29 réponses à ce sujet

[Capone666]

Am I reading into this too much?

What does everyone think?

http://www.gamesrada...-series-combat/

[nfi42]

I thought it was always going to be open world or more specifically open would regions ala DAI.

[Killroy]

BioWare has said numerous times that there are a bunch of really big planets.

[AlanC9]

Depends on your definition of open world, methinks.

[9TailsFox]

Yes world's are open, galaxy have loading screens.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Mac said "... more open world...".

 

Not to nitpick but did he say the equivalent of "you're more stupid"? or did he mean larger areas than in DA:I?

 

Again, Mac uses the word exploration. There seems to be more to it than just looking for resources and colony planets.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Am I reading into this too much?

What does everyone think?

http://www.gamesrada...-series-combat/

This is a vague topic, unless you actually tell us what you read into it.

[TurianSpectre]

Am I reading into this too much?

What does everyone think?

http://www.gamesrada...-series-combat/

Hm sounds interesting... although i was a bit peeved with the open world gameplay of DAI as i felt the enemies really just got in the way more than anything else... but im opening to see what happens with this one, maybe we might actually get to pilot the tempest instead of the galaxy map view that we get since the mass relays were destroyed and in the trailer we see the Ark/Tempest traveling without the use of a mass relay... hype just peaked again for me

[TurianSpectre]

This is a vague topic, unless you actually tell us what you read into it.

Does my last comment help?

[TurianSpectre]

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Mac said "... more open world...".

 

Not to nitpick but did he say the equivalent of "you're more stupid"? or did he mean larger areas than in DA:I?

 

Again, Mac uses the word exploration. There seems to be more to it than just looking for resources and colony planets.

I think he meant more in terms of the development team exploring more into what they can do with the frostbite engine... at least thats what i took away from it

[Saladinbob1]

Open world insofar as Inquisition was an open world, i.e. a series of large maps (planets). Size doesn't matter in this case though, what they do with it is what counts. Puns aside, Inquisition was large by Bioware standards (significantly smaller than TW3 and MGSV though) but had very little to do and contained boring, sterile population centres and bland characters. I'd sooner the game be small but full of interesting things to do and interesting people to meet rather than be large for its own sake.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Does my last comment help?

Not exactly. The OP says that maybe he reads too much into that article. I wonder what.

[maia0407]

Hm sounds interesting... although i was a bit peeved with the open world gameplay of DAI as i felt the enemies really just got in the way more than anything else... but im opening to see what happens with this one, maybe we might actually get to pilot the tempest instead of the galaxy map view that we get since the mass relays were destroyed and in the trailer we see the Ark/Tempest traveling without the use of a mass relay... hype just peaked again for me

Yes, I've been playing FO4 and thinking a lot about the pros and cons of respawning enemies in open worlds. I haven't wanted to make a thread about it so this might be a good fit for my thoughts. From a gameplay standpoint, it makes sense to have enemies respawn for replay value and to make the world feel alive but I don't like how this mechanic is usually implemented. 

 

In open world games, I like the feeling that I'm making the world a safer place. When enemies respawn a few days later in the same numbers this feeling is diminished. I get that, of course, areas will eventually repopulate if we don't secure them. However, I'd like an option to secure areas that we've cleared if 1) we have enough personnel and, 2) if the location is strategic or close to our home base. For areas that we can't secure, enemies shouldn't respawn at full strength just a few days or weeks later. 

 

I don't think a mechanic like this would have to be too resource intensive; it would really help with immersion and let me feel like my character has an impact on the world.

[TurianSpectre]

Yes, I've been playing FO4 and thinking a lot about the pros and cons of respawning enemies in open worlds. I haven't wanted to make a comment about it so this might be a good fit for it. From a gameplay standpoint, it makes sense to have enemies respawn for replay value and to make the world feel alive but I don't like how this mechanic is usually implemented. 

 

In open world games, I like the feeling that I'm making the world a safer place. When enemies respawn a few days later in the same numbers this feeling is diminished. I get that, of course, areas will eventually repopulate if we don't secure them. However, I'd like an option to secure areas that we've cleared if 1) we have enough personnel and, 2) if the location is strategic or close to our home base. For areas that we can't secure, enemies shouldn't respawn at full strength just a few days or weeks later. 

 

I don't think a mechanic like this would have to be too resource intensive; it would really help with immersion and let me feel like my character has an impact on the world.

Exactly my point, as i said it felt like the enemies were more of a hindrance more than anything... the breaches not so much but as you say the respawning ones yes... it would be nice to have some sort of mechanic in game that allows an area to become populated perhaps once youve cleared the area with maybe more minor side quests to do to open up the gameplay more 

[nfi42]

Yes, I've been playing FO4 and thinking a lot about the pros and cons of respawning enemies in open worlds. I haven't wanted to make a thread about it so this might be a good fit for my thoughts. From a gameplay standpoint, it makes sense to have enemies respawn for replay value and to make the world feel alive but I don't like how this mechanic is usually implemented. 

 

In open world games, I like the feeling that I'm making the world a safer place. When enemies respawn a few days later in the same numbers this feeling is diminished. I get that, of course, areas will eventually repopulate if we don't secure them. However, I'd like an option to secure areas that we've cleared if 1) we have enough personnel and, 2) if the location is strategic or close to our home base. For areas that we can't secure, enemies shouldn't respawn at full strength just a few days or weeks later. 

 

I don't think a mechanic like this would have to be too resource intensive; it would really help with immersion and let me feel like my character has an impact on the world.

 

 

There are games out that do have a balance of some respawning enemies and clearing out some enemies that make the place safe.  It's easy enough to implement.

[dreamgazer]

Am I reading into this too much?

What does everyone think?

http://www.gamesrada...-series-combat/

What do I think? That people suddenly seem to have forgotten playing the first Mass Effect.

[Pee Jae]

Aye, people are comparing it to DAI because it uses the same engine. But, think for a minute about the maps in DAI. The Mako would only fit on a couple of those. Namely, the desert ones where there is a lot of open space. Can you see the Mako in the Hinterlands? 'cause I can't.

[SKAR]

It better be big.

[Kroitz]

If that means less tunnel-shooter, I'll welcome it.

[Hrungr]

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Mac said "... more open world...".

 

Not to nitpick but did he say the equivalent of "you're more stupid"? or did he mean larger areas than in DA:I?

 

Again, Mac uses the word exploration. There seems to be more to it than just looking for resources and colony planets.

 

I think we can expect larger regions than in DAI if no other reason than the speed of the Mako. If I were to guess how large, I'd say look at the time it takes for a mount to cross end-to-end in various DAI regions and then imagine regions in MEA large enough that it would take the Mako the same amount of time.

[SofaJockey]

It better be big.

 

Just think of the Hinterlands... 

 

On-topic: The World in Mad Max was bigger because you drive through it, this could be similar.

What will be interesting is how many different worlds we are dealing with...

[TurianSpectre]

Just think of the Hinterlands... 

 

On-topic: The World in Mad Max was bigger because you drive through it, this could be similar.

What will be interesting is how many different worlds we are dealing with...

Yup

[Sartoz]

 

Snip

I'd sooner the game be small but full of interesting things to do and interesting people to meet rather than be large for its own sake.

                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Unfortunately, that's not the case here. The studio is talking 100s of planets (original leaked info), each one a single biome.  Add that for every mission on a planet, the studio wants you to stick around and explore.... may be worthwhile. Mike Laidlaw said that he  was surprised that players explored every nook and cranny in DA:I.  So, Mac & Co. may have learned from this experience and adjusted the game accordingly.

[TurianSpectre]

                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Unfortunately, that's not the case here. The studio is talking 100s of planets (original leaked info), each one a single biome.  Add that for every mission on a planet, the studio wants you to stick around and explore.... may be worthwhile. Mike Laidlaw said that he  was surprised that players explored every nook and cranny in DA:I.  So, Mac & Co. may have learned from this experience and adjusted the game accordingly.

That was my one beef with ME3 though... right when you are on the cronos base there is like 2 bits of armour still to get that you cant buy at the store and then you only have one mission to use it? i mean what the hell?! why not allow access to all armour much earlier so that you can switch it up with all the armours you like through out the game instead of waiting til the end to get that last piece of an armour set and finding out that you dont like it

[fizzypop]

It isn't an open world. That would be like skyrim. This is more like DAI or GW2. Open spaces, but closed world.