Open world, will it hurt Wild Hunt?

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Open world, will it hurt Wild Hunt?

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good example of how not to make an open world/sandbox game. Inquisition is by far the most boring game Bioware made. So we have two devs, Bioware and CD Projekt RED, that have little experience making open world games, Bioware fails miserably (I don't care how many copies Inquisition sold and how many GOTY awards it received, it failed in the eyes of the core fans and I happen to be one of them) thanks Bioware but I never asked for a single player MMO. CD Projekt RED are not Bioware but I'm still a little worried, this whole open world thing is new for them, I just hope they can pull it off.
 
Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good example of how not to make an open world/sandbox game. Inquisition is by far the most boring game Bioware made. So we have two devs, Bioware and CD Projekt RED, that have little experience making open world games, Bioware fails miserably (I don't care how many copies Inquisition sold and how many GOTY awards it received, it failed in the eyes of the core fans and I happen to be one of them) thanks Bioware but I never asked for a single player MMO. CD Projekt RED are not Bioware but I'm still a little worried, this whole open world thing is new for them, I just hope they can pull it off.

They're trying to achieve a redefinition of an open world game, and they mentioned it dozen times, that filling up the world with meaningful content is one of their top priority. Not to mention the "no fedex quests" policy, that they included in previous game as well.

It's all gonna be okay, bro.
 
No. It will have it's drawbacks undoubtedly. But overall I think it will be considered a huge plus. There are lots of old interviews and conferences where it sounds like CDPR really has it's stuff together on blending RPG gameplay, narrative focus and open world.
 
I have no interest in open world games.
Unless there's a specific reason to traverse from point A to B, I won't bother to explore.

There are too many good games out there to play, rather than blindly running around completing boring side quests.
I never completed Skyrim / DA: Inquisition and many others due to the vast open world never endedness. I finally just shrug my shoulders, had enough and move on to the next game.
 
I have no interest in open world games.
Unless there's a specific reason to traverse from point A to B, I won't bother to explore.

There are too many good games out there to play, rather than blindly running around completing boring side quests.
I never completed Skyrim / DA: Inquisition and many others due to the vast open world never endedness. I finally just shrug my shoulders, had enough and move on to the next game.

That's the spirit
 
People need to remember both Witcher games have all the trappings of an open world, with random events, day/night, weather cycles, dynamic quest design and open maps. CDPR already has a successful template, they just have to scale it up. Bioware has very little experience with open world, I think the BG series comes closest, but they're the ones who were exploring brand new territory.
 
Bioware always made a bunch of linear areas you could do in different orders. CDPR since TW2 have made structured open areas which a bunch of different quests in them. Their living worlds are much more functional and realistic and feel like real places. Bioware hasn't done a game like that since Baldur's Gate 2 in the year 2000. They're good at linear quests and stories, but not particularly creating a world.

When you went to somewhere like Val Royeaux or Redcliffe village in DA:I did you feel lie you were in a living town or city? No, there were not little details to look at, you simply went to the quest-giver and spoke to them. You didn't breathe in the world and revel in it. The places didn't feel interesting or real, like Flotsam, or Vizima Outskirts, or Henselts camp.
 
Last edited:
I never completed Skyrim / DA: Inquisition and many others due to the vast open world never endedness.

The main problem on Open World Games is the (lack of) story and the focus on the Open World itself.
The Sidequests are boring yes, go fetch this, bring this to X, kill Y.... are bad because there is no meaning in it, it has no story and doesn't affect the progress of the storyline and that's the or one of the problems of Open World Games. They feel like chores you don't want to do, but you have to because otherwise you can't progress in the game.

I don't know if this is any true or not, but I think these games are made with the Open World aspect first and than comes the plot to frame it, but it should be the other way around and that is what CDP Red is doing. They have a story they want to tell and create an open world around it that fits.
 
I think The Witcher 3 devs will do fine with it. After all, Dragon Age didn't have seven (eight?) novels of material to pull inspiration from like The Witcher does. They also seems to have a good idea about areas they're designing. Novigrad is a rich port city based on medieval Amsterdam, No-Man's-Land is a mysterious wilderness inspired by Slavic mythology, and Skellige is a collection of islands populated by a Nordic tribes.
 
My hopes are high on this aspect. Witcher 2 was really good, don't get me wrong, but it was too small. On the first playthrough it seemed pretty big ... of I loved the feeling to be lost in Flotsam's woods, but then I realised that the map is not so big as I had hoped. After finishing the W2 I just wanted MOAR! When I first heard, that W3 is going to be openworld I was like "Yessss, finally!"
I think W3 will not be without issues that comes from world too big - there will be moments of repetition and some boredom, but honestly I cannot imagine other developers that can make this concept work better than REDs.
 
Last edited:
People need to remember both Witcher games have all the trappings of an open world, with random events, day/night, weather cycles, dynamic quest design and open maps. CDPR already has a successful template, they just have to scale it up.

^This.

Plus how come no ones yet mentioned the relative narrative strengths of each devs recent track record. One of them has completely forgotten how to tell a story.
 
Plus how come no ones yet mentioned the relative narrative strengths of each devs recent track record. One of them has completely forgotten how to tell a story.

Well I sort of mentioned it, the narrative in these Open World games have a low priority and/or bad writing. It's mostly focused on creating a world and throwing stuff around it to make it big, instead of connecting the dots so that all comes together.
 
Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good example of how not to make an open world/sandbox game. Inquisition is by far the most boring game Bioware made. So we have two devs, Bioware and CD Projekt RED, that have little experience making open world games, Bioware fails miserably (I don't care how many copies Inquisition sold and how many GOTY awards it received, it failed in the eyes of the core fans and I happen to be one of them) thanks Bioware but I never asked for a single player MMO. CD Projekt RED are not Bioware but I'm still a little worried, this whole open world thing is new for them, I just hope they can pull it off.

Please don't confuse facts with your imagination.
Dismiss DAI's 130+ GOTY's if you like.
Let's see how TW3 does, end of 2015.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the Witcher, not to whine about Dragon Age, thanks, your views are not representative of all DA's 'core fans'.
 
I agree that DA:I wasn't a good game and it baffles me to this day the amount of critical acclaim it got. But some obviously enjoy it and good for them. I just wish Bioware would go back to it's roots. Anyway I believe TW3 will be different and since you mentioned DA:I here's why I think it will succeed in a open world compared to DA:I

1. DA:I world was static and almost unchanging. Although it could be beautiful at times, it was deprived of life and atmosphere. TW3 on the other hand has a dynamic, living and breathing environment teaming with life and a day/night circle. As such the atmosphere (although to me better in earlier trailers) is much better and deeper. That does tremendous works to immersion in a open world game.

2. DA:I NPCs were "dead" in terms of animations. They seemed like what they were - graphical created characters that had no real life and motives. It made me care next to none about most of them and so their requests and the pleads they made to me was just a source for quests and nothing more. NPCs in TW3 are impressive and lifelike without hitting the uncanny valley and they feel like part of a larger world. They seem to have motives on their own which makes me feel like i have to be on my toes.

3. DA:I had every opportunity in regards to make brilliant quests in the "open world" it had but the vast majority of quests were forgettable and generic. Not to mention most of them were simply picked up by reading a random letter and solved the same way. As such I didn't care about the vast majority of them and it felt more like a MMO where you did them to gain experiences than for story. I don't think CDPR have gone this way. I simply can't imagine it and they have spend a huge amount of time telling us their will be no "stupid" quests. I believe if quests are done right and with depth they can easily work in a open world game even just as side quests.

I could name a quite a few more points but it would just be a long wall of text.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed Dragon Age: Inquisition a lot. More than I expected to as in general, I am not a fan of open world games. And if we end up with a huge number of game of the year awards and a ton of sales, I don't think that will be a bad things at all.

Still, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is not Dragon Age: Inquisition and we do not try to be. Dragon Age: Inquisition, by it's allowing for multiple different PCs as the inquisitor and the possible party NPCs you can meet, has to be more fluid than The Witcher. We focus our story on Geralt (and some Ciri) and this allows us to tell a tighter narrative. The open world aspect will not change this.

We are working to make the best game we can. There will be some comparisons made (CDPR & BioWare have a long, positive history with each other and our games are similar) and that is both natural and to be expected. Compare us to Dragon Age, Skyrim, Fallout, etc, we are confidant that we will rank right at the top of the gaming pile. I am confidant that we will stand out both to the general public and our core fans as a really great game.
 
I enjoyed Dragon Age: Inquisition a lot. More than I expected to as in general, I am not a fan of open world games. And if we end up with a huge number of game of the year awards and a ton of sales, I don't think that will be a bad things at all.

I would not define Inquisition as Open World. The super structure is more an hybrid between the diamond structure and the linear HUB pattern.
The main quest progression is allowed through some areas that are unlocked just one time, and which are impossible to visit again later.

(I'm sorry for my bad english, I find some difficulties to explain exactly what I meant)
 
No. It will have it's drawbacks undoubtedly. But overall I think it will be considered a huge plus. There are lots of old interviews and conferences where it sounds like CDPR really has it's stuff together on blending RPG gameplay, narrative focus and open world.

Exactly. CDPR didnt just jump into the idea of making an open world, they are totally cognizant to the narrartive trappings these games often have. Which is why so many of their presenations have focused on "storytelling in open world RPGs". You can dismiss that as blowing smoke but the way every press preview seems to be gushing over TW3's open world approach, some of which make very favorable comparisons to DA:I and Skyrim, it sounds like they are definitely on the right track.
 
Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good example of how not to make an open world/sandbox game. Inquisition is by far the most boring game Bioware made. So we have two devs, Bioware and CD Projekt RED, that have little experience making open world games, Bioware fails miserably (I don't care how many copies Inquisition sold and how many GOTY awards it received, it failed in the eyes of the core fans and I happen to be one of them) thanks Bioware but I never asked for a single player MMO. CD Projekt RED are not Bioware but I'm still a little worried, this whole open world thing is new for them, I just hope they can pull it off.

Dragon Age: Inquisition really did fail on the open world part, that I 100% agree with. I don't think I've ever been bored by majority of the side quests in an RPG. Even Dragon Age 2 had some really memorable side quests. Dragon Age: Inquisition though? I remember the side quests all right. But only because of how shit they were (Get me 5 ram meat, collect ALL of this shit you don't care about, etc). That was (kinda is) my tip top concern for The Witcher 3. The world is huge right? How much of the world is filled with quality quests? How much of the world is filler? Dragon Age became more character based after Origins. The Witcher has always maintained a good story with solid characters.

I think that they can deliver a strong story with good characters and maintain a consistent of quality all throughout the world. But after playing DA:I, I've become a tad bit more wary.
 
Moderator: Arguments about the merits of DA: I are off topic, and when they are conducted in the prevailing tone, they are so unwelcome that you should expect that your posts will be deleted. If you want to continue that argument, do so off this forum. If you want to continue to post on this forum, moderate your tone and stay on topic.

---------- Updated at 06:27 PM ----------

Closed for inability of the members to debate decently and in order.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom