267 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

It might just be the elven backgrounds, but my elf had been part of the Dalish tribe her whole life and been the Keeper's Second. That's not my doing headcanon for her backstory, that's what the game actually told me my backstory was.

Dalish clans move around a lot. Where were they? What were they doing? What did being the Keeper's second actually entail on a daily basis?

While the elf backgrounds aren't as wide open as the dwarf backgrounds (which are total blank slates), they're still less restrictive that the DAO origins (which themselves were still less restrictivd than I deared they would be).

The problem is mostly that my elf actually acted like she didn't know any of that stuff and when it became relevant there was no dialogue option for it other than "Ask Solas to explain it".

That's where the roleplaying comes in. You can define your character's mental state such that it is consistent with the dialogue option you're choosing.

This becomes more difficult if we can't tell what the dialogue option is in advance.

BioWare does traditionally favour more passive PC designs. If you want your PC to be an assertive person who takes charge of social situations, you are pretty much out of luck.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Thank you.

Spoiler

DA:I so big it take 100h to complete, so what if you waste time just walking for 80h. ME:A even bigger 200h and more walking driving(I hope at least in mako we can have party banter and companions don't go into horse ass). Why everyone praising you can complete 20h game in 100h like it's good think. Yes everyone hate DA2 but at least you don't waste so much time for running, yes I would like more than one dungeon. But why in DA:I have maps witch have no importance to main story witch is second most important think in Bioware games. Cut maps you don't use for main story and make more better side quests in maps you do.

I would hate this.

The world should exist independently of the "main story". I would also rather the main story was something we had to uncover instead of just having it handed to us.

[RoboticWater]

If your character wants to do them, then he's making that choice given the circumstances. Choosing that objective involves choosing the walk. If he wants to do the walk, then I want to experience him doing the walk.

Sure, just don't make the walk excessive. Good design is finding a balance between portraying the walk and keeping the player engaged. Since, as In Exile said, walking in games does not have the inherent engagement of exercise or other physical sensations, BioWare need to supplement their traversal some other way. Either the walking itself needs to be fun or there needs to be more fun distractions to keep us busy.

 

Nature should have a certain amount of emptiness to it. If I'm walking over a snowy mountain in Skyrim, I'm not finding content every 10 steps.

Yes, but not an overwhelming amount of emptiness.

 

If anything, I think the way to improve the levels in DAI would be to make harvestable resources less common and less evenly distributed, thus allowing exploration without repetitive interruptions.

When I say content, I don't mean picking up resources; I mean extended involvement in a complex task. Exploration could be meaningful if BioWare made the act of traversal involve more than just pressing the movement keys.

 

So the problem comes in when the game makes your character want to do mundane things?

Yes, actually. Games can be exciting or grueling, but they must be engaging. Papers, Please managed to make the daily life of a border patrol officer stimulating, so I don't think it's unreasonable for BioWare to do the same with exploring a fantasy world.

[Cainhurst Crow]

What is this, the fourth game to brag about its size? I remember Fallout 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition bragging about the size of their maps, and really what it translated to was a whole lot of nothing in terms of game impact.

Just say it'll be big and move on. Stop making these grand promises that are just gonna fall short.

[9TailsFox]

I would hate this.

The world should exist independently of the "main story". I would also rather the main story was something we had to uncover instead of just having it handed to us.

I would like this to. For me perfect game would be where is no main or side content. I don't like Fallout 4 dumped down dialogue but I liked game is you "picking" faction. But Bioware must have this epic enemy, why it can't be just several "small", enemy's or ally depending on your choices. In one game this planet/race can be you best friend/trade partner in other enemy who swear to destroy you.

[Paz Cadash]

I couldn't disagree more.

Except for one thing. What you describe, zipping fast-travel points just to complete quests, does sound really dull. But given that it's dull, why do it?

I almost never fast-travel in Inquisition.

 

I guess we are just looking for different games then. But there's a whole other genre of action/platformer games where you do nothing but faff about and look for random doodads in hard-to-reach places, so I think it's unfortunate they feel they need to stretch out story-based RPGs with these kinds of time-wasting mechanics. I dread having the entire game wrapped into an endless Mako-driving section from ME1.

 

As for why do it? First of all, to know which parts of a game are worth playing and which parts of the world are worth exploring you would need to have already played it completely before, and second some of them still add a little something, a bit of lore, a bit of story, codex entries or something else that adds to the overall world-building, it's just annoying to have to waste so much time for them. I'd rather have more concentrated efforts instead of spreading it out over hundreds of far-flung fetch-quests.

 

And like I said, I have no problem with the size if it's backed up by content or if it's otherwise warranted. If you can go out and explore and constantly come across interesting things or characters or situations then that's fine, but if you have a huge, barren world and the only thing you come across is yet another ocularum, yet another shard or yet another rift that is the same as the last two-dozen you encountered, then no thanks.

 

For what it's worth I fast-traveled very little in Witcher 3. It suffered from a lot of the same things as DAI though not as severe. But the beautiful, detailed and densely vegetated forests, swamps and fields were more conducive to the kind of "walking simulator" experience of games like The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and the horseback riding was pretty fun.

 

In contrast the DAI world felt extremely sparse and "gamey", I rarely felt like I was exploring a living world but rather playing a game, and every new area I knew: "OK this place is going to have three astrariums, a bunch of rifts, three to six camps, a couple of ocularum, maybe a keep and someone is going to pester me about requisitions. If I'm lucky there's a dragon." Riding was also janky as all hell (I actually thought the game bugged out the first time I started to gallop the horse) which made the traveling a chore.

[AlanC9]

Sure, just don't make the walk excessive. Good design is finding a balance between portraying the walk and keeping the player engaged. Since, as In Exile said, walking in games does not have the inherent engagement of exercise or other physical sensations, BioWare need to supplement their traversal some other way. Either the walking itself needs to be fun or there needs to be more fun distractions to keep us busy.

Of course, this is awfully subjective. Which TES game had better "balance," Morrowind or Skyrim?
 
 

Yes, actually. Games can be exciting or grueling, but they must be engaging. Papers, Please managed to make the daily life of a border patrol officer stimulating, so I don't think it's unreasonable for BioWare to do the same with exploring a fantasy world.

I'd need to see specifics before signing on with this. Can you ballpark how 60 minutes of this hypothetical game would differ from 60 minutes in the life of a DAI character?

[AlanC9]

In contrast the DAI world felt extremely sparse and "gamey", I rarely felt like I was exploring a living world but rather playing a game, and every new area I knew: "OK this place is going to have three astrariums, a bunch of rifts, three to six camps, a couple of ocularum, maybe a keep and someone is going to pester me about requisitions. If I'm lucky there's a dragon." Riding was also janky as all hell (I actually thought the game bugged out the first time I started to gallop the horse) which made the traveling a chore.

I don't quite see how "sparse" and "gamey" fit together here. Surely RW environments are far more sparse than game environments.

[Andrew Lucas]

I wish it would though, TW3 did open world RPG really well better than AC ever did.

Bioware should just copy the best game ever, TW3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bioware should just copy the best game ever, TW3.

I wish I'd seen how TW3 handed the open world.

Sadly, because of the set protagonist and the action combat, I never had any interest in the game.

[RoboticWater]

Of course, this is awfully subjective. Which TES game had better "balance," Morrowind or Skyrim?

Never played Morrowind (nor do I have much intention of wrestling with it's supposedly poor controls), so I can't comment on that. Any knowledge I have of it is from watching my friend play, but I never watched him play for more than a few minutes.
 

I'd need to see specifics before signing on with this. Can you ballpark how 60 minutes of this hypothetical game would differ from 60 minutes in the life of a DAI character?

I might be harping on it a bit too much, but Dark Souls probably has the most ideal open world exploration. On the small scale it has slow, but weighty movement that is perfectly responsive. Inquisition's movement, especially the horse, left something to be desired. Tighter animations and spruced up sound effects would help, but a less floaty jump and a sprint button would go a long way.
 
Large scale, the world is incredibly detailed, and I'm not just talking about the graphics and the aesthetics. There are tons of secret passage ways, mini bosses, items, and traps all packed very tightly together. Traps, enemies, and occasional platforming challenges keep the player on their toes while the items and secrets are a nice reward that enhance the intrigue of the world. Secret passages have the added benefit of making the world seem more interconnected and real. What I think kills Inquisition is its lack of diversity; not only are the engaging sections of the level spread out, they're frequently just copy/paste tasks that play out almost exactly the same and only occasionally have unique lore behind them. It also doesn't help that Inquisition's loot system devalues treasure so quickly. A game should try its best to provide the player with unique and surprising challenges that provide valuable and lasting rewards (not just loot). 
 
But most importantly, the enemy encounters themselves are inexorably linked to the level design. Fighting one kind of enemy in one place can be a completely different experience from fighting him in another. This means that the player is getting a consistently unique combat experience as they progress. For example, Dark Souls has you fighting rats (a fairly easy enemy) on a very thin platform, so the fight is made more interesting because the player needs to worry about their positioning. Skyrim achieves a similar effect by having forts and dungeons with fairly diverse layouts, so how you approach each encounter can vary. To get this working in a DA game might be tough, but designing encounters that force specific squad positioning or include different intractable objects (like that early demo BioWare showed us) might do it. 
 
Doing one or all of these things can be difficult, but steps in the right direction is all I want. I highly recommend playing Dark Souls if you want to better understand what I'm saying, or barring that, watching a playthrough.
 

I don't quite see how "sparse" and "gamey" fit together here. Surely RW environments are far more sparse than game environments.

I don't agree with that assessment. For one, the real world (assuming that's what RW means) is effectively infinite in its engaging distractions. I've kept myself busy kicking pebbles around. However, developers obviously can't allow us to play with random detritus everywhere (for a number of reasons). Placing a keyboard and computer screen between the environment and the person makes generating engaging experiences more difficult because we lose out on most ambient sensations and our natural degrees of freedom. The simple act of walking will always be a more engaging experience real life than walking in a game.

 

Like I said in the second paragraph, DA:I's problem is that the few points of interaction it has are very similar, if not exactly the same. Because the trek between each activity is so large and uneventful, the activity itself (when the player finally gets to interact with the game on a deeper level) sticks out like a sore thumb, especially if it's a carbon copy of another. The end result is player thinking: I came all the way here for another one of these?

[Andrew Lucas]

I wish I'd seen how TW3 handed the open world.
Sadly, because of the set protagonist and the action combat, I never had any interest in the game.

Sad excuse....

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sad excuse....

How is either of those words applicable?

Based on TW3's overall design, I expect I would find the game unfun.

[Andrew Lucas]

How is either of those words applicable?
Based on TW3's overall design, I expect I would find the game unfun.

I don't know how one can expect that from a game that is now the one with most one Game Of The Year awards ever, surpassing another masterpiece called The Last Of Us. I would understand if you're skeptical about Andromeda due to Bioware's last actions, but this? A game you don't ever touched it? Wow. "Unfun".

BTW, I'm not trying to say what you should play, just be aware that your views over the game are meaningless. That's you, missing one heck of a game for no real reason, just because.

It has a lot of features you like in Bioware games, and they're basically better, so that's something you might take in consideration.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I might be harping on it a bit too much, but Dark Souls probably has the most ideal open world exploration. On the small scale it has slow, but weighty movement that is perfectly responsive. Inquisition's movement, especially the horse, left something to be desired. Tighter animations and spruced up sound effects would help, but a less floaty jump and a sprint button would go a long way.

Large scale, the world is incredibly detailed, and I'm not just talking about the graphics and the aesthetics. There are tons of secret passage ways, mini bosses, items, and traps all packed very tightly together.

How plausible is that density?

Traps, enemies, and occasional platforming challenges keep the player on their toes while the items and secrets are a nice reward that enhance the intrigue of the world. Secret passages have the added benefit of making the world seem more interconnected and real. What I think kills Inquisition is its lack of diversity; not only are the engaging sections of the level spread out, they're frequently just copy/paste tasks that play out almost exactly the same and only occasionally have unique lore behind them. It also doesn't help that Inquisition's loot system devalues treasure so quickly. A game should try its best to provide the player with unique and surprising challenges that provide valuable and lasting rewards (not just loot).

Perhaps a game should, but in an RPG I worry such a design would damage the believability of the setting.

But most importantly, the enemy encounters themselves are inexorably linked to the level design. Fighting one kind of enemy in one place can be a completely different experience from fighting him in another. This means that the player is getting a consistently unique combat experience as they progress. For example, Dark Souls has you fighting rats (a fairly easy enemy) on a very thin platform, so the fight is made more interesting because the player needs to worry about their positioning.

This can work, though I worry about the game designers having that much control over how I experience content.

Dark Souls may well do this brilliantly, but the design is not without risks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't know how one can expect that from a game that is now the one with most one Game Of The Year awards ever, surpassing another masterpiece called The Last Of Us. I would understand if you're skeptical about Andromeda due to Bioware's last actions, but this? A game you don't ever touched it? Wow. "Unfun".

Action combat is always awful.

Playing a set character through a rigidly defined story doesn't allow much roleplaying.

Given that I want roleplaying in every game, and I never like action combat, and I typically don't care at all about the story being told, TW3 (and TLoU) doesn't seem like my kind of game.

My favourite non-BioWare developer these days is probably Paradox Interactive. A game like Crusader Kings II offers far more roleplaying (with no action elements) than many modern games that call themselves RPGs.

[Andrew Lucas]

Action combat is always awful.
Playing a set character through a rigidly defined story doesn't allow much roleplaying.
Given that I want roleplaying in every game, and I never like action combat, and I typically don't care at all about the story being told, TW3 (and TLoU) doesn't seem like my kind of game.
My favourite non-BioWare developer these days is probably Paradox Interactive. A game like Crusader Kings II offers far more roleplaying (with no action elements) than many modern games that call themselves RPGs.

So I get you don't play many games at all. Well, whatever, do what you must. You're the one missing entire beautiful and engaging tales for the sake of "set protagonist", and playing a weak and short story like the one found in DAI, if you even played that one which I Imagine you didn't due to the " action combat".

[Almostfaceman]

Oohhh *starts writhing and struggling*

 

I'm really worried     

 

Did they HEAR our complaints about "empty open space lacking meaningful interactivity"? Did they?

 

Well considering how well they took into consideration what we wanted for ME3... no. 

 

Are the same writers making this game? I know Casey is gone. Is Mac Walters still helming this?

[RoboticWater]

How plausible is that density?

Not incredibly, but if BioWare reign in their scale, they could probably get something good enough. Hell, something the size of Kirkwall might be able to emulate Dark Soul's design perfectly with time to spare. My point in all this is to say that density is inversely proportional to scale, and that Dragon Age would benefit from focusing more on density. 

 

I don't expect (nor do I want) another Dark Souls. I already have Dark Souls. I just want Dragon Age to be a bit less monotonous.
 

Perhaps a game should, but in an RPG I worry such a design would damage the believability of the setting.

I don't know why you keep insisting that unique and crafted design would hurt the world. Delicate craft can only enhance believability, certainly more than nebulous shards and the like. 
 
Shortcuts and secret passages exist everywhere, especially in a fantasy realm rife with ancient tombs and teleporting mirrors, and nothing would make me believe that I was on a treacherous mountain more than thin, precarious pathways. Sure, you're not as likely to see a deadly trap out in the wild or in a city, but a bridge that suddenly collapses? A creature that leaps out of the bushes and topples you? A building that explodes? There are ways that BioWare can make their setting effectively perform the same functions as Dark Souls' without compromising what makes BioWare's setting unique and believable.
 

This can work, though I worry about the game designers having that much control over how I experience content.

If BioWare copied Dark Souls exactly, then you'd likely have more control over how you experienced content.

 

Regardless, it's important to note that BioWare would only be controlling the stimuli of the world, not your reaction. Imagine smaller versions of DA:I's maps with more unique random encounters. If anything, BioWare would just be giving us more roleplaying material.
 

Dark Souls may well do this brilliantly, but the design is not without risks.

As is any design. Dragon Age's current design risks being boring. However, I think the benefits of Dark Souls' design are worth at least attempting to reach.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So I get you don't play many games at all. Well, whatever, do what you must. You're the one missing entire beautiful and engaging tales for the sake of "set protagonist", and playing a weak and short story like the one found in DAI, if you even played that one which I Imagine you didn't due to the " action combat".

I don't playbthese games to experience someone else's story. If he main selling point of a game is the story it tells, it would need to do other things really well before I'd like it (because veing told a story gets in the way of my enjoyment).

Ideally, I'd like two players who've just played tge same game to have had different experiences, and hopefully even give different answers when asked what the main plot was.

And DAI didn't have any mandatory action combat. I certainly didn't play any action combat in DAI. I used the tac cam (with KBM, so I had a proper pause).

[Neon Rising Winter]

Personally I was happier when they were technologically prevented from taking story heavy RPGs and welding them onto these massive sodding exploration based maps. The last couple of years have convinced me I would be quite happy if I never again heard the words open world and great story used to describe the same game. But hey, on the plus side I can cope with pretty much any combat system they can cobble together.

[Cyonan]

That's where the roleplaying comes in. You can define your character's mental state such that it is consistent with the dialogue option you're choosing.

This becomes more difficult if we can't tell what the dialogue option is in advance.

BioWare does traditionally favour more passive PC designs. If you want your PC to be an assertive person who takes charge of social situations, you are pretty much out of luck.

 

It's not about a character who is assertive and takes charge(which my Inquisitor actually wasn't meant to be). It's about my character not having a basic knowledge of her own people's lore and actually being able to recall said knowledge when it becomes relevant.

 

That makes me very limited in how I get to define my character's mental state and it may not be consistent with how I had been defining it up until that point. Keep in mind this is not some outlandish characterization I want to be included in the game. This is an Elf having basic knowledge of her own people's history, especially as the Keeper's Second if you're playing a mage.

 

Overall I thought DA:I was still a good game, but I did feel very limited in the ability to actually roleplay a character as I wanted to. It felt a lot like "You're free to RP as you wish, as long as you wish to RP this specific kind of character".

 

All the ability to headcanon in the world means nothing to me if I can't make my character take the actions that backs up who that character is as I defined them. I get that in a video game they can't offer me every choice, but DA:I felt very restrictive compared to other video games. Even compared to other BioWare games.

[9TailsFox]

I wish I'd seen how TW3 handed the open world.

Sadly, because of the set protagonist and the action combat, I never had any interest in the game.

But you have ME icons so I assume you play ME. Shepard is same set protagonist as Geralt. And ME combat to me looks action but what do I know .

[Sylvius the Mad]

But you have ME icons so I assume you play ME. Shepard is same set protagonist as Geralt. And ME combat to me looks action but what do I know .

And I can't stand it.  I never felt like I was in control of Shepard.

 

I'm confident I will never play ME2 or ME3 again.  I will occasionally fire up ME1, though, because driving the Mako was a lot of fun.

 

ME's combat, though, is only action combat if you want it to be.  I didn't, so I used the pause-to-aim feature (which reinforces my opinion that BioWare does the best RPG combat in the business).

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not about a character who is assertive and takes charge(which my Inquisitor actually wasn't meant to be). It's about my character not having a basic knowledge of her own people's lore and actually being able to recall said knowledge when it becomes relevant.

 

But that's headcanon.  You headcanoned that lack of knowledge.

 

If you want your character to know things, stop headcanoning that she doesn't.

All the ability to headcanon in the world means nothing to me if I can't make my character take the actions that backs up who that character is as I defined them.

I can't agree with that.  But...

I get that in a video game they can't offer me every choice, but DA:I felt very restrictive compared to other video games. Even compared to other BioWare games.

This is totally fair.  Different players react differently to different sorts of choices.

 

This particular choice is one they probably should have allowed.  However, that would require that the dialogue with all that exposition get recorded 5 times instead of just once, and that's expensive.  I'd interpret that as an argument against voicing the protagonist.