inherit
1817
0
Apr 24, 2024 12:39:23 GMT
8,390
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
3,368
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on Feb 13, 2019 12:10:22 GMT
I mentioned this elsewhere before... The best use of an open world in relation to narrative and exploration is to give you surprise quests along the way. You explore the world, you stumble upon a small settlement or a merchant or a cave with cannibals or whatever. You can interact with these locations. You can trade or do a quest. Or just witness something cool. Bioware has NO clue whatsoever how to make use of all that pretty open space they waste way too much time on. The way I see it, they haven't learned a thing. Their open worlds aren't even truly open to begin with. They are empty and sterile. Same applies to Anthem if the demo is any indication. I actually thought DAI was their most enjoyable attempt just because of how pretty and varied the maps were. There was nothing going on, though. Nothing to discover but notes, but hey, at least there was a story to every place. But in terms of interaction with the world itself, nothing beyond mindless combat grind and elfroot! Bad open world design is using a huge map just to send you out to retrieve stuff from a quest giver at a disconnected hub. Bioware is guilty of that most basic uncreative mechanic. You have one or two locations that give you quests that then send you out on a boring drive out to the desert (looking at you, Andromeda!) to fetch a thing. Then you drive back. There is no other reason for you to go there but to get the thing. On the way, there's nothing much else to see and do. So the game wastes your time traversing empty space. Stuff like that makes me angry. The quest design in general in Andromeda was so bad I almost rage quit.
Take a Bethesda game, the best example of how to do open world and exploration right: The main quests sends you on your way. But ten minutes later you've already discovered a ton of other places, taken on three side quests by random strangers out in the world. An hour later you got sidetracked so badly chasing other narrative threads that you still haven't progressed the main story.
Good open worlds usually have several or all of the following:
- Big and minor settlements all over the map with unique NPCs that give you quests - NPCs have daily routines, jobs (not static in one spot)
- Random NPCs you meet on the road can give you quests or trade with you too - Random world events - Minigames like poker, fishing, hunting
- Factions that fight each other - Factions you can join - NPCS react to your immediate and past actions (doing good/bad things, joining factions)
- Animals and humans fight each other - Animals have unique attack patterns, not all are hostile
- Wildlife has a food chain
- Different zones have different flora and fauna - Day/night cycle - Dynamic weather
All of these things together create the illusion of a living breathing world in which the player character is a part of. An open world can obsolutely complement a narrative (see Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn), ground the character in a setting, establish their place in the world, but overall it's the enemy of a tight focused cinematic narrative. Which is why I think open world was a bad idea for Bioware. They don't understand open world and even if they did, it would take away from their actual strength: cinematic emotional narrative and banter. Biowareare capable of great world building, but NOT in an open world environment.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
Apr 24, 2024 12:39:23 GMT
8,390
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
3,368
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on Feb 13, 2019 13:42:23 GMT
Small addition: The element of surprise is what makes good quest design and exploration for me.
Example A (good): You randomly stumble upon a hut in the woods. YOu have no idea what's inside. You enter, encounter a crazy witch who you wants you to do something for her. You can accept, or refuse and kill her.
Example B (bad): Inside your one quest hub somebody sends you out to confront a witch in a hut. Location is marked on the map. You go there. Same scene follows.
One scenario surprises you, the other does not. Good open world is all about scenario A.
|
|
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: 5,899 Likes: 8,927
inherit
1561
0
Apr 24, 2024 12:32:20 GMT
8,927
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,899
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 13, 2019 14:53:57 GMT
Small addition: The element of surprise is what makes good quest design and exploration for me. Example A (good): You randomly stumble upon a hut in the woods. YOu have no idea what's inside. You enter, encounter a crazy witch who you wants you to do something for her. You can accept, or refuse and kill her. Example B (bad): Inside your one quest hub somebody sends you out to confront a witch in a hut. Location is marked on the map. You go there. Same scene follows. One scenario surprises you, the other does not. Good open world is all about scenario A. Weren't people complaining that quests like that in Inquisition weren't tied enough to the story and therefore bad? I remember there being side quests that you stumbled upon in the open areas and there was nothing to tell you to go there and a lot of those quests were complained about for there was no substance to them or any other complaint a person could think of.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
Apr 24, 2024 12:39:23 GMT
8,390
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
3,368
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on Feb 13, 2019 15:07:19 GMT
Weren't people complaining that quests like that in Inquisition weren't tied enough to the story and therefore bad? I remember there being side quests that you stumbled upon in the open areas and there was nothing to tell you to go there and a lot of those quests were complained about for there was no substance to them or any other complaint a person could think of. Little substance is another matter. DAI's side quests weren't good. But MEA's weren't any better to me. A random quest could still be related to the main story and not just a short fetch quest.
|
|
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 13, 2019 15:07:44 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.) They aren't open world. They are large maps with things laid out in them. And they are largely very artificial with geographic features making too obvious gating off different parts of the map. The worst example is the platformer map in DAI, hidden oasis or whatname.
While emprise was kinda nice to play, it suffered the same problems, as well as that other desert map that had unclimbable dunes and literally effing gates blocking off map parts.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,170
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,823
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 13, 2019 17:08:21 GMT
That's... actually even less clear. You're differentiating between "large maps" and "open world" according to criteria which I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,078
AnDromedary
4,375
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Feb 13, 2019 20:30:48 GMT
I mentioned this elsewhere before... The best use of an open world in relation to narrative and exploration is to give you surprise quests along the way. You explore the world, you stumble upon a small settlement or a merchant or a cave with cannibals or whatever. You can interact with these locations. You can trade or do a quest. Or just witness something cool. Bioware has NO clue whatsoever how to make use of all that pretty open space they waste way too much time on. The way I see it, they haven't learned a thing. Their open worlds aren't even truly open to begin with. They are empty and sterile. Same applies to Anthem if the demo is any indication. I actually thought DAI was their most enjoyable attempt just because of how pretty and varied the maps were. There was nothing going on, though. Nothing to discover but notes, but hey, at least there was a story to every place. But in terms of interaction with the world itself, nothing beyond mindless combat grind and elfroot! Bad open world design is using a huge map just to send you out to retrieve stuff from a quest giver at a disconnected hub. Bioware is guilty of that most basic uncreative mechanic. You have one or two locations that give you quests that then send you out on a boring drive out to the desert (looking at you, Andromeda!) to fetch a thing. Then you drive back. There is no other reason for you to go there but to get the thing. On the way, there's nothing much else to see and do. So the game wastes your time traversing empty space. Stuff like that makes me angry. The quest design in general in Andromeda was so bad I almost rage quit.
Take a Bethesda game, the best example of how to do open world and exploration right: The main quests sends you on your way. But ten minutes later you've already discovered a ton of other places, taken on three side quests by random strangers out in the world. An hour later you got sidetracked so badly chasing other narrative threads that you still haven't progressed the main story.
Good open worlds usually have several or all of the following:
- Big and minor settlements all over the map with unique NPCs that give you quests - NPCs have daily routines, jobs (not static in one spot)
- Random NPCs you meet on the road can give you quests or trade with you too - Random world events - Minigames like poker, fishing, hunting
- Factions that fight each other - Factions you can join - NPCS react to your immediate and past actions (doing good/bad things, joining factions)
- Animals and humans fight each other - Animals have unique attack patterns, not all are hostile
- Wildlife has a food chain
- Different zones have different flora and fauna - Day/night cycle - Dynamic weather
All of these things together create the illusion of a living breathing world in which the player character is a part of. An open world can obsolutely complement a narrative (see Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn), ground the character in a setting, establish their place in the world, but overall it's the enemy of a tight focused cinematic narrative. Which is why I think open world was a bad idea for Bioware. They don't understand open world and even if they did, it would take away from their actual strength: cinematic emotional narrative and banter. Biowareare capable of great world building, but NOT in an open world environment.
Pretty much this, though I would add one thing, especially if backtracking is a thing in your open world: Progress through the story should change the world and NPCs somewhat. Best case in point (and to me still the best open world design out there) is Gothic 1 and 2. They implemented all of your points, plus, with every chapter of the main storyline you completed the world would change and the NPCs in them would react to those changes as well, comment on them, open up new questlines, etc. Hell, in Gothic 1 they went so far that entire settlements of NPCs, you could previously interact with became hostile to the player in reaction to world events, while other might now join up with you.
But yea, in general, BioWare should either go all they way and implement open worlds like this or they should just stick to more linear gameplay as we've had in Mass Effect 1/2/3 and Dragon Age: Origins. I wouldn't really mind that but I certainly don't need another filler content fest from them.
|
|
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 14, 2019 5:51:21 GMT
That's... actually even less clear. You're differentiating between "large maps" and "open world" according to criteria which I don't understand. Can you elaborate? I will try maybe my criteria differs from him but hopefully not for the sake of less confusion. a large map is not necessarily an open world, or a good one anyway. Whats the point if its designed similar to a linear game but just large? maybe there are less corridors or none but is it really open if it still has similar limitations like a comparable amount of inaccessibility or the same amount of loading? maybe there are games that don't necessarily follow the same "guideline" and are still called open world but usually there is still a reason for that. I also addressed your previous concern in previous page but without a direct quote so probably no notification in case you still have a question about it.
|
|
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 14, 2019 8:39:26 GMT
Progress through the story should change the world and NPCs somewhat I quite liked DA:2's acts for that reason, the map staying the same but the NPCs, and by extension the atmosphere, changing
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,078
AnDromedary
4,375
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Feb 14, 2019 17:37:02 GMT
Progress through the story should change the world and NPCs somewhat I quite liked DA:2's acts for that reason, the map staying the same but the NPCs, and by extension the atmosphere, changing Yes, though I feel like there they didn't do enough to get you to explore new stuff as well. Basically, after the fist quarter of the game you've seen almost everything and then you visit the same locations over and over again. IMO, in a best case scenario, you backtrack a little bit, to see what changed but mainly you do explore new areas that you gradually get access to )either becuase they open up for story reasons or because you are only able to defeat enemies there at higher levels). I feel like DA2 went too far into the backtracking direction while e.g. Inquisition never really encouraged you to revisit any areas because the world was so static. A middle ground would be nice.
|
|
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 14, 2019 17:49:50 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the games progresses through the stories?
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
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, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,668
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,668
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Feb 15, 2019 15:10:16 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the games progresses through the stories? I would hate it. The Mako driving through a planet is plenty "open" for me. All we need to do is travel to points marked on our map. Maybe we encounter the occasional thresher maw or rachni but nothing major. Way better than "can you travel to the other side of the planet to put this marker where my brother died"? It's like, wtf, dude, go do it yourself and stop whining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 16:10:40 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the games progresses through the stories? I would hate it. The Mako driving through a planet is plenty "open" for me. All we need to do is travel to points marked on our map. Maybe we encounter the occasional thresher maw or rachni but nothing major. Way better than "can you travel to the other side of the planet to put this marker where my brother died"? It's like, wtf, dude, go do it yourself and stop whining. The minerals in ME1 were not usually marked on the map. Finding them without resorting to the information on the internet involved driving around the planet, up and down those infernal mountains till the mako got close enough to show up the icon on the map. Also, you would never really know how many there were. After spending an inordinate amount of time on several of them planets, you would probably guess that there were only 2 or 3 mineral locations on every planet, but you wouldn't know that right off the bat. People easily forget how tedious that exercise was for virtually no reward other than to say you gathered a bunch of minerals that were of absolutely no use in the game at all. The id tags, emblems and writings were also useless within ME1, but at least their locations were marked on your map when you landed. Within ME1, most of the planets only had one location that was really of interest... the main facility for whatever side quest you were doing. Not all planets were available to the player at the outset of the game, but rather had to be unlocked by viewing a particular terminal. One cluster pnly appeared in the galaxy after doing Feros and another only appeared after doing Noveria. Other clusters had individual systems that would only be added to the galaxy map after groups of other planets had been completed. Although viewed by fans as being more open than the other ME games, ME1 really wasn't an open-world game at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 16:19:14 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the games progresses through the stories? You're not describing an open-world game at all. ME's story would still demand that all the locations relative to ME2 not be available to the player until they had worked their way through the ME1 portion of the story. The same would apply for ME3 locations. There would be a few locations that would have to be open to the player throughout, but they are changed by events in the story. For example, the Citadel would have to be rebuilt twice and the player could not be allowed to access the rebuilt versions until after they had reach the applicable point in the story. A good story has a well define progression and the characters and the world around them respond to the story. Open-world games have, universally, trouble doing that since, by definition, the player should be able to access the locations whenever they like and trigger quests in any area whenever they like.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
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, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,668
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,668
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Feb 15, 2019 16:45:01 GMT
I would hate it. The Mako driving through a planet is plenty "open" for me. All we need to do is travel to points marked on our map. Maybe we encounter the occasional thresher maw or rachni but nothing major. Way better than "can you travel to the other side of the planet to put this marker where my brother died"? It's like, wtf, dude, go do it yourself and stop whining. The minerals in ME1 were not usually marked on the map. Finding them without resorting to the information on the internet involved driving around the planet, up and down those infernal mountains till the mako got close enough to show up the icon on the map. Also, you would never really know how many there were. After spending an inordinate amount of time on several of them planets, you would probably guess that there were only 2 or 3 mineral locations on every planet, but you wouldn't know that right off the bat. People easily forget how tedious that exercise was for virtually no reward other than to say you gathered a bunch of minerals that were of absolutely no use in the game at all. The id tags, emblems and writings were also useless within ME1, but at least their locations were marked on your map when you landed. Within ME1, most of the planets only had one location that was really of interest... the main facility for whatever side quest you were doing. Not all planets were available to the player at the outset of the game, but rather had to be unlocked by viewing a particular terminal. One cluster pnly appeared in the galaxy after doing Feros and another only appeared after doing Noveria. Other clusters had individual systems that would only be added to the galaxy map after groups of other planets had been completed. Although viewed by fans as being more open than the other ME games, ME1 really wasn't an open-world game at all. I guess, maybe. The minerals were marginally useful going into ME2 but only useful at all in ME1 to complete a relatively minor quest. I ran across most of them just driving the Mako to marked spots on the map. Same with the writings, which are marginally useful in ME3 if other conditions are met, but even then only give like 5 war assets.
The Mako on mountains was a rough ride but only if you wanted to travel in a straight line to the marker. Pretty much every location could be gotten to by going around the mountains and having to climb up sheer walls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 24, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2019 17:27:04 GMT
The minerals in ME1 were not usually marked on the map. Finding them without resorting to the information on the internet involved driving around the planet, up and down those infernal mountains till the mako got close enough to show up the icon on the map. Also, you would never really know how many there were. After spending an inordinate amount of time on several of them planets, you would probably guess that there were only 2 or 3 mineral locations on every planet, but you wouldn't know that right off the bat. People easily forget how tedious that exercise was for virtually no reward other than to say you gathered a bunch of minerals that were of absolutely no use in the game at all. The id tags, emblems and writings were also useless within ME1, but at least their locations were marked on your map when you landed. Within ME1, most of the planets only had one location that was really of interest... the main facility for whatever side quest you were doing. Not all planets were available to the player at the outset of the game, but rather had to be unlocked by viewing a particular terminal. One cluster pnly appeared in the galaxy after doing Feros and another only appeared after doing Noveria. Other clusters had individual systems that would only be added to the galaxy map after groups of other planets had been completed. Although viewed by fans as being more open than the other ME games, ME1 really wasn't an open-world game at all. I guess, maybe. The minerals were marginally useful going into ME2 but only useful at all in ME1 to complete a relatively minor quest. I ran across most of them just driving the Mako to marked spots on the map. Same with the writings, which are marginally useful in ME3 if other conditions are met, but even then only give like 5 war assets.The Mako on mountains was a rough ride but only if you wanted to travel in a straight line to the marker. Pretty much every location could be gotten to by going around the mountains and having to climb up sheer walls. Well, since you're now qualifying my mako mountain journeys hunting for minerals with a "I found most of them on the way" and "you could go around" comment; I'm going to call you on your "can you travel to the other side of the planet to put this marker where my brother died" comment. The place where you have to go to complete that quest was right above Site 1 and only a very short detour from the road the took you directly to the monolith where you would meet PeeBee (a main quest site)... and it's not like you had to drive around at all searching for it among several possible locations without a marker. IMHO, ME1's version of "open-world" was worse than ME:A's. For all we know, Bioware might have had plans to make Dash McCoy relevant in a later game... just like they made Conrad Verner relevant in ME3.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 15, 2019 21:44:22 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. Huh? A couple of things: BioWare tries to sell their games on making the character youWith the possible exception of DAO's warden (mostly because s/he was not voiced), I've always found BioWare's MCs to have fairly distinctive personalities. They also have defined backgrounds and overall goals (though the players may be offered some options to determine their individual motives and methods). People loved Shepard, and Hawke has a lot of fans, too. Ryder, otoh, has been heavily criticized - and I can't help but think that dislike for the character has contributed to some of the dislike toward MEA overall. I don't generally conflate my character and myself, though I recognize that some people do see their character as their avatar. I cannot think of an open world game that didn't use a fixed protagonist and if there is I am interested to know.How about Skyrim? You can play one of several different races, invent your own background, and proceed to do pretty much whatever you want in that world while ignoring any main quests. Fallout 3 gives you a young adult leaving the nest (vault) for the first time, but anything else about that character is largely yours to decide. Fallout 4 gives you a parent with a military or legal background seeking a child, but again - the rest is yours to decide.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,170
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,823
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 15, 2019 22:09:12 GMT
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. While OW games typically around the PC, it's often because of stuff that happens during gameplay. That's no different from ME, which is as PC-centric as any game ever was.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 16, 2019 0:07:34 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the games progresses through the stories? I can't imagine MET as true open world. Open world usually involves a region or a country at most - but an entire galaxy? I have trouble conceiving of an entire open world planet. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. While OW games typically around the PC, it's often because of stuff that happens during gameplay. That's no different from ME, which is as PC-centric as any game ever was. Assuming that was directed at me, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Maybe you left out a word, like "While OW games typically <revolve> around the PC". Either way, my experience with OW games is that they basically give you a toolset where you can create your own narrative. They do offer quests that typically involve visiting different locations, but there can also be enough other things to do in the game that you can ignore the quests completely if you wish. Many different kinds of content for different kinds of playthroughs by different characters. Compared with a BioWare-style linear narrative that takes you through a series of levels designed as setpieces for specific story chapter events/questlines.
|
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Feb 16, 2019 2:58:24 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. Oh please. GTA has many of the same issues. Fetch quests that are a nightmare and boring as hell. I don't agree that Bioeare games can't be open world. I think Andromeda was a good step in that direction but definitely had some flaws.
|
|
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 16, 2019 3:14:31 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. Oh please. GTA has many of the same issues. Fetch quests that are a nightmare and boring as hell. I don't agree that Bioeare games can't be open world. I think Andromeda was a good step in that direction but definitely had some flaws. Many of the same issues? As Andromeda? nah. there are enough articles and GTA fanboys on the internet that already explained why. i posted enough about the matter too so if you still think otherwise then good for you. I would be totally happy if DA4 or the next ME comes out with an amazing open world. we will see.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,170
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,823
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 16, 2019 5:03:32 GMT
Maybe you left out a word, like "While OW games typically <revolve> around the PC". Either way, my experience with OW games is that they basically give you a toolset where you can create your own narrative. They do offer quests that typically involve visiting different locations, but there can also be enough other things to do in the game that you can ignore the quests completely if you wish. Many different kinds of content for different kinds of playthroughs by different characters. Compared with a BioWare-style linear narrative that takes you through a series of levels designed as setpieces for specific story chapter events/questlines. My bad. I was agreeing with you. I have no idea what Sanunes was talking about
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Feb 16, 2019 5:53:41 GMT
For me, the following tweet indicates to me that Bioware just do not understand the concept of open world gaming:
|
|
inherit
Ohm's Law Compels You
207
0
19,211
Qui-Gon GlenN7
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
5,762
August 2016
quigonglenn
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
qui_gon_glenn
2108
|
Post by Qui-Gon GlenN7 on Feb 18, 2019 0:07:53 GMT
Everyone always crying about the Mako, and I just don't get it. Y'all need a better mechanic! Specifically, one that knows this magic incantation: upgradevehicle 6 vehthrusterforcebooster Edit: for a bunch of Canadians, this is a very German command
|
|
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 18, 2019 8:33:56 GMT
How would you feel about the MET being remade as one game with open world and new areas opening up as the game progresses through the stories? You're not describing an open-world game at all. ME's story would still demand that all the locations relative to ME2 not be available to the player until they had worked their way through the ME1 portion of the story. The same would apply for ME3 locations. There would be a few locations that would have to be open to the player throughout, but they are changed by events in the story. For example, the Citadel would have to be rebuilt twice and the player could not be allowed to access the rebuilt versions until after they had reach the applicable point in the story. A good story has a well define progression and the characters and the world around them respond to the story. Open-world games have, universally, trouble doing that since, by definition, the player should be able to access the locations whenever they like and trigger quests in any area whenever they like. I don't know if open world means that the player can access all areas from the beginning, having the citadel close down after the Geth attack seems reasonable then there's the time jump for Lazarus in which it reopens. I guess linear missions through an open world map would be difficult to implement.
|
|