Originally posted by mmoguy43 You are just being fickle. Sometimes you really aren't in the mood for a certain kind of game. So play something else. No need the community to join you on a misguided rally.
That could also be said for the fans of open world games. Which side is misguided? The people who love a good story or people who love open world games?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle Not sick of it, just stick of it not being done well =-) Some companies can pull it off and others just dont know how to make that game type work. For me it breaks down to sometimes I want to play a story like Force Unleashed, ToR, or Mass Effect. Other times I want to explore and dig under rocks and crawl in holes I find.
No it has a lot to do with poor feed back from players and to many people to please today, they cant please everyone, some love this style, some do not.
I was a gamer who went dev, I would love for some of you do to the same so you can see there side like I did. I used to complain until I actually do what they do. You will see the stupid feed back we get... Also trying to please everyone will never happen. Today more than ever a lot of gamers today have way different opinions than 5 years ago.
Originally posted by MisterZebub Open world should mean freedom and opportunities for the players to play the game as they want. Not just the choice to be bored in large or small bite sized chunks. And yes a good game story should count for something, but if its an inflexible narrative that I can't personally contribute to, I might as well just go read a book.
I like your whole post, but this part I wanted to address specifically.
100% in agreement here. Very few RPGs these days have my character feeling like he is actually doing anything. Rarely does the world react, which is what single player can do that MMOs can not.
Take Skyrim as an example. After the "massacre at the Thalmor Embassy", never does a Thalmor "patrol" attack me when I meet them on the road. Why? I just slaughtered nearly EVERYONE in their Embassy? If I choose a side in the Civil War, it matters not, except for which Jarl sits in what throne. Nothing in the world changes to show what I have done.
It would be nice if RPGs actually gave us choices. What if I don't want to save the world and side with the "Big Bad Enenmy?" I can't. It is impossible, except by ignoring the main quest, which in turn makes no difference. The world never ends or is taken over by "Bid Bad Enemy." The "choices" we are given are "Do" or "Do Not/Ignore." That is not a choice in my book.
Factions are another "lost feature" that RPGs have nearly forgotten all about. Instead, every character can do everything. A player needs only one playthrough in order to get everything done. There are no choices and consequences anymore.
Sorry about the rambling
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by goboygo I'm sorry I have to say this but...........your crazy.
I know I am, but was this directed at me, the post above yours?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Nanfoodle Not sick of it, just stick of it not being done well =-) Some companies can pull it off and others just dont know how to make that game type work. For me it breaks down to sometimes I want to play a story like Force Unleashed, ToR, or Mass Effect. Other times I want to explore and dig under rocks and crawl in holes I find.
I think this ^ is the biggest thing - Nanfoodle is right - a lot of developers really just can't pull it off.
Bethesda is very good at it, as is Rockstar in their own way...
Everyone else?
Please, Bioware, Square Enix, etc. - stick to what you are good at - characters, story, setting, cinematic presentation.
And Witcher 3, from all the previews, appears to suffer from DA:I syndrome of 10,000 pointers to useless "content."
Maybe it's also that the core gameplay, the actual act of fighting and leveling and building a character is so bad in DA:I that it makes it impossible to enjoy the so called "content."
I mean, I still love Diablo and Destiny, despite their heavy repetition and relatively small(er) quantity and variety of content - the gameplay is so solid and so well presented, I never get sick of it.
This is why I hate MMO's. They just don't have fun gameplay. I mean... it's really quite terrible for this day and age.
I mean... I've tried. I really have tried. I've tried every major MMO release since SWG... and I can't do it anymore. The gameplay in MMO's just isn't fun to me. This is why I can't stick with them - I hate the gameplay. I'm tired of Hotbars on my screen. I know the newest wave of games are really trying to get rid of that by reducing the number of Skills you can have equipped at one time, and shoe-horning in more action-oriented gameplay. But it just sucks.
Look... if you're going to make it action combat - then make it action combat. Stop dicking around with it. When I click my LMB... I expect something to die within the next few seconds if not immediately. No! I do not want to continue spamming my LMB for the next 3 minutes on one simple MOB just to repeat the same stupid boring process for the next 30 bajillion mobs just to get to level 10. And it only gets worse from there.
I wanna click it once, then move on to the next mob. THAT'S what makes it ACTION. Every single encounter doesn't have to be some epic thing that tries way to hard to remind me "HEY! See this? It's like a shooter, cuz you press the LMB! Isn't this fun?!" No... it isn't.
Sorry, I think open world was better and is the future, linear RPGs leading you by the nose from point A to point B seems cheap unimaginative, and lazy. Letting people exploring and finding secret caves, bunkers, etc is what is exciting. Linear games like Diablo , recent Final Fantasy games, they have their place in the gaming world, but where its at is open worlds.
DA:I didn't fall short for me due to the open world, but rather because there was so much busywork that wasn't enjoyable. The combat was really fun but seemed like 10% of the game to me. The rest was sorting through inventory, upgrading gear, switching loadouts and replacing gear on my squad.
It was just too much, plus it had so many generic quests. Skyrim and Fallout are great open world games because you feel like everything you do is important and busywork is there but at least kept to a minimum.
Open world is still much preferable to linear. I can't see the advantages of Linear in any way actually, except MAYBE giving you a more streamlined experience.
I really like DA:I especially all those things you mention. I don't have allot of time to play my favorite hobby but if I have time I want it to be diverse. Sometimes I just go out and explore for resources if I got like lets say an hour, next day I might be doing some quests, next day I dedicate my time to sorting out and crafting new armors/weapons/upgrades for all my companions. To me it's this what I want from my RPG experiance. Don't need a RPG that is far to linear with just one path to follow it's mainstory.
I also love Skyrim and Fallout while I still feel they played very much alike. Though know plenty of people that also loved those 2 games yet only played it's mainstory.
But overall these open world RPG's for me need those generic quests, all those side activities, as it makes the world come more alive.
Perhaps I am more of a immersion gamer instead of just feeling I am playing a game so games especially RPG's can only become more and more of a open world for me.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by MisterZebub Open world should mean freedom and opportunities for the players to play the game as they want. Not just the choice to be bored in large or small bite sized chunks. And yes a good game story should count for something, but if its an inflexible narrative that I can't personally contribute to, I might as well just go read a book.
I like your whole post, but this part I wanted to address specifically.
100% in agreement here. Very few RPGs these days have my character feeling like he is actually doing anything. Rarely does the world react, which is what single player can do that MMOs can not.
Take Skyrim as an example. After the "massacre at the Thalmor Embassy", never does a Thalmor "patrol" attack me when I meet them on the road. Why? I just slaughtered nearly EVERYONE in their Embassy? If I choose a side in the Civil War, it matters not, except for which Jarl sits in what throne. Nothing in the world changes to show what I have done.
It would be nice if RPGs actually gave us choices. What if I don't want to save the world and side with the "Big Bad Enenmy?" I can't. It is impossible, except by ignoring the main quest, which in turn makes no difference. The world never ends or is taken over by "Bid Bad Enemy." The "choices" we are given are "Do" or "Do Not/Ignore." That is not a choice in my book.
Factions are another "lost feature" that RPGs have nearly forgotten all about. Instead, every character can do everything. A player needs only one playthrough in order to get everything done. There are no choices and consequences anymore.
Sorry about the rambling
Wipe out the brotherhood. Get the mod to wipe out the thrives guild. Be goody two shoes or be a real bad ass and wreak havoc on some holds. Be wanted in several states and BTW wiping the Thalmor Embassy is not the only means to be hated. They attack me on sight.
There are many paths to take with the game play and it DOES have impact on your game play.
I have 85 mods that have changed the game drastically.
Yes removing part of what makes a RPG is going to give it a better chance for a good or better game..../not.
ROLE PLAYING,>>>WORLD,it should at least ATTEMPT to act like a living world and not some instance with dungeon finders and talk of end game.WTF does end game have to do rpg's?
Of course no design auto means BETTER,it still depends on the game designer and so far NOBODY except one imo can lay claim to being a good game designer.These games 99% of them are all businesses,they are not games made with passion or BEST effort.
You cannot start pointing at one game then the next because being better than another crap developer does not make another any good either.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Give the player too much control, too much freedom, well the story usually suffers because the developer doesn't have the control to deliver on a great story.
I mean, I get the whole open world RPG thing - great, it's the new "hip" way to make an RPG.
But EVERY damn game?
If I wanted a prewritten story... I would read a book to be honest.
But, I like playing games like Mount & Blade where *I* make the story.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Give the player too much control, too much freedom, well the story usually suffers because the developer doesn't have the control to deliver on a great story.
I mean, I get the whole open world RPG thing - great, it's the new "hip" way to make an RPG.
But EVERY damn game?
If I wanted a prewritten story... I would read a book to be honest.
But, I like playing games like Mount & Blade where *I* make the story.
If you want to make a story, break out a text editor.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
All the non open world games, I usually beat in a couple weeks.
All the open world games, I usually beat in a couple months.
Whether the story is good in either, is all about the developers/writers of the game. I've never seen the story effected by a game being open world or linear.
Originally posted by dreamscaper From the post, it seems like you're sick of poor gameplay design, not open worlds.
Yeah, I was gonna say, it's not Open World itself he's tired of, it's craptastic side quests and sucky gameplay design within those Open Worlds. I personally don't think there are enough Open World games and wish the FF games had stopped going away from Open World, it was part of what made them so magical and immersive and deep. Now we have these annoying linear, lobby oriented RPGs that make me yearn for more depth and immersion and exploration.
Originally posted by MisterZebub Open world should mean freedom and opportunities for the players to play the game as they want. Not just the choice to be bored in large or small bite sized chunks. And yes a good game story should count for something, but if its an inflexible narrative that I can't personally contribute to, I might as well just go read a book.
I like your whole post, but this part I wanted to address specifically.100% in agreement here. Very few RPGs these days have my character feeling like he is actually doing anything. Rarely does the world react, which is what single player can do that MMOs can not.Take Skyrim as an example. After the "massacre at the Thalmor Embassy", never does a Thalmor "patrol" attack me when I meet them on the road. Why? I just slaughtered nearly EVERYONE in their Embassy? If I choose a side in the Civil War, it matters not, except for which Jarl sits in what throne. Nothing in the world changes to show what I have done.It would be nice if RPGs actually gave us choices. What if I don't want to save the world and side with the "Big Bad Enenmy?" I can't. It is impossible, except by ignoring the main quest, which in turn makes no difference. The world never ends or is taken over by "Bid Bad Enemy." The "choices" we are given are "Do" or "Do Not/Ignore." That is not a choice in my book.Factions are another "lost feature" that RPGs have nearly forgotten all about. Instead, every character can do everything. A player needs only one playthrough in order to get everything done. There are no choices and consequences anymore.Sorry about the rambling
Wipe out the brotherhood. Get the mod to wipe out the thrives guild. Be goody two shoes or be a real bad ass and wreak havoc on some holds. Be wanted in several states and BTW wiping the Thalmor Embassy is not the only means to be hated. They attack me on sight.There are many paths to take with the game play and it DOES have impact on your game play.I have 85 mods that have changed the game drastically.
The last line is the key. "Vanilla Skyrim" was not designed this way. So I do not say "You can do this in Skyrim." when console players are shit out of luck. That is false, without qualifiers as you included
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I love open worlds, but the last Dragon age felt like an MMo and I had no desire to collect meat and skins and do time sinks like I was play some current MMO:(
I am hoping the Witcher3 will have more depth:) I love Skyrim and the ones before but I think they are fine tuning what makes money and don't expect things to change much after the success of the latest Dragon Age game. They need to start hiding these time sinks better but that is only my thoughts.
I'm really quite over this whole "open world" RPG thing.
It just ends up being repetitive, grind heavy "quests" that are light on story and heavy on boring.
Dragon Age: Inquisition. Borderlands. Witcher 3 looks like it is going to suffer from the same mess. Dozens of little blah all over the map/screen pointing you towards more useless garbage.Bleh.
The last one I really enjoyed was Skyrim - but Skyrim had (I think) a good main story that kept you engaged and you didn't feel bad skipping out on most of the side stuff - as most of it wasn't thrown in your face like it is in DA:I.
OPEN WORLD DOES NOT = BETTER.
You know what were good Bioware RPGs? KOTOR, Mass Effect 1-3.
Story. Characters. Plot. Start to finish. Repeatable.
Hell, I think DIABLO 3 is a better RPG than DA:I because it doesn't bog itself down with pointless side garbage - even if the story is predictable and very standard-fair fantasy - it is focused.
In the MMO space, I think GW2 made a HUGE mistake, for example, by putting the vistas and heart quests on the map, and then making them required for world completion %.
Just leave them out there, in the wild, to FIND as we EXPLORE, and focus your directed gameplay on the main plot lines, characters, and events.
If your core gameplay is fun, as it is in like Destiny, Diablo, or the Mass Effect series, I'll play the same missions/levels over and over again as different characters/builds/moral choices etc.
Don't bog me down with useless side content that means absolutely nothing - it is NOT satisfying gameplay to me.
Open world is overrated but i am not sick of it. these days Linearity is counted as a negative most of the times by default which is wrong.
also it seems you are just biased toward Skyrim simple as that. the activities in Skyrim were as much meaningful as they are in most other open worlds. in some games those activities are less disguised. that is all.
as for combat out of all the games you mentioned i only find Mass Effect's combat to be entertaining but i don't play RPGs just for combat, whether they are open world or not. (as long as they are acceptable). i am fine with games with minimalistic stories (Dark Souls) but if it manages to offer a good story or present some good characters then i am happy with it as well.
"in Skyrim you didn't feel bad skipping out on most of the side stuff - as most of it wasn't thrown in your face like it is in DA:I."
not sure how it was thrown in your face! you could ignore doing side stuff in DA:I.
also having side quests to do != unfocused story. otherwise only linear games are focused. most games allow you to just ignore side quests.
"Hell, I think DIABLO 3 is a better RPG than DA:I because it doesn't bog itself down with pointless side garbage - even if the story is predictable and very standard-fair fantasy - it is focused."
i haven't played D3 yet so i can't comment on it fully but seems to me that the only advantage Diablo has on for example Dragon Age Inquisition is having more loot. also as far as i know (and even you sorta admitted) Diablo 3 has a predictable weak story so the fact that you prefer Diablo's story to DA:I speaks volumes, focused or not. you just played DA:I with negative mind set obviously.
in GW2 you are not forced to do world completion since exotic items are enough to do any content in the game(in fact items don't matter that much) so not sure how it is a "huge" mistake since it doesn't affect you that much. if you want legendary or title/star on your name you have to work for it. better than grinding for items that gonna be meaningless with the next big patch (hello WoW etc.)
Originally posted by rojoArcueid
I want to play DA:I but everyone keep saying that its full of generic mmo tasks so im concerned about that in a single player rpg.
sadly it has fetch quests but it's not "full" of them. also you are not forced to do them and it won't affect the story. if you like Dragon Age for it's characters(that's the main point of most Bioware games anyway) then buy it since even without doing side quests it will keep you busy for a long time with lots of character interactions (depending on your save even a character like Loghain is gonna be fleshed out more in Dragon Age Inquisition)
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
I'm playing Fallout 3 again right now. I found Dogmeat again without looking for him and I just saved 'Dad' at Vault 112. It happened completely out of the intended order. I hadn't gone to Rivet City yet.
And Borderlands is definitely not an open world.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
I'm really quite over this whole "open world" RPG thing.
It just ends up being repetitive, grind heavy "quests" that are light on story and heavy on boring.
Dragon Age: Inquisition. Borderlands. Witcher 3 looks like it is going to suffer from the same mess. Dozens of little blah all over the map/screen pointing you towards more useless garbage.Bleh.
The last one I really enjoyed was Skyrim - but Skyrim had (I think) a good main story that kept you engaged and you didn't feel bad skipping out on most of the side stuff - as most of it wasn't thrown in your face like it is in DA:I.
OPEN WORLD DOES NOT = BETTER.
You know what were good Bioware RPGs? KOTOR, Mass Effect 1-3.
Story. Characters. Plot. Start to finish. Repeatable.
Hell, I think DIABLO 3 is a better RPG than DA:I because it doesn't bog itself down with pointless side garbage - even if the story is predictable and very standard-fair fantasy - it is focused.
In the MMO space, I think GW2 made a HUGE mistake, for example, by putting the vistas and heart quests on the map, and then making them required for world completion %.
Just leave them out there, in the wild, to FIND as we EXPLORE, and focus your directed gameplay on the main plot lines, characters, and events.
If your core gameplay is fun, as it is in like Destiny, Diablo, or the Mass Effect series, I'll play the same missions/levels over and over again as different characters/builds/moral choices etc.
Don't bog me down with useless side content that means absolutely nothing - it is NOT satisfying gameplay to me.
I don't know, maybe I'm the only one.
I don't consider Borderlands to be a RPG. It's a shooter just with more stats, loot and grinding.
+ It's not open world as well.
DA:I - problem is not that it is an open world game. Problem is that Bioware designed it to be grindy, made it like off-line MMO. That is why it has grind-quests, pointless filler stuff and other things. It is cheap to make such content.
DA:O and DA2 also had plenty of filler combat and grind quests, DA:I just have even more of them.
I really doubt The Witcher 3 will be same as DA:I. Problem is not with game being an open world or not. Closed world or open world won't automatically make something grindy&pointless or not.
You may also want to step from AAA games only and check games like: Divinity:Original Sin or Pillars of Eternity.
Last but not least - I really do doubt that The Witcher 3 will be like DA:I.
Comments
That could also be said for the fans of open world games. Which side is misguided? The people who love a good story or people who love open world games?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
We need more open world simulators like EvE and less quest-hub simili-openworlds.. where is the EvE like complex game on the ground?
No it has a lot to do with poor feed back from players and to many people to please today, they cant please everyone, some love this style, some do not.
I was a gamer who went dev, I would love for some of you do to the same so you can see there side like I did. I used to complain until I actually do what they do. You will see the stupid feed back we get... Also trying to please everyone will never happen. Today more than ever a lot of gamers today have way different opinions than 5 years ago.
100% in agreement here. Very few RPGs these days have my character feeling like he is actually doing anything. Rarely does the world react, which is what single player can do that MMOs can not.
Take Skyrim as an example. After the "massacre at the Thalmor Embassy", never does a Thalmor "patrol" attack me when I meet them on the road. Why? I just slaughtered nearly EVERYONE in their Embassy? If I choose a side in the Civil War, it matters not, except for which Jarl sits in what throne. Nothing in the world changes to show what I have done.
It would be nice if RPGs actually gave us choices. What if I don't want to save the world and side with the "Big Bad Enenmy?" I can't. It is impossible, except by ignoring the main quest, which in turn makes no difference. The world never ends or is taken over by "Bid Bad Enemy." The "choices" we are given are "Do" or "Do Not/Ignore." That is not a choice in my book.
Factions are another "lost feature" that RPGs have nearly forgotten all about. Instead, every character can do everything. A player needs only one playthrough in order to get everything done. There are no choices and consequences anymore.
Sorry about the rambling
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm playing Black Flag, what can I say, I'm a sucker for pirates.
Witcher 3, damn I can't wait for that baby, 35min of gameplay, looks so sweet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ony2r0QFs
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
This is why I hate MMO's. They just don't have fun gameplay. I mean... it's really quite terrible for this day and age.
I mean... I've tried. I really have tried. I've tried every major MMO release since SWG... and I can't do it anymore. The gameplay in MMO's just isn't fun to me. This is why I can't stick with them - I hate the gameplay. I'm tired of Hotbars on my screen. I know the newest wave of games are really trying to get rid of that by reducing the number of Skills you can have equipped at one time, and shoe-horning in more action-oriented gameplay. But it just sucks.
Look... if you're going to make it action combat - then make it action combat. Stop dicking around with it. When I click my LMB... I expect something to die within the next few seconds if not immediately. No! I do not want to continue spamming my LMB for the next 3 minutes on one simple MOB just to repeat the same stupid boring process for the next 30 bajillion mobs just to get to level 10. And it only gets worse from there.
I wanna click it once, then move on to the next mob. THAT'S what makes it ACTION. Every single encounter doesn't have to be some epic thing that tries way to hard to remind me "HEY! See this? It's like a shooter, cuz you press the LMB! Isn't this fun?!" No... it isn't.
Say what?
No way, never get tired of OW RPGs.
Skyrim is not the best example but I've play and still find things to do 700+ hours of game play later.
Maybe I should start the MQ. LOL.
OH wait...
NM
This is MMO without the RPG you're talking about.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I really like DA:I especially all those things you mention. I don't have allot of time to play my favorite hobby but if I have time I want it to be diverse. Sometimes I just go out and explore for resources if I got like lets say an hour, next day I might be doing some quests, next day I dedicate my time to sorting out and crafting new armors/weapons/upgrades for all my companions. To me it's this what I want from my RPG experiance. Don't need a RPG that is far to linear with just one path to follow it's mainstory.
I also love Skyrim and Fallout while I still feel they played very much alike. Though know plenty of people that also loved those 2 games yet only played it's mainstory.
But overall these open world RPG's for me need those generic quests, all those side activities, as it makes the world come more alive.
Perhaps I am more of a immersion gamer instead of just feeling I am playing a game so games especially RPG's can only become more and more of a open world for me.
100% in agreement here. Very few RPGs these days have my character feeling like he is actually doing anything. Rarely does the world react, which is what single player can do that MMOs can not.
Take Skyrim as an example. After the "massacre at the Thalmor Embassy", never does a Thalmor "patrol" attack me when I meet them on the road. Why? I just slaughtered nearly EVERYONE in their Embassy? If I choose a side in the Civil War, it matters not, except for which Jarl sits in what throne. Nothing in the world changes to show what I have done.
It would be nice if RPGs actually gave us choices. What if I don't want to save the world and side with the "Big Bad Enenmy?" I can't. It is impossible, except by ignoring the main quest, which in turn makes no difference. The world never ends or is taken over by "Bid Bad Enemy." The "choices" we are given are "Do" or "Do Not/Ignore." That is not a choice in my book.
Factions are another "lost feature" that RPGs have nearly forgotten all about. Instead, every character can do everything. A player needs only one playthrough in order to get everything done. There are no choices and consequences anymore.
Sorry about the rambling
Wipe out the brotherhood. Get the mod to wipe out the thrives guild. Be goody two shoes or be a real bad ass and wreak havoc on some holds. Be wanted in several states and BTW wiping the Thalmor Embassy is not the only means to be hated. They attack me on sight.
There are many paths to take with the game play and it DOES have impact on your game play.
I have 85 mods that have changed the game drastically.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Yes removing part of what makes a RPG is going to give it a better chance for a good or better game..../not.
ROLE PLAYING,>>>WORLD,it should at least ATTEMPT to act like a living world and not some instance with dungeon finders and talk of end game.WTF does end game have to do rpg's?
Of course no design auto means BETTER,it still depends on the game designer and so far NOBODY except one imo can lay claim to being a good game designer.These games 99% of them are all businesses,they are not games made with passion or BEST effort.
You cannot start pointing at one game then the next because being better than another crap developer does not make another any good either.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If I wanted a prewritten story... I would read a book to be honest.
But, I like playing games like Mount & Blade where *I* make the story.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
If you want to make a story, break out a text editor.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Nope, not sick of Open World games.
All the non open world games, I usually beat in a couple weeks.
All the open world games, I usually beat in a couple months.
Whether the story is good in either, is all about the developers/writers of the game. I've never seen the story effected by a game being open world or linear.
Yeah, I was gonna say, it's not Open World itself he's tired of, it's craptastic side quests and sucky gameplay design within those Open Worlds. I personally don't think there are enough Open World games and wish the FF games had stopped going away from Open World, it was part of what made them so magical and immersive and deep. Now we have these annoying linear, lobby oriented RPGs that make me yearn for more depth and immersion and exploration.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I love open worlds, but the last Dragon age felt like an MMo and I had no desire to collect meat and skins and do time sinks like I was play some current MMO:(
I am hoping the Witcher3 will have more depth:) I love Skyrim and the ones before but I think they are fine tuning what makes money and don't expect things to change much after the success of the latest Dragon Age game. They need to start hiding these time sinks better but that is only my thoughts.
No. I don't agree with you at all.
@ OP
Open world is overrated but i am not sick of it. these days Linearity is counted as a negative most of the times by default which is wrong.
also it seems you are just biased toward Skyrim simple as that. the activities in Skyrim were as much meaningful as they are in most other open worlds. in some games those activities are less disguised. that is all.
as for combat out of all the games you mentioned i only find Mass Effect's combat to be entertaining but i don't play RPGs just for combat, whether they are open world or not. (as long as they are acceptable). i am fine with games with minimalistic stories (Dark Souls) but if it manages to offer a good story or present some good characters then i am happy with it as well.
"in Skyrim you didn't feel bad skipping out on most of the side stuff - as most of it wasn't thrown in your face like it is in DA:I."
not sure how it was thrown in your face! you could ignore doing side stuff in DA:I.also having side quests to do != unfocused story. otherwise only linear games are focused. most games allow you to just ignore side quests.
"Hell, I think DIABLO 3 is a better RPG than DA:I because it doesn't bog itself down with pointless side garbage - even if the story is predictable and very standard-fair fantasy - it is focused."
i haven't played D3 yet so i can't comment on it fully but seems to me that the only advantage Diablo has on for example Dragon Age Inquisition is having more loot. also as far as i know (and even you sorta admitted) Diablo 3 has a predictable weak story so the fact that you prefer Diablo's story to DA:I speaks volumes, focused or not. you just played DA:I with negative mind set obviously.
in GW2 you are not forced to do world completion since exotic items are enough to do any content in the game(in fact items don't matter that much) so not sure how it is a "huge" mistake since it doesn't affect you that much. if you want legendary or title/star on your name you have to work for it. better than grinding for items that gonna be meaningless with the next big patch (hello WoW etc.)
sadly it has fetch quests but it's not "full" of them. also you are not forced to do them and it won't affect the story. if you like Dragon Age for it's characters(that's the main point of most Bioware games anyway) then buy it since even without doing side quests it will keep you busy for a long time with lots of character interactions (depending on your save even a character like Loghain is gonna be fleshed out more in Dragon Age Inquisition)
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
I'm playing Fallout 3 again right now. I found Dogmeat again without looking for him and I just saved 'Dad' at Vault 112. It happened completely out of the intended order. I hadn't gone to Rivet City yet.
And Borderlands is definitely not an open world.
I don't consider Borderlands to be a RPG. It's a shooter just with more stats, loot and grinding.
+ It's not open world as well.
DA:I - problem is not that it is an open world game. Problem is that Bioware designed it to be grindy, made it like off-line MMO. That is why it has grind-quests, pointless filler stuff and other things. It is cheap to make such content.
DA:O and DA2 also had plenty of filler combat and grind quests, DA:I just have even more of them.
I really doubt The Witcher 3 will be same as DA:I. Problem is not with game being an open world or not. Closed world or open world won't automatically make something grindy&pointless or not.
You may also want to step from AAA games only and check games like: Divinity:Original Sin or Pillars of Eternity.
Last but not least - I really do doubt that The Witcher 3 will be like DA:I.