267 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

From current memory the game that made me feel the world in it's infinite possibilites most dramatically was probably Morrowind, where I most definitely did not where I was going or exactly what was doing most of the time.

 

But look, yes, of course, BG1 had more of an open space, compared to BG2, compared to probably KOTOR and NWN, especially compared to modern DA, but were these things night and day, were they even severe.. hmmm... maybe if the Tales of the Sword Coast content had been in from the beginning and randomly strewn there, that becomes more of a serious division, but since it was chunked separately...

 

Every iteration actually felt smaller, to be quite honest, BG1 was like oh D&D! Then NWN and I'm like.. Oh......D&D...! then DA and it's like............ D&D? Finally DA2, where did D&D go! Haha...

I think it was a huge difference, not because BG had more space, but because you could explore that space without the game having first given you a reason.

 

From BG2 on, BioWare has required players wait for the game to assign the protagonist a motive to go somewhere.  BG did not do this, and as such is different-in-kind from the subsequent games.

 

DAI doesn't nearly reach BG's level, but it's the first BioWare game since BG where we can travel freely to places that may or may not have to do with the plot without first having been told to go.

 

ME gets halfway there by letting us travel freely and without impetus to areas that have nothing to do with the plot (the UNC missions), but it doesn't let us visit plot worlds out of order.

[Seraphim24]

Yes well in fact I was about to add, you are right it is important whether or not you kind of know that or not. From a developer perspective, they are making things expecting you to do that one way or another, but from a player perspective as long as they are under a contrary illusion you can increase immersion and engagement, certainly.

 

But the problem there is that is true with other games as well, like I was saying Morrowind where literally Balmora was like... I can't even remember the sheer quantity of things I did not knowing where they would lead from that one town. I did like all the fighter quests, mage quests, theif quests, random quests about town, traveled to the capital, traveled to the wall, traveled to the everything, it was heavily expansive in addition to having the shroud of war fog of mystery about it. You can rack up like 30 hours of playtime just engaging with substantial things, and it wasn't rogue like either, you were doing quests there and that might lead to Vivec where you discovered the Dark Brotherhood, then do their quests, and so on and so forth.

 

There are other examples I haven't mentioned like the quirky Necromancer's store to the west of Beregost, and actually for whatever reason the actual sword coast zones to the SW with the rain effects and so on were fairly pretty and immersive even though they didn't always have a lot in them either, although I'm pretty my character's party got annihilated by some singing Dryads in there somewhere.

 

As for modern examples I'm surprised you haven't cited SWTOR which certainly has the same kind of bigger zones without knowing exactly how to get from here to there and so on, although it is sort of eery how often this giant bar will simply have this empty room to the right or left and so on...

[Sylvius the Mad]

As for modern examples I'm surprised you haven't cited SWTOR which certainly has the same kind of bigger zones without knowing exactly how to get from here to there and so on, although it is sort of eery how often this giant bar will simply have this empty room to the right or left and so on...

This is often true of MMOs. My favourite on that front would be EVE Online, with its 100% unfettered travel.

[Daopsin]

Why not just play skyrim? Bethesda do this much better than Bioware as DA:I showed.
Bioware need to stick to their strengths.

Even Bethesda struggle to create an open world with quality content.

I agree, Bioware should stick to heavily story focused RPG's as it's what they're best at. Inquisition suffered because they went the open world route.

[9TailsFox]

[haduj]

cant compare an open world to a closed world.  

 

but what if we have No Man's Sky concept mixed with ME?  Infinite exploration with some story.

[Ariella]

cant compare an open world to a closed world.  
 
but what if we have No Man's Sky concept mixed with ME?  Infinite exploration with some story.

No. Bioware's bread and butter has always been story. That's the point. Exploration is a means to an end, not the end itself. Nor should it be.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Yea...Skyrim is one thing No Man's Sky is another.

[9TailsFox]

cant compare an open world to a closed world.  

 

but what if we have No Man's Sky concept mixed with ME?  Infinite exploration with some story.

 

No. Bioware's bread and butter has always been story. That's the point. Exploration is a means to an end, not the end itself. Nor should it be.

This Bioware is great because they made great story and characters. It's like people love our games, lets change everything they like, they like it even more.

[Seraphim24]

This is often true of MMOs. My favourite on that front would be EVE Online, with its 100% unfettered travel.

 

Never played Eve Online actually though heard a lot about it.

 

To revist the point briefly, I went back and checked out more about Baldur's Gate 1, NWN, Dragon Age: Origins, and a few other things. Indeed, the overall experience offered by those games is superior to the kind offered in DA2, Throne of Bhaal, HotU and so on, where game elements were subtituted for more hard charging traditional and conservative narrative ones.

 

In fact, you notice looking at these things that the first game in the series is usually the new engine, new game concept, obviously descended from D&D although continuing with modifications and quirks, and then it seemed like (just guessing, don't know this for a fact) the expansions or sequels would be handed off to story and narrative team while the game design team would start on the next major game concept, hence the expansions like Bhaal and Underdark which are much more heavy on kind of cinematic intensity.

 

This seemed to stop around Dragon Age 2 which normally would of been the epic add on expansion to the base game of Origins, but perhaps because of EA (again pure speculation on my part) became an independent game which made the expectations sort of different.

 

Anyway, to put a cap on this the narrative experiences which are often heralded for their story and whatnot actually were often weaker because of their story and characters, while yes the Baldur's Gate/NWN and those games offered better experiences and characters at the same time.

 

This Bioware is great because they made great story and characters. It's like people love our games, lets change everything they like, they like it even more.

 

This is a subtle point though, why do people enjoy the characters? It is (well, was, to a degree) because they permit the player to experience them in their unique way. 

 

Like, take the characters from Dragon Age 2 which are often heralded, but are actually more generic and stereotyped. A swashbuckling pirate, a shy and brainy mage, boisterious dwarf, disciplined paladin, over emotional and high strung mage as well as the brooding and dark past/conflict mage.

 

Contrast to Dragon Age Origins, you have cookie obsessed Spartan warrior, a brutal assassin with a sympathetic side, and literally a war dog as like an actual really genuine character.

 

You could say the reason Baldur's Gate 1, NWN OC, and Dragon Age Origins are better than the more "story driven" Throne of Bhaal, Hordes, Dragon Age 2/Mass Effect 2 is actually because of the characters (in addition to gameplay).

 

I've noticed in general the better a game is, the better the characters and vice versa, consequently, focusing on making a better game would likely make for better characters as a natural byproduct.

[Seraphim24]

A parallell to this point of inter-Bioware comparison though is what truly constitutes an "open world?"

 

I was thinking about this, and honestly I won't say this now but there is a compelling argument that Dragon Age 2 offers a better open world than Skyrim.

 

For instance, in Dragon Age 2 you have these sleights of hands that change how you view the landscape, city, environment, etc, with the chapters shifting. Moreover, this is linked with quests specifically, what you did it one place might affect the next area or a person and the situation there. They get a decent amount of mileage with a small space in this way.

 

You also just tiny things not, here is a giant huge space. I mean, the reality is that Skyrim is basically a giant snow bowl, it has the tutorial era with the edge in the mountains, as well as that first initial town, but after that with Whiterun it is a huge arcing bowl. Solitude to the NW,

 

Dragon Age 2 shows greater respect and deference to the concept of an open world in many ways, there is this internal realization that making a giant world won't automatically satisfy the requirements of the feeling of an open world. It's better to just adjust expectations and make something sincere rather than just trying to imitate wholesale.

 

Like in tiny ways in the tutorial of DA2 you can circle round up the hill to your left, and there is a dead zombie or something with treasure, it was a subtle visual cue with a slight reward.

 

Kirkwall in general is also multi-directional and multi-purpose, the city has multiple levels, multiple sectors, and the directions aren't all linearly produced like they are in say Whiterun, which has a clear telegraphing (Whiterun palace on top) that defeats easy telegraphing.

 

Finally the wounded coast was an interesting zone, it had the kind of over the top ridge that defeated the lower area and made things sort of complicated but it wasn't enough to be overwhelming either.

 

So yeah, can't say it with certainy, but it definitely does seem like you can argue Dragon Age 2 is a better open world game than Skyrim, if you look not just at sheer size but how the elements move within that particular area.

[Heimdall]

Like, take the characters from Dragon Age 2 which are often heralded, but are actually more generic and stereotyped. A swashbuckling pirate, a shy and brainy mage, boisterious dwarf, disciplined paladin, over emotional and high strung mage as well as the brooding and dark past/conflict mage.

Actually Varric seemed a subversion of the boisterous dwarf stereotype.  He hates close combat.  He loves leisure more than action.  Prefers to sweet talk his way out of a situation rather than hack his way out.  Sure, he lives in a bar, but mostly for the atmosphere rather than the drink.

 

The others were pretty generic though (Even if I liked them)

[Seraphim24]

Actually Varric seemed a subversion of the boisterous dwarf stereotype.  He hates close combat.  He loves leisure more than action.  Prefers to sweet talk his way out of a situation rather than hack his way out.  Sure, he lives in a bar, but mostly for the atmosphere rather than the drink.

 

The others were pretty generic though (Even if I liked them)

 

Hm, fair enough, it's on a spectrum though, the dwarven warrior from Tolkien versus the kind of lazy Dwarf that just wants to make money and named his crossbow.

 

Still they didn't turn it all the way around and make him a Dwarven Paladin.

 

I mean on that topic could say the same of Merrill, she's a shy brainy mage that also for some reason is obsessively predisposed towards powerful blood magic and insane levels of control on the side sort of thing while being shy and bookish.

 

Actually to be even more pointed it's really hard to find a place for Bioware anywhere other than, like, well Bioware. They have this highly specific set of characterization that isn't this kind of hairsplitting chaos like Super Mario where you have an Italian Plumber fighting a giant turtle and jumping across giant cookies, but it certainly isn't high and dry Tolkien to a T.

 

Anyway, it's more just a probing of this presentation that there is a dramatic inversion going on here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A parallell to this point of inter-Bioware comparison though is what truly constitutes an "open world?"

I was thinking about this, and honestly I won't say this now but there is a compelling argument that Dragon Age 2 offers a better open world than Skyrim.

For instance, in Dragon Age 2 you have these sleights of hands that change how you view the landscape, city, environment, etc, with the chapters shifting. Moreover, this is linked with quests specifically, what you did it one place might affect the next area or a person and the situation there. They get a decent amount of mileage with a small space in this way.

You also just tiny things not, here is a giant huge space. I mean, the reality is that Skyrim is basically a giant snow bowl, it has the tutorial era with the edge in the mountains, as well as that first initial town, but after that with Whiterun it is a huge arcing bowl. Solitude to the NW,

Dragon Age 2 shows greater respect and deference to the concept of an open world in many ways, there is this internal realization that making a giant world won't automatically satisfy the requirements of the feeling of an open world. It's better to just adjust expectations and make something sincere rather than just trying to imitate wholesale.

Like in tiny ways in the tutorial of DA2 you can circle round up the hill to your left, and there is a dead zombie or something with treasure, it was a subtle visual cue with a slight reward.

Kirkwall in general is also multi-directional and multi-purpose, the city has multiple levels, multiple sectors, and the directions aren't all linearly produced like they are in say Whiterun, which has a clear telegraphing (Whiterun palace on top) that defeats easy telegraphing.

Finally the wounded coast was an interesting zone, it had the kind of over the top ridge that defeated the lower area and made things sort of complicated but it wasn't enough to be overwhelming either.

So yeah, can't say it with certainy, but it definitely does seem like you can argue Dragon Age 2 is a better open world game than Skyrim, if you look not just at sheer size but how the elements move within that particular area.

I get the impression you haven't spent much time with Skyrim.

To me, the hallmarks of an open world are twofold. First, we need to be able to head off in any direction, and see most if not all of the world at any time. Second, we need the tactical freedom to approach a problem from any direction. On this last point, contrast DA2 with DAI. DA2's levels are corridors, forcing us to meet encounters from at most two directions. DAI lets us parkour up a mountain and attack from above, making it nearly impossible for the enemy to respond.

Skyrim isn't quite a proper open world (nor was Oblivion - Arena, Daggerfall, and Morrowind were, though). There are area transitions in and out of dungeons and cities, and invisible walls to prevent us from circumventing that. But it's far more open than anything BioWare has done.

Comparing Kirkwall to just Whiterun would only be fair if Skyrim was set primarily in Whiterun. Whiterun is like the tutorial city, to teach us how to navigate in a city. Riften and Markarth offer very different experiences.

And I spend the vast majority of my time in Skyrim outside (because I dislike urban adventures), where I can assure you it isn't just a big bowl.

[Addictress]

Never played Eve Online actually though heard a lot about it.

To revist the point briefly, I went back and checked out more about Baldur's Gate 1, NWN, Dragon Age: Origins, and a few other things. Indeed, the overall experience offered by those games is superior to the kind offered in DA2, Throne of Bhaal, HotU and so on, where game elements were subtituted for more hard charging traditional and conservative narrative ones.

In fact, you notice looking at these things that the first game in the series is usually the new engine, new game concept, obviously descended from D&D although continuing with modifications and quirks, and then it seemed like (just guessing, don't know this for a fact) the expansions or sequels would be handed off to story and narrative team while the game design team would start on the next major game concept, hence the expansions like Bhaal and Underdark which are much more heavy on kind of cinematic intensity.

This seemed to stop around Dragon Age 2 which normally would of been the epic add on expansion to the base game of Origins, but perhaps because of EA (again pure speculation on my part) became an independent game which made the expectations sort of different.

Anyway, to put a cap on this the narrative experiences which are often heralded for their story and whatnot actually were often weaker because of their story and characters, while yes the Baldur's Gate/NWN and those games offered better experiences and characters at the same time.


This is a subtle point though, why do people enjoy the characters? It is (well, was, to a degree) because they permit the player to experience them in their unique way.

Like, take the characters from Dragon Age 2 which are often heralded, but are actually more generic and stereotyped. A swashbuckling pirate, a shy and brainy mage, boisterious dwarf, disciplined paladin, over emotional and high strung mage as well as the brooding and dark past/conflict mage.

Contrast to Dragon Age Origins, you have cookie obsessed Spartan warrior, a brutal assassin with a sympathetic side, and literally a war dog as like an actual really genuine character.

You could say the reason Baldur's Gate 1, NWN OC, and Dragon Age Origins are better than the more "story driven" Throne of Bhaal, Hordes, Dragon Age 2/Mass Effect 2 is actually because of the characters (in addition to gameplay).

I've noticed in general the better a game is, the better the characters and vice versa, consequently, focusing on making a better game would likely make for better characters as a natural byproduct.

Okay stop right there. A lot of people prefer or equally enjoy DA2 and ME2. Period. Better story. Better characters. We don't agree that me2 and da2 are less at all

[fchopin]

Okay stop right there. A lot of people prefer or equally enjoy DA2 and ME2. Period. Better story. Better characters. We don't agree that me2 and da2 are less at all

 

Did you say that DA2 and ME2 had better story?

Let me get my microscope out and see if there was any story in the game.

 

If you like the games that is fine but stop with the better story.

[AzWarp]

... like Skyrim?

 

???

 

Just play Skyrim then. I want a story... so I'll play Andromeda thank you very much.

[Ahglock]

Did you say that DA2 and ME2 had better story?
Let me get my microscope out and see if there was any story in the game.

If you like the games that is fine but stop with the better story.

Both games had very solid stories. They weren't high art or anything but they had stories. As for better or worse that is a personal take.

[AlanC9]

Skyrim isn't quite a proper open world (nor was Oblivion - Arena, Daggerfall, and Morrowind were, though). There are area transitions in and out of dungeons and cities, and invisible walls to prevent us from circumventing that. But it's far more open than anything BioWare has done.

Though Morrowind does have building and dungeon transitions. But yeah, there's no physical barrier that can't be defeated with enough levitation. (Did they take out levitation so we couldn't fly over city walls and see that there's nobody in them?)

[Iakus]

Okay stop right there. A lot of people prefer or equally enjoy DA2 and ME2. Period. Better story. Better characters. We don't agree that me2 and da2 are less at all

ME2 had great characters.  But the story was cr*p.

 

It was actually embarrassing to see such interesting characters wasted on it.

[Ahglock]

Though Morrowind does have building and dungeon transitions. But yeah, there's no physical barrier that can't be defeated with enough levitation. (Did they take out levitation so we couldn't fly over city walls and see that there's nobody in them?)

Oblivion and on no levitation. It's a big loss IMO. I want levitation, super jumps, climbing all back in elder scrolls 6. Allow me to go in the back door of a dungeon again.

[MattFini]

If DA:I proved anything, it's that their modern games need more story, not less. 

 

DA:I is a decent game, but if you do all the side stuff you can spend 40-50 hours killing time between story missions. A little bit of a pacing problem there. 

[MsKlaussen]

takes resources away from multiplayer.

 

Still not interested in multiplayer. For that matter in keeping with the lame suggestions of some others here, if multiplayer is such a dealbreaker why not go play CoD or Warcraft? I'm sort of sick of titles that made themselves as single player games constantly sneaking "no other option" multiplayer into the scenario.

 

What Bethesda does better than Bioware apparently is not sell out their customers. TES is a single player adventure. And it remained thus even after Bethesda decided to jump the MP bandwagon. They wanted to make MP? It's a new game then. And they made a NEW game. They didn't start undermining the SP games by trying to shoehorn multiplayer into them.

 

Multiplayer is a scourge.

[Stakrin]

This is the last thing I ever want to see in this or any mass effect game

[AlanC9]

Still not interested in multiplayer. For that matter in keeping with the lame suggestions of some others here, if multiplayer is such a dealbreaker why not go play CoD or Warcraft? I'm sort of sick of titles that made themselves as single player games constantly sneaking "no other option" multiplayer into the scenario.
 
What Bethesda does better than Bioware apparently is not sell out their customers. TES is a single player adventure. And it remained thus even after Bethesda decided to jump the MP bandwagon. They wanted to make MP? It's a new game then. And they made a NEW game. They didn't start undermining the SP games by trying to shoehorn multiplayer into them.
 
Multiplayer is a scourge.

What's the actual problem with MP? I get that you don't like it, but I'm wholly indifferent to MP, and I don't see why I should feel otherwise.