| 145 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Ettirxa Would it though? What's more immersion breaking? Having a phased/instance approach that leads to your actions having lasting consequences. Having an "open world" where your actions are 100% erased at the next respawn. I quite like the idea of a phased approach where I'll be wandering around at max level and end up revisiting a prospering village that I saved from a rampaging monster attack years previously when I was just starting out in the game as a freshly baked nubcake.  |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr Would it though? What's more immersion breaking? Having a phased/instance approach that leads to your actions having lasting consequences. Having an "open world" where your actions are 100% erased at the next respawn. I quite like the idea of a phased approach where I'll be wandering around at max level and end up revisiting a prospering village that I saved from a rampaging monster attack years previously when I was just starting out in the game as a freshly baked nubcake.
There really isn't anything much more immersion breaking than you and I see different versions of the world. For a massive multiplayer I'd rather have the open world with respawns, than instances and phasing. Phasing turns a massive multiplayer into a single player experience, kind of defeating the reason I like to play multiplayer games. I LOVE the idea that the game world changes, but only if it really changes, not just for me, but for every player in the game. Yes, this means you can't put in the exact same kinds of quests you do for a single player game, but I don't want a single player online game. Fallout 3 was great! I don't want to do the quest to blow up the city with a nuclear bomb though, and it's only blown up for me, not for you, or it's blown up for you, not for me. Where's the persistence in that?
|
|
|
If you look at the detail and effort that has been put in by Bioware for the background I would say they are heading in the direction of taking this world to an MMO. They already have two full novels and the CE Game Guide has 50 pages of world lore. I mean detailed excellent read stuff. The world has some serious potential and I think it could be translated into a solid MMO. However the game system would not survive. I can however see this as a skill based system instead of level based and see some serious potential for an amazing game. In truth Blizzard should be scared of Bioware etnering this world into the MMO market. Bioware is the king of RPG and that translate into a game that would smack WoW around in depth and quality like a red headed step child. The real issue in the translation however is the MMO vs RPG issue. MOST MMO players have forgotten the RPG aspect of the game. As such more and more MMO games negelect the RPG aspect. The strength of Bioware is the care they put into the RPG. With this in mind dispite it being a great game it might get lost in the translation to the masses. Bioware has done right with Dragon Age. The solo play first release is designed to get gamers interested in the game world, to pull us in. The DLC system is not different than the MMO approach in the end, you pay for more game, the same happens with MMOs over time. This in effect introduces the solo RPGer to the concepts. With a full load of RPGers excited and drawn into the game world and used to paying regularly for add-ons you now have a primed and ready MMO market. I would say give it two to three years and we will see a DA MMO. This gives Bioware enough time for more DLC and maybe a sequel, more books to come out and time to record the tons of voice acting they will need for the MMO. I look for them to use their work in the Star Wars MMO as the springboard. ============================= |
|
Originally posted by Axehilt
Open world gameplay. Going from single- to multiplayer gaming hurts the experience a little -- you can no longer be the hero. Now you're merely a hero. Additionally, Dragon Age's combat is realtime but it's expected you'll pause a lot, which would be pretty terrible in multiplayer unless the MMO version was just about 1 character, or had a vastly streamlined interface for controlling 4 at once. Going from multiplayer gaming to open world gaming devastates the gameplay. Now nobody feels like the hero; everyone who does the quest to get the orcs out of the old mine went in and killed tons of orcs, but they just kept eternally respawning even after the quest turn-in. Going from open world to instanced/phased directly addresses this disadvantage. Now when you clear out those orcs, they're permanently gone -- either because the orc cave was an instance tied specifically to your actions or because you switched phases after completing the task. Either way, being a hero is once again possible.
I would rather play in a dynamic world with other players than be the hero. I know what you mean, and I do enjoy being the Hero in a single player game. But in an online game, I don't want to be the Hero. I'd much, much rather give up being the Hero so you and I can both exist in a dynamic online world at the same time, in the same space. The only changes i want to occur in the gameworld are changes that affect every player on the server. Like in DAoC, if you won enough Keeps, your realm got access to Darkness Falls. That was a real change in the game world, and it affected everyone. It wasn't just a mirage to make the game more like a single player game, and give you the illusion you were a Hero, when you really didn't change anything in the game for any other player. But if you worked together with your Realm, you could change the entire game world! That's cool. Yea, you weren't the "Hero", but you were part of a team that made a real change. Add more stuff like that, instead of trying to fool the player into feeling like the Hero.
I slew the dragon! Now when I go to the instanced dragon cave, I see Dragon Bones, the dragon is dead forever! But only for me, the next person goes in and sees a different instance, and kills the exact same dragon. That's no different, IMO, than I kill the dragon, and it respawns. The affect on the game world is the same (none), except you' ve given me a pretty picture to look at so my epeen will feel bigger.
|
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp We'd all prefer that the things we do every day affected the entire world, but that's just a pipe-dream imo. The nature of the MMO genre is that we just can't all be "the hero" without instancing. It would work for communal achievements; three factions vying for control of a city whom the players could "support" through a variety of means with the "most supported" faction eventually winning, but that's a long-term thing. You couldn't have the city changing hands every few hours without it becoming a virtual non-event like Halaa or Wintergrasp in WoW. World-affecting changes in the shorter term just wouldn't work in an open world. If there's a goblin infested mine and I clear it then, in an open world, it has to respawn goblins for the next guy to kill. Phasing/Instancing solves that. Resolving the group problem of having different people on different phased "stages" wouldn't be too difficult .. it could simply default to the least progressed phased stage. That's no different than having a group member on an earlier stage of a chain-quest in any average MMO; you'd still have to redo content that you've already done in order to get the straggler up to speed. |
|
Originally posted by GPrestige
First off, is this gameplay new to you, because you're all hyped up like it is. Remember they had the same gameplay in KoToR 1 & 2, Mass Effect, and NWN 1 & 2. I think a MMO would ruin Dragon Age. Static NPC's in a MMO versus lively ones in game. Craptastic quests in the MMO to give the hardcore "content", versus quests with choices in the current game. Classes that are dumbed down and watered down in the name of "balance," rather than what we have now. A game world that doesn't change as the story unfolds, whereas it does now. If Bioware was to pull off any of that, it'd practically be a single player game, played online, just like their SWTOR is sounding like it's going to be. I have no problem with this, but the vocal MMORPG fans do. You're special in Dragon Age, whereas everyone will be "special" in a MMORPG. Therefore, anyone with a brain will always having that nagging in the back of their head while playing a game that's trying very unsuccessfuly to covince them that they are special and the only hope for the world. I'd rather keep Dragon Age as a single player game. I don't want it ruined by the MMO market. |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
That's a pretty shaky argument, to claim that a phased game where you nuke a town and it no longer exists has less persistence to your actions than a game where you obliterate the orc cave and they prompty respawn behind you. I may be sorta harsh on EVE, but damn is this a cool trailer (EVE Dominion). |
|
Originally posted by coffee
Adjust the difficult setting, buy more health poulstices. F5 is autosave. |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr We'd all prefer that the things we do every day affected the entire world, but that's just a pipe-dream imo. The nature of the MMO genre is that we just can't all be "the hero" without instancing. It would work for communal achievements; three factions vying for control of a city whom the players could "support" through a variety of means with the "most supported" faction eventually winning, but that's a long-term thing. You couldn't have the city changing hands every few hours without it becoming a virtual non-event like Halaa or Wintergrasp in WoW. World-affecting changes in the shorter term just wouldn't work in an open world. If there's a goblin infested mine and I clear it then, in an open world, it has to respawn goblins for the next guy to kill. Phasing/Instancing solves that. Resolving the group problem of having different people on different phased "stages" wouldn't be too difficult .. it could simply default to the least progressed phased stage. That's no different than having a group member on an earlier stage of a chain-quest in any average MMO; you'd still have to redo content that you've already done in order to get the straggler up to speed.
That's my point. It's the same, so it seems pointless. If we're in different stages, stages I've already seen, then whats the difference in that, and simply having an open world where the Dragon or whatever respawns? IMO, pretty much none except I'm in a less persistent world, since I'm now cut off from other players in an instance. I think instances are good for Boss Mob fights, so you don't have to wait in line, but that's pretty much it. I don't think MMORPGs are good vehicles for making you feel like "the hero". I'm fine doing that in a single player game, and not in a multiplayer game. You're simply NOT the hero of the world, because in this world, unlike a single player game, you're not the only human being surrounded by computer NPCs. I'm completely fine with that.
|
|
Originally posted by Axehilt
That's a pretty shaky argument, to claim that a phased game where you nuke a town and it no longer exists has less persistence to your actions than a game where you obliterate the orc cave and they prompty respawn behind you.
But with phasing, it does promptly respawn behind you. Another player comes right behind you and dos the exact same "obliterate the orc cave" quest. With phasing, I obliterate the orc cave. Then I walk up to another player and go, look I obliterated the orc cave! And he goes, uh no you didn't, I just got a quest to obliterate the orc cave. To me, both of the players perceiving the same world, is much more persistent, than we're looking at differnt things. Imagine that in real life. "Hey Axehilt, do you see that destroyed cave over there?" And you say "Uh, no, I see a cave with some guards at the entrance". I'ts like we're not even on the same planet.
|
|
Originally posted by nate1980 Adjust the difficult setting, buy more health poulstices. F5 is autosave. Also, there's a v1.1 patch now available. It tweaks some of the difficulty settings as well as fixing a few bugettes. Oh, and I set Al up as a shield tank with high Dexterity. He's quite handy for that. |
|
|
Every video I have seen of this game it seems like there trying to sell all the blood and gore. Is there a way to turn off the blood splatter I see in every video? |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp That's my point. It's the same, so it seems pointless. If we're in different stages, stages I've already seen, then whats the difference in that, and simply having an open world where the Dragon or whatever respawns? IMO, pretty much none except I'm in a less persistent world, since I'm now cut off from other players in an instance. It's hardly pointless to resolve a shortcoming in the genre. All phasing does is give you a measure of persistance in your perception of the game world based on your actions. It gives you back the feeling of being "the hero". I want that in my MMO. It doesn't solve the problem of quest-chain stages, but it doesn't make it worse either. |
|
|
The only games I have played that were not mmo's over the last few years are: Fallout 3, Fable 3 & Mass Effect. Dragon Age is by far the best. In fact I just woke up, checking all my mmo sites whhile I have coffee then it'll be back to DA:O. Awesome game....no other way to describe it.
|
|
Originally posted by Zeppelin4 Haven't found one. One element of the gore is that, when you finish a fight, you are covered in blood splatter and it hangs around for a while. It's called "persistent gore" and there is an option to turn that off. But as for turning down the blood'n'guts in combat, I don't think that's possible. The game seems designed to be deliberately "dark" and gritty, as reflected by the 18 rating I suppose. |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr It's hardly pointless to resolve a shortcoming in the genre. All phasing does is give you a measure of persistance in your perception of the game world based on your actions. It gives you back the feeling of being "the hero". I want that in my MMO. It doesn't solve the problem of quest-chain stages, but it doesn't make it worse either.
That's fine. I'm certainly an advocate of different games for different players. The more the merrier. I just think it's a bad thing to fracture the world into different universes for each player. I want to play in the same world as you are in, not some alternate reality made just for my character. Like, I'm playing in the world where the Dragon is slain, the Princess still needs rescue, and the Village is about to be attacked by orcs. We're standing right next to each other, but in your world the Dragon is alive, the Princess is rescued, and the Village is safe from the orcs. I don't feel like a Hero, I feel like one of us is schizophrenic or something.
|
|
Originally posted by mackdawg19
Hate to be the barer of bad news. But there is ZERO intention of adding co-op or multiplayer to DAO. From the moment it was brought up in the design phases multiplayer was tossed out the windows and the goal has and will continue to be, to bring the best singleplayer RPG experience to the table. The way the combat mechanics and gameplay works will not lend itself to having multi-player or co-op as a feature. It would require reworking key components of the games systems and many many months of development work. Something there is no plans to do. Right now the live team is focused on bug fixs and dlc. The dev team is pounding away on expansion content. |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
But with phasing, it does promptly respawn behind you. Another player comes right behind you and dos the exact same "obliterate the orc cave" quest. With phasing, I obliterate the orc cave. Then I walk up to another player and go, look I obliterated the orc cave! And he goes, uh no you didn't, I just got a quest to obliterate the orc cave. To me, both of the players perceiving the same world, is much more persistent, than we're looking at differnt things. Imagine that in real life. "Hey Axehilt, do you see that destroyed cave over there?" And you say "Uh, no, I see a cave with some guards at the entrance". I'ts like we're not even on the same planet.
You can claim that's more immersive if you want, but it's not more persistent. In the first situation, you perceive your own actions as being persistent. That's one more person than the zero people who perceive your actions as persistent in the second situation. I may be sorta harsh on EVE, but damn is this a cool trailer (EVE Dominion). |
|
Originally posted by Ihmotepp It's hardly pointless to resolve a shortcoming in the genre. All phasing does is give you a measure of persistance in your perception of the game world based on your actions. It gives you back the feeling of being "the hero". I want that in my MMO. It doesn't solve the problem of quest-chain stages, but it doesn't make it worse either. That's fine. I'm certainly an advocate of different games for different players. The more the merrier. I just think it's a bad thing to fracture the world into different universes for each player. I want to play in the same world as you are in, not some alternate reality made just for my character. Like, I'm playing in the world where the Dragon is slain, the Princess still needs rescue, and the Village is about to be attacked by orcs. We're standing right next to each other, but in your world the Dragon is alive, the Princess is rescued, and the Village is safe from the orcs. I don't feel like a Hero, I feel like one of us is schizophrenic or something. If we were grouped, our worlds would be identical. If we weren't grouped, then you wouldn't see me at all. I don't mind the universe being fractured when I can freely move between the alternate realities. |
|
|
If they could keep it the way it is now then I am all for it but sadly it would be like WOW. Blast through levels to kill some epic raid boss. Nothing in the MMO genre anymore has any depth or complexity. Its all so watered down and tasteless. |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr That's fine. I'm certainly an advocate of different games for different players. The more the merrier. I just think it's a bad thing to fracture the world into different universes for each player. I want to play in the same world as you are in, not some alternate reality made just for my character. Like, I'm playing in the world where the Dragon is slain, the Princess still needs rescue, and the Village is about to be attacked by orcs. We're standing right next to each other, but in your world the Dragon is alive, the Princess is rescued, and the Village is safe from the orcs. I don't feel like a Hero, I feel like one of us is schizophrenic or something. If we were grouped, our worlds would be identical. If we weren't grouped, then you wouldn't see me at all. I don't mind the universe being fractured when I can freely move between the alternate realities.
Ok, fine. But then there goes your persistence. Grouped, the Dragon is alive. Ungroup, the Dragon is dead. Group, the Dragon is not dead. Ungroup, the Dragon is dead again. I don't see how that's a lot different than the Dragon respawns after you kill it, because it's essentially respawning after you group.
|
|
|
Yauchy
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/06/07
"The keenist sorrow is that we are the sole cause of our adversities" ~Sophicles |
I'm more amazed it has made a power gamer enjoy and be enthralled with a plot / story (like myself)....Hell I enjoy the dialog far more than I do the combat. As far as an MMO goes, it wouldnt work - fantasy genre is on high burnout mode, but it gives me quite a bit more faith into what old republic will be like. If they can muster even half the quality plot, I'll have to give it my nod :) |
Originally posted by brostyn
Agreed Oblivion/MW owns this game because it was an open world. DA is way to linear for an rpg. |
|
|
Currently level 7 in DAO and loving it non-stop.
Bioware, If you are reading this: "Start working on a DA MMO!" That is all. :-)
Release it 2013-2014 ;)
PS. DA is already 20gigs...The MMO version with these graphics ect ect and ect could top 100+ gigs. :) |
|
|
I'm really enjoying Dragon Age thus far... though I'm not far into it. I also need to start over because I misread a talent requirement and screwed up my skill point allotment :( Not sure if this has been covered, if not I'm sure I'll take some fire for it, but the game handles IDENTICALLY to WoW. The interface, quest system, default keybinds, quest system, all the same. You can even press both mouse buttons down to move forward. It's pretty much a WoW/Baldurs Gate hybrid game where you control you whole party instead of a single character. If they were to make it an MMO the setting would be amazing, as would the style. However, the rest, unless they allowed for each player to have a full party, would be identical to WoW. Sorry to say it, but it's true. Dragon Age is a great game, but World of Warcrafts' influence should be obvious to anyone who's played it. |
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
