link2twenty
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Link2Twenty
XBL Gamertag: carefreetuna
PSN: carefreetuna
Posts: 457 Likes: 886
inherit
2682
0
886
link2twenty
457
January 2017
link2twenty
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Link2Twenty
carefreetuna
carefreetuna
|
Post by link2twenty on Feb 11, 2019 13:09:46 GMT
What does BioWare need to do to get open world's right? Recently I watched noclip's documentary about HZD and some of the points I took away were - They made the map smaller, and denser, over time
- Story impacted everything first and foremost
- Non-story quests were given a lot of time to make them feel connected
- Fetch quests were sprinkled in near the end as they didn't want many.
I think, looking at ME:A and DA:I, BioWare have had a bigger is better mentality and I'm not sure that's what open worlds should be about. Do you have any thoughts?
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Feb 11, 2019 14:27:00 GMT
The thing about open world games is they tell the story differently then BioWare and its also not what people want from a BioWare game. Generally the protagonist is fixed because the world centers around them and the world is developed by anchoring around the protagonist. With BioWare before going the open world route they were anchored around the world to help build the protagonist.
I really don't think BioWare games could go the open world route without making the protagonist a fixed character and I doubt that would happen for BioWare tries to sell their games on making the character you. I cannot think of an open world game that didn't use a fixed protagonist and if there is I am interested to know.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Feb 11, 2019 15:32:35 GMT
The thing about open world games is they tell the story differently then BioWare and its also not what people want from a BioWare game. Generally the protagonist is fixed because the world centers around them and the world is developed by anchoring around the protagonist. With BioWare before going the open world route they were anchored around the world to help build the protagonist. I really don't think BioWare games could go the open world route without making the protagonist a fixed character and I doubt that would happen for BioWare tries to sell their games on making the character you. I cannot think of an open world game that didn't use a fixed protagonist and if there is I am interested to know. This is a fair point, but I strongly believe that it can work with the right level and enemy design. Mass Effect Andromeda's issue is that the wide open spaces don't lead to much in terms of narrative. Considering what we discover later, it would've been interesting to see tidbits of information about the Heleus Cluster's past and hints at what we learn about the Angara. Take Horizon Zero Dawn. Sure, Aloy is a fixed character, but the world is absolutely stuffed with lots of information about the past and what happened. On top of that, the enemy encampments are a bit more engaging in the way you can approach, and there's lots of meaningful roaming enemy designs, often specific to the region, whereas Andromeda generally kept the same types of enemies on every planet. Inquisition largely has the same problem, though its main narrative is superior. I think the first Mass Effect is a fairly good model of a hybrid of open and linear. You can traverse a lot of areas without an objective and stumble across new quests. Sure it has a lot of cookie-cutter stuff, but as a template, I think it can work really well, so long as the settlements are varied, the stories interesting and the enemy types fun.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Feb 11, 2019 16:26:09 GMT
The thing about open world games is they tell the story differently then BioWare and its also not what people want from a BioWare game. Generally the protagonist is fixed because the world centers around them and the world is developed by anchoring around the protagonist. With BioWare before going the open world route they were anchored around the world to help build the protagonist. I really don't think BioWare games could go the open world route without making the protagonist a fixed character and I doubt that would happen for BioWare tries to sell their games on making the character you. I cannot think of an open world game that didn't use a fixed protagonist and if there is I am interested to know. This is a fair point, but I strongly believe that it can work with the right level and enemy design. Mass Effect Andromeda's issue is that the wide open spaces don't lead to much in terms of narrative. Considering what we discover later, it would've been interesting to see tidbits of information about the Heleus Cluster's past and hints at what we learn about the Angara. Take Horizon Zero Dawn. Sure, Aloy is a fixed character, but the world is absolutely stuffed with lots of information about the past and what happened. On top of that, the enemy encampments are a bit more engaging in the way you can approach, and there's lots of meaningful roaming enemy designs, often specific to the region, whereas Andromeda generally kept the same types of enemies on every planet. Inquisition largely has the same problem, though its main narrative is superior. I think the first Mass Effect is a fairly good model of a hybrid of open and linear. You can traverse a lot of areas without an objective and stumble across new quests. Sure it has a lot of cookie-cutter stuff, but as a template, I think it can work really well, so long as the settlements are varied, the stories interesting and the enemy types fun. You have to give examples of games I can play for I am on the PC and don't have a console to experiment with. So I cannot agree or disagree with anything about Horizon Zero Dawn. The reason why I think Inquisition is done better is you can treat it the same way as the prior Dragon Age games for everything is centralized and you can just do the critical path and move on. Doing a full exploration 100% run for Inquisition for me was just as bad as Andromeda, but when you keep to the critical path I enjoyed it just as much as the other Dragon Age games. I still don't think having an open world can be done by a non-fixed protagonist because there is nothing anchoring the story. I personally hated the exploration of the first Mass Effect game and if they didn't have the markers telling you where the side quest locations were on the map when you landed I think I would have avoided doing those just like I avoided a lot of the side quests in Andromeda for its a lot of downtime just running around for content that doesn't progress anything or even relate directly to what your primary goal of the game was. Thinking of the Biotic Cult I cannot think of what it really adds to the game like so many of the little side missions in Andromeda. Edit: I seem to be talking in circles for its been awhile since I played these games. I felt there were a lot of different small things at each of the places we stopped at in Andromeda which sound similar to what you are describing about Horizon. I just think there needs to be some anchor to the games in prior BioWare games where its more focused its the world for the story of the game is what is driving us forward. In Mass Effect it was the Reapers and the idea was to go out and find things related to The Reaper to propel the story forward and very little of those games had anything to do with propelling Shepard forward because it was up to the player to develop traits and personality on their own. The problem I see with Andromeda is that because there are so many open areas that you have to move to get to the next step it loses that drive where having some aspect of a fixed character to help steer and even move the story forward is what is needed at the empty exploration points. Having both isn't a problem, but when there is neither is when the problems happen and you cannot have those small areas all the time that are unrelated to anything going on with the overarching story for that seemed to be a complaint about Andromeda with people talking at times about "why should I care" type of comments about the different things. Think of Voeld there was a lot of small conversations and content about the struggle with the Kett, but also the past history of the Angora with the AI quest line. It was just lessened by long stretches of trying to get to those quests instead of just appearing at those places and continuing that story. A fixed protagonist can help develop the travel time into being more about the back history of the character and why the combat or other things that are happening during that travel time isn't just a dead zone of boredom.
|
|
link2twenty
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Link2Twenty
XBL Gamertag: carefreetuna
PSN: carefreetuna
Posts: 457 Likes: 886
inherit
2682
0
886
link2twenty
457
January 2017
link2twenty
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Link2Twenty
carefreetuna
carefreetuna
|
Post by link2twenty on Feb 11, 2019 16:35:10 GMT
you can just do the critical path and move on. Doing a full exploration 100% run for Inquisition for me was just as bad as Andromeda, but when you keep to the critical path I enjoyed it just as much as the other Dragon Age games. I think there has to be a balance between just following the quest markers and working things out for yourself. Personally, I did like the exploration portion of Andromeda, I felt the problem was you could easily forget where you'd got to with the main story arc and there was no sense of urgency. Out of interest are there any open world games you like?
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Feb 11, 2019 16:51:36 GMT
you can just do the critical path and move on. Doing a full exploration 100% run for Inquisition for me was just as bad as Andromeda, but when you keep to the critical path I enjoyed it just as much as the other Dragon Age games. I think there has to be a balance between just following the quest markers and working things out for yourself. Personally, I did like the exploration portion of Andromeda, I felt the problem was you could easily forget where you'd got to with the main story arc and there was no sense of urgency. Out of interest are there any open world games you like? I easily find faults with all games. Older games I tend to remember more fondly such as I had more time. I think the most recent one I played would be Assassin's Creed: Syndicate where there were small actions throughout the game to build upon the personalities of the characters you play. There were plenty of side activities that seemed to go along with the motives of the twins. I also liked the concepts and ideas of The Witcher 2, but the systems of the game itself were problematic for me such as the combat and related systems. There is nothing wrong with exploration and finding things, but the problem is when you find them and get the feeling of wondering why it had anything to do with me. Which is the problem with open characters and exploration is also fine, but making 80% of a game of randomly wandering around finding things is excessive especially when I felt so many of them had nothing to do with The Inquisition or my character's drive.
|
|
inherit
679
0
3,539
CHRrOME
2,805
August 2016
chrrome
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
666
112 ish
|
Post by CHRrOME on Feb 11, 2019 20:26:16 GMT
The problem with open world games (and the trend of this genre these days) lies on its foundation: it's an open world. You gotta create this huge map/s, fill it with stuff, people, things to do, make sure it feels somewhat alive and it has tons of things to do whilst ensuring the quests are not boring and repetitive. You fail in one and it already shows.
You need a lot of resources in the form of developers, money, and time, to get all of this done. I'm not sure if BW can actually do all of this in a decent time frame, simply because I don't thing this is their strong suit (alas, they're making Anthem now, which clearly isn't their strong suit either, so who knows). To give an example, personally I think DAI had a nice looking semi open world map, nicely crafted. But the quest department and making the world feel alive failed. Andromeda had bigger maps, but in my opinion worse looking, a bit better in the quest side. Maps still felt dead though, or cheaply scripted.
In comparison, W3's world was nicely crafted, had interesting quests from start to end, and it also felt alive when it needed to.
Now, do we need open world for ME? it depends, it's easy to say yes when you think of what ME is, a huge universe quite literally where you can (could or should) technically go anywhere you want. However a more story driven game could also work centered around hub areas. Problem is tat if you create a huge map for one world, then people are gonna ask why not also for this other world, or this other, and so on. It's quite an undertaking I'm sure.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 11, 2019 21:18:38 GMT
The reason why I think Inquisition is done better is you can treat it the same way as the prior Dragon Age games for everything is centralized and you can just do the critical path and move on. Are the two games actually that different in this aspect? In DAI, we need to interact with the OW in the Hinterlands a little bit to pass the initial Power gating, and cross the Crestwood and Western Approach maps to reach specific points. (Plus the Storm Coast if you want to recruit the Iron Bull, and the Arbor Wilds if you think of that as an OW level, although I'd file it as an outdoor linear dungeon myself.) I'm not sure how much more is required by the Power system, since I've never actually played a game where Power was a concern. A critical path ME:A run requires hitting five points on the Eos map --- initial settlement, three monoliths, and the Vault -- either three on the Voeld map (Resistance Base, Hjara, and the Northern Holding Site) or two on Havarl (Pelaav Research Station, monolith) -- one point on the Kadara map (the transponder's location), and a little interaction with the star map. The only actual OW thing about this is picking what order to hit the Eos monoliths in. Everything else is a straight-up linear drive, although ME:A does require you to interact with a few more locations than DA:I did.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Feb 11, 2019 23:01:17 GMT
The reason why I think Inquisition is done better is you can treat it the same way as the prior Dragon Age games for everything is centralized and you can just do the critical path and move on. Are the two games actually that different in this aspect? In DAI, we need to interact with the OW in the Hinterlands a little bit to pass the initial Power gating, and cross the Crestwood and Western Approach maps to reach specific points. (Plus the Storm Coast if you want to recruit the Iron Bull, and the Arbor Wilds if you think of that as an OW level, although I'd file it as an outdoor linear dungeon myself.) I'm not sure how much more is required by the Power system, since I've never actually played a game where Power was a concern. A critical path ME:A run requires hitting five points on the Eos map --- initial settlement, three monoliths, and the Vault -- either three on the Voeld map (Resistance Base, Hjara, and the Northern Holding Site) or two on Havarl (Pelaav Research Station, monolith) -- one point on the Kadara map (the transponder's location), and a little interaction with the star map. The only actual OW thing about this is picking what order to hit the Eos monoliths in. Everything else is a straight-up linear drive, although ME:A does require you to interact with a few more locations than DA:I did. It could be just the way I am remembering it, but I don't remember having to travel across all of The Hinterlands to complete some of the critical path missions like I did with Andromeda especially on Voeld where it felt like I had to travel completely across the map. It felt that most of the time you were fairly close to the starting point and didn't need to explore nearly as much with Inquisition.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 12, 2019 0:11:15 GMT
Well, "felt like" is, by definition, subjective. In actual fact, the holding center is about 1/4 of the way across the Voeld map. (Far less than 1/4 on Havarl.) In contrast, the ritual tower in DAI's Western Approach requires you to cover something like 1/2 of the total walkable distance on that map. About the same for Crestwood.
Furthermore, in DAI you'll probably have to engage in several random fights to reach that destination -- I think a rift battle is almost mandatory in the Western Approach, for instance -- while in ME:A you can simply speed by any encounter you don't want to fight through. Not sure about the ease of pathing; all the maps have mountainous/impassable areas, so I think it's a wash.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,890 Likes: 8,905
inherit
1561
0
8,905
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,890
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Feb 12, 2019 6:23:45 GMT
Well, "felt like" is, by definition, subjective. In actual fact, the holding center is about 1/4 of the way across the Voeld map. (Far less than 1/4 on Havarl.) In contrast, the ritual tower in DAI's Western Approach requires you to cover something like 1/2 of the total walkable distance on that map. About the same for Crestwood. Furthermore, in DAI you'll probably have to engage in several random fights to reach that destination -- I think a rift battle is almost mandatory in the Western Approach, for instance -- while in ME:A you can simply speed by any encounter you don't want to fight through. Not sure about the ease of pathing; all the maps have mountainous/impassable areas, so I think it's a wash. <iframe width="23.960000000000036" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 23.960000000000036px; height: 4.199999999999989px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_89314374" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.960000000000036" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 23.96px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1138px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_90883152" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.960000000000036" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 23.96px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 150px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_89318643" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="23.960000000000036" height="4.199999999999989" style="position: absolute; width: 23.96px; height: 4.2px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1138px; top: 150px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_47728067" scrolling="no"></iframe> I never said my opinions were fact for I was giving my perspective as a player why I think it was done better in one game over the other. Its why I used words like felt and feels because that was my experience playing the game where it means it was done well because instead of loathing my time travelling it didn't impact me nearly as negatively.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 12, 2019 7:06:34 GMT
Which makes it more interesting. Somehow ME:A gave you an impression that was not only false, but the opposite of reality. Things that were faster and easier than they were in DA:I appeared to you to be slower and harder. A critical path run in ME:A is as efficient as a critical path run in DAI, but you felt that it wasn't.
Any guesses as to why?
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Mar 28, 2024 21:16:55 GMT
7,209
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Feb 12, 2019 7:39:48 GMT
Open world success depends on good exploration. Good exploration depends on good world building. World building means many things, but pretty much relates to the depth of the world. This can be anything from activities like the ability to play poker to having real like characters with real like problems that you are able to participate in. It's things like building a sense of history in the world that you can explore (ruins and how it became ruins).
Then it also means the ability to interact with that world and take part in that world. It's more satisfying to participate than always looking in. So for example the ability to take part in professions, the ability to buy a house, etc etc.
In the future I believe the most successful open world games will provide a large world for you to partake in and craft your own stories.
With HZD I feel the strength of this game is the combat system, which is excellent, and some people say the story. I don't believe it's a great open world game, but a great game that happens to also be open world. Zelda is a great open world game. Skyrim similar.
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 12, 2019 11:20:39 GMT
Density of PoIs, wide empty between PoI doesn't really cut it. Quite dependant on means of travelling. Bethesda mostly goes by foot and that shows in their worlds.
Believable World Edge
Believable geography
Good and interesting places to visit on this believable geography. (e.g. FO4 sunken city, partly flodded by a dam breach)
No bullshit gating of map parts by artificial "walls" (look at DAI and Andromeda - they are merely big levels, not worlds)
Secrets to discover
Mountains to climb
Fishse to catch
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 12:29:25 GMT
Density of PoIs, wide empty between PoI doesn't really cut it. Quite dependant on means of travelling. Bethesda mostly goes by foot and that shows in their worlds. Believable World Edge Believable geography Good and interesting places to visit on this believable geography. (e.g. FO4 sunken city, partly flodded by a dam breach) No bullshit gating of map parts by artificial "walls" (look at DAI and Andromeda - they are merely big levels, not worlds) Secrets to discover Mountains to climb Fishse to catch You're playing The Long Dark in survival. Story mode isn't finished yet, and it will likely be years before it is completed. Within the story, the world seems less open because the player has to move to specific locations to advance the story. Survival mode has no story. The two are simply at odds, no matter which dev tries. A tight story =/= an open world. The Long Dark is separating the two within the one game. Their challenges also represent other mini-stories, but while doing these, the player is effectively compelled to move through the world in a set way in order to follow the story of the challenge and complete the objectives within the set time limits.
IMO, this would be the only way to "do an open world right." Basically, create two totally different game modes within the one set piece. It's a ridiculous investment for devs. THe Long Dark has already been in development for years and will be years in development yet. Episode 3 of the story more will likely be released sometime this quarter (it was set for Dec 2018, but still hasn't released). Episode 4 and 5 are yet to be developed.
MET's best feature was that it was not an open-world game. We got a better story as a result. They were able to allow us to build variety into the main character instead. ME:A attempted to be too open. I hope they continue the story... but I'd like them to commit to the story tiself and give us a more directed set piece... and go back to allowing us to build variety into the main character's personality. If I want an open world exploration game... I play a survival game. If I want an open-world game with a light story to it and a basically set main character, I'll play any one of the myriad of games out there that are doing this now. MET's strength was that it was DIFFERENT... and shorter (50-60 hours per game tops). How does Bioware do open-world right?... by not doing open world.
The number of player's on Youtube I've seen complaining that there is nothing to explore in ME:A while, at the same time, gleefully ignoring exploring areas like Site 2 on Eos thoroughly... refusing to even notice datapads and items placed around the world that add to the background story of that game is huge. There is a lot of richness about the ME:A world that goes unexplored because the fan base were never really open-minded enough to actually want to explore it. Could Bioware had invested more into the set pieces and made them more stuffed with stuff? Absolutely... then people would have been complaining about having to hop out of the nomad every 10 feet to scan something... oh, I forgot, they complained about that too.
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 12, 2019 12:34:22 GMT
Density of PoIs, wide empty between PoI doesn't really cut it. Quite dependant on means of travelling. Bethesda mostly goes by foot and that shows in their worlds. Believable World Edge Believable geography Good and interesting places to visit on this believable geography. (e.g. FO4 sunken city, partly flodded by a dam breach) No bullshit gating of map parts by artificial "walls" (look at DAI and Andromeda - they are merely big levels, not worlds) Secrets to discover Mountains to climb Fishse to catch You're playing The Long Dark in survival. Story mode isn't finished yet, and it will likely be years before it is completed. Within the story, the world seems less open because the player has to move to specific locations to advance the story. Survival mode has no story. The two are simply at odds, no matter which dev tries. A tight story =/= an open world. The Long Dark is separating the two within the one game. Their challenges also represent other mini-stories, but while doing these, the player is effectively compelled to move through the world in a set way in order to follow the story of the challenge and complete the objectives within the set time limits.
IMO, this would be the only way to "do an open world right." Basically, create two totally different game modes within the one set piece. It's a ridiculous investment for devs. THe Long Dark has already been in development for years and will be years in development yet. Episode 3 of the story more will likely be released sometime this quarter (it was set for Dec 2018, but still hasn't released). Episode 4 and 5 are yet to be developed.
MET's best feature was that it was not an open-world game. We got a better story as a result. They were able to allow us to build variety into the main character instead. ME:A attempted to be too open. I hope they continue the story... but I'd like them to commit to the story tiself and give us a more directed set piece... and go back to allowing us to build variety into the main character's personality. If I want an open world exploration game... I play a survival game. If I want an open-world game with a light story to it and a basically set main character, I'll play any one of the myriad of games out there that are doing this now. MET's strength was that it was DIFFERENT... and shorter (50-60 hours per game tops). How does Bioware do open-world right?... by not doing open world.
I guess depends on what you want. I found story mode in Long Dark kinda super grindy.
I hopped into survival and had much better experience, imo, this is how the game shines. They might want to tell a story, but if they continue with the stupid grinding mechanics they'll miss out that they have a good solo survival game that could use some more content.
|
|
Marduk
N2
Through Eluvians and beyond
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 220 Likes: 183
inherit
5021
0
183
Marduk
Through Eluvians and beyond
220
March 2017
marduk
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Marduk on Feb 12, 2019 12:52:41 GMT
GTA series is one of the best examples of how it is done imo. Bioware is not good enough at this nor big enough to compete without going ALL out it seems. Inquisition's "open world" as a response to Dragon Age 2's criticism was okay for the time (they were compensating for all the reused locations in DA2 by adding variety among other things in DAI) and was a sign of having a foundation for what is to come . still if you ask me to name a location from the series first answer popping to my mind is Orzammar, not from their open world entry.
Then we got Andromeda which was supposed to be an improvement over it, yet overall wasn't despite being a 2017 game for various reasons. apparently Andromeda's side quests were "inspired" by The Witcher 3. on the other hand Ubisoft not only replicated The Witcher 3 but made a sequel with their own additions.
More importantly context-wise they need improvements for their open world. in for example The Witcher, you are a monster hunter, so going into woods tracking one makes total sense yet CDPR didn't stop there and added more. with Assassin's Creed its about visiting different settings and their engine is specifically designed for that. with Dragon Age its more fitting to visit isolated locations for the most part, like a castle or w/e. closing portals was a good concept that was overshadowed by the MMO mentality behind it's design. fighting dragons was definitely more fun than Skyrim but standards change.
Bioware doesn't gain much from investing all that resources into an open world. for example in this day and age if you have a lake in your map, you better be able to swim or use a boat at least even if it doesn't add anything meaningful to your game. Andromeda if i recall didn't even have an animation for getting out of water. linear/hybrid games are as good when done right so Bioware should just focus on what they are known for and evolve it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 12:57:31 GMT
You're playing The Long Dark in survival. Story mode isn't finished yet, and it will likely be years before it is completed. Within the story, the world seems less open because the player has to move to specific locations to advance the story. Survival mode has no story. The two are simply at odds, no matter which dev tries. A tight story =/= an open world. The Long Dark is separating the two within the one game. Their challenges also represent other mini-stories, but while doing these, the player is effectively compelled to move through the world in a set way in order to follow the story of the challenge and complete the objectives within the set time limits.
IMO, this would be the only way to "do an open world right." Basically, create two totally different game modes within the one set piece. It's a ridiculous investment for devs. THe Long Dark has already been in development for years and will be years in development yet. Episode 3 of the story more will likely be released sometime this quarter (it was set for Dec 2018, but still hasn't released). Episode 4 and 5 are yet to be developed.
MET's best feature was that it was not an open-world game. We got a better story as a result. They were able to allow us to build variety into the main character instead. ME:A attempted to be too open. I hope they continue the story... but I'd like them to commit to the story tiself and give us a more directed set piece... and go back to allowing us to build variety into the main character's personality. If I want an open world exploration game... I play a survival game. If I want an open-world game with a light story to it and a basically set main character, I'll play any one of the myriad of games out there that are doing this now. MET's strength was that it was DIFFERENT... and shorter (50-60 hours per game tops). How does Bioware do open-world right?... by not doing open world.
I guess depends on what you want. I found story mode in Long Dark kinda super grindy.
I hopped into survival and had much better experience, imo, this is how the game shines. They might want to tell a story, but if they continue with the stupid grinding mechanics they'll miss out that they have a good solo survival game that could use some more content.
I agree - it IS grindy. That's my point. It has all the traits that you listed - believable world edges, believable geography, good and interesting places to visit that are believable (a shipwreck, a lighthouse, a whaling plant, a train wreck that is spread out over the entire map, an abandoned town, etc.), you walk throughout the map and transition zones generally by walking through rail tunnels or mines, there are secret prepper bunkers to discover and abandoned camps and hidden caves, and there are definitely a lot of mountains to climb and fishes to catch... along with deer to hunt and wolves and bears that hunt you). Still, it's a game you now admit you find grindy. Story mode lessens the experience.
A tight, dramatic story has to have some direction and open-world is designed to allow the player to wander aimlessly through the set piece. The two are, iMO, simply incompatible. The best way to do an open-world game is to have a lot of "history" imbedded in the set piece but the current story loses out in the process as the player gets inundated with too many details that wind up being irrelevant. (Happened to me in TW3, AC: Origins, FO4, etc.) Much of that minutia that makes the world so interesting has to be irrelevant, because there is no guarantee that all players will find those clues. If a player fails to find what IS relevant, the story loses out. The best way to have a tightly plotted story where everything the player does ultimately has relevance and impact on that story is to avoid doing an open-world. Make the world smaller and, therefore, make it more likely that all players will find all clues needed to flesh out the story itself.
Bioware's specialty though is allowing flexibility in the development of the main character in their story. This means that they are actually writing more than one story in every game. Players want the different choices they make that shape their character's personality to ultimately impact how the story turns out. In short, they want different personalities of the character to affect the story directly. Ultimately, Bioware failed to do this with ME3... and people are still complaining about it. I say, let Bioware focus their energies on that and let go of the open-world demand that a ton of other developers are doing... and we'll get better stories with more diverse characters. Ryder's diverseness of character suffered because too much was invested in trying to make an open-world game. IMO, the story and character still has a lot of untapped potential. I want to see Bioware focus on that... not on an even "bigger" set-piece filled with what will ultimately be irrelevant "stuff."
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 12, 2019 17:29:05 GMT
More importantly context-wise they need improvements for their open world. in for example The Witcher, you are a monster hunter, so going into woods tracking one makes total sense yet CDPR didn't stop there and added more. with Assassin's Creed its about visiting different settings and their engine is specifically designed for that. with Dragon Age its more fitting to visit isolated locations for the most part, like a castle or w/e. closing portals was a good concept that was overshadowed by the MMO mentality behind it's design. fighting dragons was definitely more fun than Skyrim but standards change. Bioware doesn't gain much from investing all that resources into an open world. for example in this day and age if you have a lake in your map, you better be able to swim or use a boat at least even if it doesn't add anything meaningful to your game. Andromeda if i recall didn't even have an animation for getting out of water. linear/hybrid games are as good when done right so Bioware should just focus on what they are known for and evolve it. I'm not not wholly clear on what you think the problems of the Frostbite engine are WRT open worlds. Besides not having a swimming animation, that is. (Maybe it's a side-effect of my general indifference to OW, but I don't get why I should care about that.)
|
|
Marduk
N2
Through Eluvians and beyond
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 220 Likes: 183
inherit
5021
0
183
Marduk
Through Eluvians and beyond
220
March 2017
marduk
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Marduk on Feb 12, 2019 19:48:21 GMT
More importantly context-wise they need improvements for their open world. in for example The Witcher, you are a monster hunter, so going into woods tracking one makes total sense yet CDPR didn't stop there and added more. with Assassin's Creed its about visiting different settings and their engine is specifically designed for that. with Dragon Age its more fitting to visit isolated locations for the most part, like a castle or w/e. closing portals was a good concept that was overshadowed by the MMO mentality behind it's design. fighting dragons was definitely more fun than Skyrim but standards change. Bioware doesn't gain much from investing all that resources into an open world. for example in this day and age if you have a lake in your map, you better be able to swim or use a boat at least even if it doesn't add anything meaningful to your game. Andromeda if i recall didn't even have an animation for getting out of water. linear/hybrid games are as good when done right so Bioware should just focus on what they are known for and evolve it. I'm not not wholly clear on what you think the problems of the Frostbite engine are WRT open worlds. Besides not having a swimming animation, that is. (Maybe it's a side-effect of my general indifference to OW, but I don't get why I should care about that.) Not talking about the frostbite engine or the tech aspect although in this regard less visible loading screens are always welcome. i was talking about Bioware's implementation of an open world in relation to the story like how CDPR make a good use of the open world by linking it to the monster hunting aspect while presenting it in a polished AAA manner but doesn't stop there and we still get other fun activities like racing. lacking swimming animation is probably not an engine limitation and what i said was more of a "fun fact" regarding the point i was trying to make. Its not like other open worlds are flawless but rivals are busy completing their success open world attempts while Bioware is behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 21:02:51 GMT
I'm not not wholly clear on what you think the problems of the Frostbite engine are WRT open worlds. Besides not having a swimming animation, that is. (Maybe it's a side-effect of my general indifference to OW, but I don't get why I should care about that.) Not talking about the frostbite engine or the tech aspect although in this regard less visible loading screens are always welcome. i was talking about Bioware's implementation of an open world in relation to the story like how CDPR make a good use of the open world by linking it to the monster hunting aspect while presenting it in a polished AAA manner but doesn't stop there and we still get other fun activities like racing. lacking swimming animation is probably not an engine limitation and what i said was more of a "fun fact" regarding the point i was trying to make. Its not like other open worlds are flawless but rivals are busy completing their success open world attempts while Bioware is behind. I really don't think horse racing is relevant to either monster hunting or the main story of TW3 (whatever that story really was because I lost track of it halfway through the game while I was doing menial tasks like fetching some old lady's frying pan or retrieving someone else's lost horse). I would also argue that fist fighting also isn't relevant to the main story and, since Geralt survived many, many years as a witcher without apparently learning gwent, neither is that game. They are filler... perhaps filler that some people enjoy, but still just filler none the less.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,073
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,791
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 12, 2019 21:30:29 GMT
Not talking about the frostbite engine or the tech aspect although in this regard less visible loading screens are always welcome. i was talking about Bioware's implementation of an open world in relation to the story like how CDPR make a good use of the open world by linking it to the monster hunting aspect while presenting it in a polished AAA manner but doesn't stop there and we still get other fun activities like racing. lacking swimming animation is probably not an engine limitation and what i said was more of a "fun fact" regarding the point i was trying to make. Its not like other open worlds are flawless but rivals are busy completing their success open world attempts while Bioware is behind. OK. I couldn't follow where you were going with "with Assassin's Creed its about visiting different settings and their engine is specifically designed for that. with Dragon Age its more fitting to visit isolated locations for the most part, like a castle or w/e.." Why is it "more fitting" to visit isolated locations in Dragon Age?
|
|
inherit
MASTERNINJA
2243
0
Dec 23, 2023 17:02:11 GMT
4,137
XCPTNL
1,175
December 2016
xcptnl
XCPTNL
|
Post by XCPTNL on Feb 12, 2019 21:33:27 GMT
I'm not a fan of open world at all when it comes to narrative-driven games. That being said I totally love Horizon Zero Dawn and even bought a digital copy myself without even having a Playstation. It's that good and I played it a lot at a friend's place and if you want to make a great (open world) game, look at this one. Would have worked withou the open world as well I guess but nowadays when I visit my friend I sometimes just fire up the PS4, run around the open world and kill machines. It never gets boring somehow...
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Feb 12, 2019 21:48:56 GMT
I'm not a fan of open world at all when it comes to narrative-driven games. That being said I totally love Horizon Zero Dawn and even bought a digital copy myself without even having a Playstation. It's that good and I played it a lot at a friend's place and if you want to make a great (open world) game, look at this one. Would have worked withou the open world as well I guess but nowadays when I visit my friend I sometimes just fire up the PS4, run around the open world and kill machines. It never gets boring somehow... That's really where OW succeeds. It doesn't all have to be relevant; it just has to be fun. Thankfully, it's both in HZD.
|
|
Marduk
N2
Through Eluvians and beyond
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 220 Likes: 183
inherit
5021
0
183
Marduk
Through Eluvians and beyond
220
March 2017
marduk
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Marduk on Feb 13, 2019 8:39:23 GMT
Not talking about the frostbite engine or the tech aspect although in this regard less visible loading screens are always welcome. i was talking about Bioware's implementation of an open world in relation to the story like how CDPR make a good use of the open world by linking it to the monster hunting aspect while presenting it in a polished AAA manner but doesn't stop there and we still get other fun activities like racing. lacking swimming animation is probably not an engine limitation and what i said was more of a "fun fact" regarding the point i was trying to make. Its not like other open worlds are flawless but rivals are busy completing their success open world attempts while Bioware is behind. I really don't think horse racing is relevant to either monster hunting or the main story of TW3 (whatever that story really was because I lost track of it halfway through the game while I was doing menial tasks like fetching some old lady's frying pan or retrieving someone else's lost horse). I would also argue that fist fighting also isn't relevant to the main story and, since Geralt survived many, many years as a witcher without apparently learning gwent, neither is that game. They are filler... perhaps filler that some people enjoy, but still just filler none the less. which is why i said "additional fun activities" and "its not like other open worlds are flawless" but my bad if it sounded otherwise. I mentioned racing afterward as an example of additional stuff. despite being non related filler though its subjectively fun like Gwent which is actually illogical in it's existence since apparently someone followed Geralt to make the card game happen but hey maybe story-wise its the same guy that was making the "romance" cards in the first game . fist fighting part was more of a nod to the prequels if i recall. Point is that they have their content related stuff and fun filler stuff whereas with Bioware they are behind. Not talking about the frostbite engine or the tech aspect although in this regard less visible loading screens are always welcome. i was talking about Bioware's implementation of an open world in relation to the story like how CDPR make a good use of the open world by linking it to the monster hunting aspect while presenting it in a polished AAA manner but doesn't stop there and we still get other fun activities like racing. lacking swimming animation is probably not an engine limitation and what i said was more of a "fun fact" regarding the point i was trying to make. Its not like other open worlds are flawless but rivals are busy completing their success open world attempts while Bioware is behind. OK. I couldn't follow where you were going with "with Assassin's Creed its about visiting different settings and their engine is specifically designed for that. with Dragon Age its more fitting to visit isolated locations for the most part, like a castle or w/e.." Why is it "more fitting" to visit isolated locations in Dragon Age? Anvil is Ubisoft's engine and its easy to swap settings with it. oh so thats why you mentioned Frostbite before i guess. its not mechanical related its about how easier it is for Ubisoft to work on their setting which is an advantage they have. tech-wise in comparison Frostbite games tend to be smoother actually, WAY smoother. with current version of Anvil not only their games are not optimized but Ubisoft work on their world with 30 fps in mind so their cities are filled with unnecessary amount of NPCs and such. PC version of AC Origins if i recall also had a VM running on top of Denuvo which probably didn't help. i imagine its the same with Odyssey. with AC ever since the second one it has become a "historical period simulator" for some so they buy them to visit these eras. exploring an open world showcasing such details make sense. With Bioware in general its more about characters and their development imo, rather than caring about going out in the open. its nice if they can pull it off but we will see. Here is another example. with Dragon Age Origins when you start as a mage in a tower, it is more tied to the story and your background. in comparison what does Hinterland offers story-wise? even if it did have something related, based on the comments online apparently many were busy trying to run away from it. hope this clear things up a little.
|
|