actually, lemme correct that. ALL open world games from now on need a settlement builder. If you disagree youre a noodle. Dont you think that if i were wrong, i'd know it?
In all seriousness though it's an incredible feature in Fallout 4. so incredible in fact that that's pretty much all i've done. I actually think i might have a problem.
actually, lemme correct that. ALL open world games from now on need a settlement builder. If you disagree youre a noodle. Dont you think that if i were wrong, i'd know it?
In all seriousness though it's an incredible feature in Fallout 4. so incredible in fact that that's pretty much all i've done. I actually think i might have a problem.
Why? While I don't disagree that settlement builders can be a lot of fun, Bethesda and Bioware RPGs vary pretty heavily in regards to how related to their central story they are. Bethesda games tend to be massively free roam, so a settlement or base building system works pretty well considering much of the game is centralized around the idea of doing side stuff or wandering around. Bioware games (even DA) are more story centric and while admittedly DA:I had free roaming components, ultimately they actually detracted from the main game a bit because they were essentially nothing but padding. Fun padding, but still padding.
In short what I'm saying is this. IF a settlement builder works with the Story of DA4 then Bioware should put it in. If it doesn't work and is forced in, or is just some extra nonsense they would put in for fluff content then I would prefer they put the budget they would be spending on such a system into something else that actually supports the story of the main game, or into interesting more story driven side quests. 
I disagree. DA4 needs to go back to being more story focused, as that's Bioware's advertised dev marketing (the story), and needs to have less of the "ooh lots of stuff to do in the world taking resources from the stories".
Of all the things DA4 needs, a settlement builder isn't one of them.
A settlement unbuilder though... Solas, start casting.
actually, lemme correct that. ALL open world games from now on need a settlement builder. If you disagree youre a noodle. Dont you think that if i were wrong, i'd know it?
In all seriousness though it's an incredible feature in Fallout 4. so incredible in fact that that's pretty much all i've done. I actually think i might have a problem.
How would it add to a "typical" story-driven Dragon Age game?
I'm genuinely curious, not being sarcastic. I'm open to just about anything that's implemented well. How would you implement such a thing? I haven't played Fallout 4, so I have no idea as to what specifically you're referring.
Sci-Fi or related genres really are not my thing (don't believe the ME icons under my avatar, I got the games because they were free but never played them because I couldn't generate any interest in them), so I've never played Fallout 4 or even viewed the trailers because, as I said, I don't do futuristic games, but I'm going to guess by the name that it's some kind of post-apocalyptic thing. In a post-apocalyptic world, I can see how settlement building might be relevant. Hey, you're recovering from a holocaust, and reestablishing civilization is part of that. Thedas, and especially Tevinter, has been settled for over a thousand years. Heck, Tevinter has been civilized for over a thousand years. They've never had any kind of world-shaking disaster to recover from, and they don't need to rebuild anything. A settlement builder would feel like bloat.
I agree...DA4 should have settlement builder, but not like in Fallout 4 way in which too unrealistic...how come you scrap buildings and things and then magically build them back in seconds alone without any construction machinery and workers?
If want a settlement build, the whole town must move and work, you plan and make the base design, then assign workers to do it, and the building will be completed in time. You may help them to fasten their work, or you can leave and come back later
Or maybe just using ticking sytem, open a menu, just tick there whatever you want to build if you have the resource, workers and money, then they automatically dong their job and the settlement completed in time
Yes, I want one. But don't put a f*cking limit to the number of things you can build on it! My plans for building a giant city have gone to sh*t!
Guess I'm a nooodle too. 
But, that said, I wouldn't mind it in game like Fallout. 
If Inquisition had been closer to it's plan I would agree, but as it stands it lacks the proper dynamics to make it fun to work with.
i would prefer a base of operations, to customize to my liking. But as for building towns, Naww if i want to be bored ill play sims.
No no no
Bioware should never AGAIN try to copy another strategy from another company.
they should stick on what they do best, linear interactive storytelling.
This thought is a bit too negative for my tastes. I'd prefer they keep trying to innovate and come up with new and interesting ways to make their story-driven games.
It is too late for Bioware to make story driven game back...forget it...they are going for first person shooter soon, so we all have just to prepare ourself and set our mind that Bioware is a first person shooter game developer. It is easier like that. There is no point resisting.
So, i suggest they could make it like Fallout 4, i love VATS
There would be no way to account for player-made towns and things in future installments. Maybe it would work if there were a limited number you could make, they all had preselected names, they all had preselected purposes, and you have to build them. Otherwise it wouldn't work. It would be amazing to see towns we founded eventually grow into cities and get large enough to put on maps, but I doubt it will happen.
If Inquisition had been closer to it's plan I would agree, but as it stands it lacks the proper dynamics to make it fun to work with.
Yeah, if there were a time to do this, it would have been in DAI, where we're leading an organization and building it up. But since they canceled plans on most of the interactivity with the keeps, the time has past.
This thought is a bit too negative for my tastes. I'd prefer they keep trying to innovate and come up with new and interesting ways to make their story-driven games.
So, you disagree that Bioware should stop trying to emulate other games, but should instead try to innovate? How are they going to innovate if it's all recycled concepts from other game companies?
Bioware has shown that they have strengths as a game company (characters being the first, world building and story come somewhat distant second) and weaknesses (project management to allocate resources well during development, taking feedback from previous games and overreacting, balance of story to open world setting). If they add another feature that is a gimmick to compete with peer companies, that will take resources away from the things they already do well, and most likely this new feature won't be done as well as it had been in the source material. If we keep asking Bioware to add in features just because other games have them, the DA franchise will stop having any identity of its own and become a poor man's amalgamation of contemporary games.
YAY! More nonsense!
Please do tell me the fairytale about Witcher being better than DA now. Please.
I'll laugh in your face, and the sound of me laughing will follow you all the way home!
So, you disagree that Bioware should stop trying to emulate other games, but should instead try to innovate? How are they going to innovate if it's all recycled concepts from other game companies?
By taking good ideas and integrating them in new and interesting ways that we haven't seen before because of limits in technology . Let's face it, when we trot out the words "new" "emulate" and "innovate" it's all taking into consideration that there's truly nothing new under the sun - all we're really talking about here is doing better at the same thing that's already been attempted before.
For example... Bioware shouldn't stop trying to incorporate the exciting exploration possibilities of "open world" with their strong characters and interesting stories and worlds. Strong characters have been done before. Open world has been done before. Exploring dungeons and caves have been done before. But it still can be done "better".
Wouldnt it be boring if every game had exactly the same thing as the other game?
Let dragon age be dragon age Good story and awsome characters!
That's really not what's being proposed. Taking features that people enjoy from a wide variety of games and figuring out ways to integrate them to increase enjoyment is worth pursuing. Dragon Age can be Dragon Age but still evolve with the new technologies available for playing Dragon Age. Dragon Age is an idea... the game is just a window into that idea. There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the window.
By taking good ideas and integrating them in new and interesting ways that we haven't seen before because of limits in technology . Let's face it, when we trot out the words "new" "emulate" and "innovate" it's all taking into consideration that there's truly nothing new under the sun - all we're really talking about here is doing better at the same thing that's already been attempted before.
For example... Bioware shouldn't stop trying to incorporate the exciting exploration possibilities of "open world" with their strong characters and interesting stories and worlds. Strong characters have been done before. Open world has been done before. Exploring dungeons and caves have been done before. But it still can be done "better".
Gotcha. Yes, then I agree that Bioware should reasonably look at other games for features which could improve the DA experience, not just because they think it will appeal to a wider audience. Bioware needs to remember its own strengths primarily and then look at other concepts in the context of their strengths. As it is, they always seem to react to fan feedback by backpedaling or going in the opposite direction, and then incorporating new content from their peer companies.
Retour en haut
