25 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I'm currently playing Fallout 4. And guess what: exploration is way more enjoyable than in DAI. Not that DAI was exactly bad, but....a considerably lesser experience in this aspect. Here some assorted thoughts about where Bioware went wrong:

 

(1) Bethesda's worlds aren't just "opener" than your typical Bioware world, they're vastly more interactive. Not only do you have something interesting to discover basically every few steps, it's not just lore and landscape but all sorts of stuff from ability upgrades to junk - and in FO4 in particular, even junk is potentially useful.

 

(2) The DA team's decision to restrict the roleplaying simulation to talking and combat has the unfortunate side effect that there are no hurdles to overcome in getting the smaller amount of useful stuff there is, and there is no stealth. So there is no use for skills like sneaking or lockpicking or attributes like perception. The handful of extra-hard locks doesn't make up for it and there is no cost/benefit consideration anyway since you'll have enough perks to get everything that's important. Instead, DAI has class-based exploration talents, one per class, which don't enrich exploration in any meaningful way, but only deserve to restrict the makeup of your party so that you always have one of each class in it.

 

In the end, in order to make exploration gameplay more fun, they'd need to considerable increase the possible complexity of interacting with your environment, including landscape, structures and creatures, *and* considerably increase the number of items you can interact with in the world. What DAI did was far too little, and much more liable to make players think "better get back to what you do well". I'd prefer them to do it right instead, but if resource constraints mean that they can't do their stories, lore and characters well *and* make good exploration gameplay, then indeed, it's better to focus on one thing. 

 

 

[In Exile]

I agree in part. Or rather, I disagree with a few of your points. The first is about "restricting" roleplay through an absence of sneaking. That has long not been a real part of Bioware games, and to the extent you don't get any reaction from it, I wouldn't say it's a materially different way of exploring the world. Look at the open world in TW3, which is superior to DAI - no sneaking, but plenty of content.

There's a problem with the theme part approach in FO4. Now this is not a criticism relative to DAI because DAI fails at this too. But the world doesn't make sense in terms of how it's laid out. The volume of raiders to non raiders makes no sense. The actual layout of some settlements is confusing.

I don't find fiddling around with random stuff in the world fun, so I can't comment on that part of your post (it all just makes me feel like I'm riffling through garbage).

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

There's a problem with the theme part approach in FO4. Now this is not a criticism relative to DAI because DAI fails at this too. But the world doesn't make sense in terms of how it's laid out. The volume of raiders to non raiders makes no sense. The actual layout of some settlements is confusing.

 

Straight up trying to call a shack and two people with some corn a "settlement" is confusing. Looking at you, Tenpines.

 

I'd prefer them to do it right instead, but if resource constraints mean that they can't do their stories, lore and characters well *and* make good exploration gameplay, then indeed, it's better to focus on one thing. 

I agree. I do like the exploration in DAI. Specifically, I like seeing the environmental variation. I liked seeing more of what Thedas looks like. But I felt like I was out in the wilderness much too much. A lot of people (erroneously, imo) complained this game was "like an mmo", but it honestly should have been more like one and had quest hubs in each zone. Camps don't count b/c, aside from handing out requisitions, they usually don't result in any new content. 

[Qis]

Well, FO4 is based on real world, and scale accordingly with real world, meaning your character get into building as if you are who get into buildings, that's why it feels lively.

 

It is a post apocalyptic world and they show it visually, building destroyed, things destroyed, strange mutant creatures coming out sometimes, you get radiated when drinking water, radiation typhoon coming....ect, it is a dirty and nasty world

 

DA:I world is SUPPOSED to be a world destroyed by demons, but we don't see that...it is because everything are so beautiful and colorful...the trees are beutiful, there are flowers....it is not a world being messed up by roaming demons...

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

I don't think that the environment needed to look bleak to seem destroyed by demons. And there were plenty of spots (houses on fire, eerie haunted houses, etc) that showed damage from demons or local conflict in an area. Though the spots where demons were actually coming through could maybe have done with a bit more destruction. But then again, its not like its in the lore that the demons blight the world around them. That's darkspawn. Demons don't necessarily hurt any of the environment, just the people (and animals?) they encounter.

[Qis]

Well, the veil tear off, demons pouring in, and dragons are everywhere....the world should not be beautiful...just think what those flaming demons and fire breathing dragons could do? They burned up everything....so it should be a world with burned out towns and villages, burning trees and ashes....

[thats1evildude]

Like the Exalted Plains?

[Qis]

What i mean is Bethesda is so special when making an environment of the world they want to make...

 

Cyrodil is beaautiful Imperial provice before contaminated by Oblivion gates....the caves are dark, misty and suffocating...ancient ruins are also dark, isty and having undead

 

Skyrim is dark and grey with all Scandinavian and devilish stuff....but sadly caves are so light and colorful....crypts are dirty and having mummies...

 

Fallout is dark and dirty post nuclear apocalypse...buildings destroyed everywhere, dead bodies everywhere, suffice to sy it is not a pleasant world...so just imagine if we are traveling in such world...that's the point, that what they want us to experience

 

They know how to fit the theme with the world they created

[vbibbi]

I'm currently playing Fallout 4. And guess what: exploration is way more enjoyable than in DAI. Not that DAI was exactly bad, but....a considerably lesser experience in this aspect. Here some assorted thoughts about where Bioware went wrong:

 

(1) Bethesda's worlds aren't just "opener" than your typical Bioware world, they're vastly more interactive. Not only do you have something interesting to discover basically every few steps, it's not just lore and landscape but all sorts of stuff from ability upgrades to junk - and in FO4 in particular, even junk is potentially useful.

 

(2) The DA team's decision to restrict the roleplaying simulation to talking and combat has the unfortunate side effect that there are no hurdles to overcome in getting the smaller amount of useful stuff there is, and there is no stealth. So there is no use for skills like sneaking or lockpicking or attributes like perception. The handful of extra-hard locks doesn't make up for it and there is no cost/benefit consideration anyway since you'll have enough perks to get everything that's important. Instead, DAI has class-based exploration talents, one per class, which don't enrich exploration in any meaningful way, but only deserve to restrict the makeup of your party so that you always have one of each class in it.

 

In the end, in order to make exploration gameplay more fun, they'd need to considerable increase the possible complexity of interacting with your environment, including landscape, structures and creatures, *and* considerably increase the number of items you can interact with in the world. What DAI did was far too little, and much more liable to make players think "better get back to what you do well". I'd prefer them to do it right instead, but if resource constraints mean that they can't do their stories, lore and characters well *and* make good exploration gameplay, then indeed, it's better to focus on one thing. 

It would have been great had the themes of military, diplomacy, and espionage tactics been better utilized. Instead of just war table mission options, have the PC choose how best to complete quests and interact with the world: we can have dialogue options based on which tactic we use most, or have a bonus to skill checks. Then unlocking the keeps would allow us to increase or customize our tactics.

 

I found it strange that Morrigan's epilogue slides mention which of the three branches we took the most perks in, since it has no impact on the world or gameplay whatsoever. It doesn't even record in the DA Keep. It feels like there was originally going to be some implementation of more detailed consequences of the three branches that was cut.

[Ieldra]

I agree in part. Or rather, I disagree with a few of your points. The first is about "restricting" roleplay through an absence of sneaking. That has long not been a real part of Bioware games, and to the extent you don't get any reaction from it, I wouldn't say it's a materially different way of exploring the world. Look at the open world in TW3, which is superior to DAI - no sneaking, but plenty of content.

The thing is, in Bioware's games roleplaying is mostly restricted to what you say, and by implication, by the decisions you make by talking about them. Roleplaying as "what you do" in terms of gameplay stays almost entirely unrealized, but in order to make open-world exploration enjoyable, you need more ways to interact with the world in terms of gameplay, rather than just talking and fighting. Different ways to reach the same goal may not be important in terms of the main plot, but it defines your character as much as what you say. As for fighting, diplomatic ways to resolve potentially hostile encounters need to be standard rather than the exception. So yes, I find Bioware's typical approach to roleplaying restrictive.

I don't find fiddling around with random stuff in the world fun, so I can't comment on that part of your post (it all just makes me feel like I'm riffling through garbage).

What I meant that *if* you give the player the opportunity for exploration like DAI does, then it should make it worthwhile, if only in minor ways. Some players enjoy that kind of stuff, others don't, but if a game implements it, it should be done well.

[AlanC9]

(1) Bethesda's worlds aren't just "opener" than your typical Bioware world, they're vastly more interactive. Not only do you have something interesting to discover basically every few steps, it's not just lore and landscape but all sorts of stuff from ability upgrades to junk - and in FO4 in particular, even junk is potentially useful.

I'm not sure this is a good thing. I thought that, for instance, Skyrim was kind of frantic compared to Morrowind, or DA:I.

(2) The DA team's decision to restrict the roleplaying simulation to talking and combat has the unfortunate side effect that there are no hurdles to overcome in getting the smaller amount of useful stuff there is, and there is no stealth.

Don't forget jumping, and navigation in general. DA:I is, in a sense, about mastering the terrain. I'm starting to suspect that the reason they tolerated the limited zoom on the tac cam is to keep it from breaking some of the terrain puzzles. Same thing for the awful DA:I automap.

If you want to say that this is a bad concept for an RPG design, don't let me stop you.

[Abyss108]

Can't say I've ever enjoyed exploring a Bethesda game. Mainly because of the "theme park" mentality they seem to design their games with.  Everything feels completely fake/disconnected.

[In Exile]

It would have been great had the themes of military, diplomacy, and espionage tactics been better utilized. Instead of just war table mission options, have the PC choose how best to complete quests and interact with the world: we can have dialogue options based on which tactic we use most, or have a bonus to skill checks. Then unlocking the keeps would allow us to increase or customize our tactics.

 

I found it strange that Morrigan's epilogue slides mention which of the three branches we took the most perks in, since it has no impact on the world or gameplay whatsoever. It doesn't even record in the DA Keep. It feels like there was originally going to be some implementation of more detailed consequences of the three branches that was cut.

You can see that before they made deep cuts, there was some basis for a mechanism whereby which part of the Inquisition you developed mattered a lot. Just look at the Orlais choice: Briala for spies, and Leliana, Gaspard for forces, and Cullen, and Celen for diplomacy, and Josephine. Even the intro, where you (for no apparent reason) show up with Gaspard suggests that originally there was some questline whereby before you got to the Winter palace you'd notionally side with one of the 3 (basically, like Orzammar). 

DA:I, like DA:O and DA2, seems to have suffered from deep cuts to the plot. 

[AlanC9]

Yeah, it's what Bio does.

[KCMeredith]

Especially agree on the first part, exploring is just way more exciting in Fo4. You can go into any run down building and you'll find some sort of story through terminals, objects or corpses while collecting loot you'll need later on. 

[Darkly Tranquil]

DA and Fallout are very different beasts. DA is focused on the characters and the story, and the world exists to provide a place for those stories to play out. Fallout (and Bethesda games in general) are all about the world, and the story and characters exist just to give you a reason to go out and play in the sandbox.

Personally, I don't much care for open world games, and I think DA is at it's best when it focuses on it's story and characters in a more limited space, such as in The Descent and Trespasser. Let Bethesda have their sandboxes, and get DA back to storytelling and character development.

[Ieldra]

DA and Fallout are very different beasts. DA is focused on the characters and the story, and the world exists to provide a place for those stories to play out. Fallout (and Bethesda games in general) are all about the world, and the story and characters exist just to give you a reason to go out and play in the sandbox.

Personally, I don't much care for open world games, and I think DA is at it's best when it focuses on it's story and characters in a more limited space, such as in The Descent and Trespasser. Let Bethesda have their sandboxes, and get DA back to storytelling and character development.

It is true that a game that focuses as much on story and character as your typical Bioware game doesn't really need a well-developed exploration aspect. The thing is, DAI is less focused on character and story than its two predecessors, which means it needed "something more" to balance the lack of focus on the story. That could've been an opportunity, but only if that "something more" had been developed well and what there was of the story didn't suffer. That wasn't the case, though. Neither the main story nor the exploration aspect (or most character arcs) were anything near to what they needed to be to qualify as "done well", and while single elements (locations, story chapters) *were* done well here and there, on the whole we ended up with a half-hearted hybrid.

[vbibbi]

You can see that before they made deep cuts, there was some basis for a mechanism whereby which part of the Inquisition you developed mattered a lot. Just look at the Orlais choice: Briala for spies, and Leliana, Gaspard for forces, and Cullen, and Celen for diplomacy, and Josephine. Even the intro, where you (for no apparent reason) show up with Gaspard suggests that originally there was some questline whereby before you got to the Winter palace you'd notionally side with one of the 3 (basically, like Orzammar). 

DA:I, like DA:O and DA2, seems to have suffered from deep cuts to the plot. 

Yeah, it's a shame on what they cut. I know that any game is realistically going to have lots of cut content, and sometimes it's for good reasons to make a better game. But this seems more like resource mismanagement or an executive decision to focus more on the open world element than the building an organization which shapes nations. The only remaining game mechanics for building/leading an organization are the war table, power points (boo!), capturing keeps, and establishing camps (and requisitions, double boo!). I guess we could argue that upgrading Skyhold is another one, but it has no impact other than cosmetic changes.

 

I think having these diverging strategies could have helped increase replayability and make our leadership decisions feel like they made more of an impact.

 

It is true that a game that focuses as much on story and character as your typical Bioware game doesn't really need a well-developed exploration aspect. The thing is, DAI is less focused on character and story than its two predecessors, which means it needed "something more" to balance the lack of focus on the story. That could've been an opportunity, but only if that "something more" had been developed well and what there was of the story didn't suffer. That wasn't the case, though. Neither the main story nor the exploration aspect (or most character arcs) were anything near to what they needed to be to qualify as "done well", and while single elements (locations, story chapters) *were* done well here and there, on the whole we ended up with a half-hearted hybrid.

It's ironic that Bio felt they needed to mimic Skyrim, since in reality DAI is not an open world game, just a Bioware game with significantly larger maps. The maps are still confined exploration, the corridors are just the mountains and other obstacles which can be harder to navigate due to invisible barriers.

[Qis]

Bioware can make an open world game, but they need the theme of the map they want to create...by that they can put in interesting things related, or else it doesn't match up...it is nice to have beautiful scenery but does that match up the theme of the game?

 

FO4 is post apocalyptic world where there are a lot of waste, and there is no law in the land. That's why you can pick up everything, they are all belong to long dead people, what i mean is it is become like that because of the theme. As you explore you found many things laying around and making something out of it, that what would we do in the world of such condition

 

Surely you can't just pick up everything in a normal world set up isn't it?

[Darkly Tranquil]

It is true that a game that focuses as much on story and character as your typical Bioware game doesn't really need a well-developed exploration aspect. The thing is, DAI is less focused on character and story than its two predecessors, which means it needed "something more" to balance the lack of focus on the story. That could've been an opportunity, but only if that "something more" had been developed well and what there was of the story didn't suffer. That wasn't the case, though. Neither the main story nor the exploration aspect (or most character arcs) were anything near to what they needed to be to qualify as "done well", and while single elements (locations, story chapters) *were* done well here and there, on the whole we ended up with a half-hearted hybrid.

I agree. I think they sacrificed the quality of the elements they are normally good at to try their hand at an element they haven't really tried before and the game as a whole suffered for it. As I said previously DAI shone when they dropped the sandboxes for the major quest set pieces and the linear DLC, and struggled when it had to try to reconcile its storytelling with the open world. That's not to say that it's not possible to reconcile the two, just that it seems to be very hard given how few open world games manage to deliver a strong, well paced narrative while producing an engaging sandbox at the same time.

Because I dislike open world games in general (due their propensity to result in a focus on quantity over quality), I would much rather they ditch trying to have an open world and instead put that energy into the story and character development. I would vastly prefer a tightly paced 40 hour game with a strong narrative and character development than 100+ hour sprawling sandbox that is 75% busy work interspersed with small segments of narratively critical content. I probably won't end up playing Fallout 4 simply because I just don't want spend the vast amounts of time required to dig through the swathes of tedious filler to get to the meat of the story; I don't have so much free time that I can sink hundreds of hours into one game anymore, so I regard relative brevity as a virtue, and I wish this trend of quantity over quality of content would go die in a fire.

[vbibbi]

I agree. I think they sacrificed the quality of the elements they are normally good at to try their hand at an element they haven't really tried before and the game as a whole suffered for it. As I said previously DAI shone when they dropped the sandboxes for the major quest set pieces and the linear DLC, and struggled when it had to try to reconcile its storytelling with the open world. That's not to say that it's not possible to reconcile the two, just that it seems to be very hard given how few open world games manage to deliver a strong, well paced narrative while producing an engaging sandbox at the same time.

Because I dislike open world games in general (due their propensity to result in a focus on quantity over quality), I would much rather they ditch trying to have an open world and instead put that energy into the story and character development. I would vastly prefer a tightly paced 40 hour game with a strong narrative and character development than 100+ hour sprawling sandbox that is 75% busy work interspersed with small segments of narratively critical content. I probably won't end up playing Fallout 4 simply because I just don't want spend the vast amounts of time required to dig through the swathes of tedious filler to get to the meat of the story; I don't have so much free time that I can sink hundreds of hours into one game anymore, so I regard relative brevity as a virtue, and I wish this trend of quantity over quality of content would go die in a fire.

Not only is there a divide between story and open world, but there's the added element of replayability. I don't think it's possible to do all three well. FO4 seems like it focuses on open world and replayability, with different factions to side with and different game outcomes. DAI tried to do story, open world, and replayability with the differences in the main quest outcomes. But those outcomes were not as varied or interesting as they had been in past DA games, so that suffered.

[ComedicSociopathy]

To me Fallout 4's main strength when it comes to exploration is the WTF factor that you constantly run into while going through the wasteland. The wasteland visually isn't all that interesting to watch most of the time, but when you randomly run into areas like Pickman's Gallery, Libertalia, Dunwich Borers and the like the game really shines and is able to capture your interest. DA:I does the opposite and tries to engage you with pretty graphics and diverse landscapes, but with the exception of the first time you run into a dragon on the Storm Coast or the haunted manse in the Emerald Graces the game lacks an impressive WTF factor that captures your interest. That said, I still think Inquisition still writes companions and main quests better, which has always been Bioware's main strengths.

 

Overall story is a bit harder for me to judge, but I say that once the twist was revealed at around the middle of Fallout 4 I started getting bored with the main questline since my character's main motivation was essentially gone and just went around exploring and killing super mutants. 

[JosieRevisited]

The problem with comparing these two games is that the goals aren't the same. BioWare has always been very focused on a deep, DEEP lore and deep character development\interactions. 

 

Then you have Bethesda that literally drops you into a family not of your choosing and tells you to care about them, just before setting you free in a wide open world where you can spend 100+ hours not giving **** number one about the main story at all (my experience). 

 

So yes, the open world content is nice insomuch as I had something to do other than play the main storyline which was terrible, but the difference is in every single BioWare game I've played I actually cared *about* that main story so the open world part was more incidental. Feeling like a part of the world and desperately wanting to fix a hole in the sky and regain my memories about how it came to be there was pretty compelling. I expect that may have been the experience of many others. 

 

Is it worth giving up such richness to put resources on building out more disconnected tasks in random caves just to say we filled out a map with content? If we were getting story quality like Bethesda's garbage of fallout 4, then I'd say probably yes. We aren't getting Bethesda-level storytelling, though. It's so much better. 

[MuggsBG]

Relevant?

A baby is drowning in the lake:

-Fallout 1

Ask for more information
Agree to help
Decide not to help
Accidentally say something that pisses the NPC off, failing the quest
Reveal too much information about yourself, causing the Super Mutants to track your vault more easily

-Fallout 2

Ask for more information
Agree to help
Decide not to help
Accidentally say something that pisses the NPC off, failing the quest
Pop culture reference about the baby

-Fallout 3
Yes, I will save the baby
Depends on the caps
I will not save the baby
[Intelligence] The baby is drowning

-Fallout New Vegas
I will save the baby
I will not save the baby
[Barter 30] Double the caps and I'll save the baby
[Medicine 30] Thanks to my medical knowledge, I will easily be able to save the baby
[Survival 15/30] Uh... yeah, I totally know how to swim

-Fallout 4
Yes
No (Yes)
Sarcastic (Yes)

[Nefla]

I didn't like DA:I's "open world" aside from visually. It was pretty and varied to look at but completely uninteresting IMO. I also hate DA:I's boring, restrictive and repetitive combat. Fallout 4's combat is the style that I like so that automatically brings the fun of exploration up, I also like being able to take everything that's not nailed down (and build things with it) and I found the random terminal emails and stories to be a lot more interesting in FO4 than the random notes in DA:I. I found that both gamese were severely lacking in fun and engaging sidequests though.