoyed it but it wasn't like FA3 where I had to discover everything on the map.  Then I got the pc version because of the be a bard mod and I loved it.  The idea of actually earning my room and food by playing the drum gave me a new interest in wondering around and a reason to join the bards guild.  

 

DAI  yes, 360 people got misinformed and I didn't plan on getting another version because the dlc was just more of the same, until Trespasser and then I picked it up for the pc along with the other dlc.  Their characters, dialogue, character creation and story are the things that draw me to BW and why I pick their games over others.  

[mopotter]

For me, Biowares strength is making games that has replay value

Forgot this very important reason I play their games.  I may play Skyrim for a long time, never finishing it and doing everything in FA 3 or NV once ever few years, but I replay BioWare games until the cd is so bad I have to get a new one.  ME1 and 2, I played continuously for 5 years with just a couple of breaks.  This is what I want MEA to be. Thanks for the reminder.    

[Torgette]

I'm jealous of all the people with all this free time to want every game to be like Skyrim or GTA, every big game i've played this year has been one of those and I haven't finished any of them.

[mackj22]

storyline is bioware's specialty. I've replayed me 10+ times due to the story and character interactions. I've beat fallout once and have 150+ hours into skyrim without completing it. Both great games but the desire to slog through another play through is not enough to overcome the lack of interesting characters.

[Ariella]

You are missing the point.
 
I was not claiming to know what exact degree of "open worldness" is perfect for a DA game, I merely pointed out that Skyrim's appeal had little to do with it being an open world, but rather with other aspects that I mentioned above.
 
And in the same vain, DA:I fell flat into mediocrity not because it was a semi open world game, but due to other reasons.

Elder Scrolls is BUILD on open world. Hell, Bethesda is build on open world. That's the whole point of the game, it's an open world, story is almost secondary, like every ES game since Arena.

As for the other stuff, spec your character any way you want? Last I check, you can do that. Called picking a class and skills.

The PC version of DA games has always had a cheat console. There's always been modding but it's never been as big as with Bethesda games. And the shouts? I'd rather have a spirit blade. More visually interesting, can use it more often, and the audio for it is a lot more interesting.

In sort, if you want to play a Bethesda game, play a Bethesda game, but don't expect Bioware to become a Bethesda clone.

[Daemul]

When Bioware "agressively checked out" Skyrim, what they failed to understand is that a large part of the reason for Skyrim's success is

the complete freedom the game offers.

 

* The freedom to spec your character in any way you want.

* The freedom to "Fus Ro Dah" anyone off the top of a cliff.

* The freedom to mod and use mods in any kind shape and form imaginable. (some that you wouldn't have imagined...)

* The freedom to easily cheat (if you so desire) and/or force your way through the occasional bug via the in game coonsole.

 

If anything, aside from the fact that DA:I was in a semi open-world, it was lacking any kind of freedom whatsoever.

 

You want to be Skyrim when you grow up? Great. Just be sure to actually understand what made it so successful.

 

Yep, this. You see so many devs citing Skyrim as a game they want to emulate the success of, but what do they always focus on when trying to copy its success? A large open world. "Our games world map is "enter number here" times as large as Skyrims!" is something you'll have heard a lot of devs say when trying to hype their game, and it always causes me to facepalm, because the reason why Skyrim sold so much had near **** all to do with a large open world.

 

Like you mentioned it was all to do with the crazy amount of freedom the game offered. Bethesda's games are some of the few true sandbox games left on the market, they and Rockstar have a near duopoly on that genre, it's the reason why the games of both devs so highly anticipated, hyped up and sell ridiculous amounts when they release, because the type of game they make only comes out every 3-4 years, and it's usually made by one of them.

 

You see other devs trying to copy the crazy success Bethesda and Rockstar have had but they miss the mark so hilariously badly and focus on the wrong things. It reminds me of all the CoD clones last gen, devs tried so hard to copy CoD and steal it's audience, but like they're doing now with Bethesda and Rockstar games, they didn't understand at all why it was so popular, and all the CoD clones failed to make any sort of impact. 

 

Bioware have been notorious for trying to copy what's popular in gaming at the time, so them trying to copy Skyrim's success should come as no surprise to anyone.

[Hazegurl]

BW's problem is that they use blow torches to light an oven and it always blows up in their faces in some way.  After DA2 fans just wanted another DAO. The ability to travel around to different locations, more choices, a story they can get invested in. BW took it to mean that they must be 100% not like DA2 in any way.  They were gonna be Skyrim now and make a "Not DA2 game".  So instead of a tight narrative, we got a bunch of locations with a half assed semblance of life and told to go hunt for stupid pieces of trash and other nonsense and a convoluted story and lore to go with it.  You can see peeks of BW sticking through, with In your heart shall burn, and wicked eyes, and now trespasser.  But you have to sift through so much shyt to get to them.