Dragon Age III Development Influenced By Skyrim, Possibly More Exploration-Heavy

I wouldn't really call anything in Skyrim a "new direction" since it's just taking the ES formula that's been going since Daggerfall and... simplifying it. So to me, this just screams "We want X audience also but don't want to be seen as bandwagoners."

Though as long as they actually put effort into it, it would at least be better than DA2. So that's fine.

Wow, I thought the exact same thing when I read "new direction". I've always thought that Oblivion and Skyrim, and even Fallout 3, were pretty much the same concept, just more and more refined, and with progressively less bad controls and third person cameras.

I'd kind of would like to see DAIII go back to more strategy in the game play, but hopefully with less tedious pausing the game every second and queuing up actions for every character. DAII kind of screwed the pooch on that with enemies spawning in multiple waves from every direction.

I was talking about the quote, which also uses the term "new direction".

While it's true Skyrim uses the same formula as previous ES games, it really was a new direction for said formula that really does define the future RPG in terms of exploration and freedom. If you play Oblivion, you'll notice that, though the world is big, it isn't alive. The world just kind of stands still, waiting for you to do something, which is also tricky since Oblivion, though it had plenty to do, it was hard to find worthwhile things to do that was fun after you beat the story, expansions, and factions. Skyrim, on the other hand, isn't just huge. It's alive. The world is much more bustling than in Oblivion, and there are far more unexpected developments in this world that make questing more enjoyable (dragons attacking you out of nowhere for example. Or running into a cult of vampires while traveling.)

Except the thing is that this is the exact same thing they've been doing since Morrowind, what with NPCs having planned routes, conversing with each other, etc. Even in Skyrim, nothing is going to happen unless you're there. A dragon isn't just going to wipe out a town when you aren't looki9ng, and people aren't just going to find their own missing item in Drauger filled caves, nothing happens with the war, etc. Everything that makes it "alive" is still present in just about every Bethesda open world game. Hell, random encounters were a big deal in Fallout 3.

It is the same formula, but it has been altered to be more of a realistic game. Though it's true that random developments are present in Oblivion and Fallout 3, they are extremely minimal, and don't really urge you to take part in those developments. Skyrim takes that and makes it much deeper. For example, the other day, I was traveling to Riften from Whiterun, when out of nowhere, a woman shows up and tells me she just escaped a group of bandits, but they still have her friend. She begged me to go save her friend and wipe out the bandits. I went to their fort, wiped them out, and saved her friend, who rewarded me with a ring that I am now using. In the process, I found a chest in the fort filled with very valuable items inside. I sold them in Riften, gained a huge profit, and used the gold to buy a house in Whiterun.

The point is, games like Oblivion and Fallout are very shallow and stiff in comparison to Skyrim, which is more of a realistic exploration experience than other Bethesda games. In Oblivion, you can actually fast travel through the whole game, and you'll never miss a thing. In Skyrim, you cannot fast travel too much, because if you do, you miss fantastic random developments that strengthen the experience of exploring a huge world that is full of life and things to do in unlimited quantities. If you fast travel too much in Skyrim, you will greatly regret it later. Oblivion, however, can be played without any exploration due to the stiffness of the world, and you'll still be able to manage. That's not a well developed open world experience if you think about it.

"While it's true Skyrim uses the same formula as previous ES games, it really was a new direction for said formula that really does define the future RPG in terms of exploration and freedom"
To say that Skyrim doesn't do anything that Daggerfall didn't already do is like saying Johannesburg is 'more than fifty miles south of Cairo'. It would be much more accurate to say there is nothing Skyrim does that Daggerfall doesn't already do better and deeper. One example: there are over fifty factions in Daggerfall. Each has its own allegiences, goals, and membership requirements. Joining one group will close doors with some others. There are often strict requirements to joining groups and for getting promoted. Further, the process of rising up within an organization is much more involved. All of this takes place in a game world half the size of Great Britain.

Daggerfall may be the same formula, but as I already said, Skyrim takes that formula and makes it a realistic, believable world. The amount of factions and quests that Daggerfall features does not matter, the world in that game is still very stiff, just like Oblivion and Morrowind. The thing that makes Skyrim special is the fact that the world is alive. Events in this game are more unpredictable. This is a game where you all you need to do is go where the road takes you, which is what makes Skyrim a literally endless adventure, and that is exactly what an RPG is supposed to be. Anything can happen in this game during your travels, whereas in Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion, everything is scripted while the world waits for you to do something. Those games are nothing without the factions & quests, whereas Skyrim is fun even without the factions. It's realistic exploration, which is a first for the series and genre alike.

That's inaccurate. The central story and events in Skyrim are all rooted around player behavior and cannot move without it. The civil war, which should in theory only incidentally involve the dragonborn if at all, has the player at center stage in deciding the course of things. Quests in Daggerfall have time limits and, like New Vegas or Oblivion with OOO installed, there's no level scaling. Also there are whole institutional systems that function continuously independent of player behavior. The only games made to date that fully achieve what you're talking about are STALKER (where almost everything happens dynamically and even story-critical NPCs can die without the player ever even meeting them) and Dwarf Fortress.

"It's realistic exploration, which is a first for the series and genre alike."

Level scaling is not realistic. A character that does not need to eat, sleep, drink or protect themselves against a harsh climate is not realistic. New Vegas, for all its flaws and poor polish, goes much further to get that right than Fallout 3 or Skyrim did. It may seem unfair to call Fallout 3 and New Vegas games in the same tradition but even at its most native-born NV is still essentially Elder Scrolls: The Apocalypse (now with better gunplay, writing, environment design and with less lore violations than anything Bethesda has ever done or will ever do) and while it improves on the formula in every way Obsidian was not allowed to break away from that formula outright.

I think it could work. Anything would probably be better than looking at the same set pieces for hours like in 2.

I think it is a direction that is necessary. I loved Dragon Age: Origins, but being an RPG, it definitely lacked a wide range of exploration. The game was a lot more story driven than Skyrim though, which is a good thing, they can't let go of that. Plus another major strength Origins had over Skyrim was its greater dependency on choices, and the consequences that go with them. Skyrim does this, but not as deep as Origins did it. Basically, this means Origins had a fantastic RPG formula going for it. But it needs to take hint from Skyrims open world tactic as well. I'd go as far to say that if Origins had the open world that Skyrim has, it could've well been the greatest RPG this gen. Influence from Skyrim is definitely needed for this next game, but they'll need to also build originality around it somehow.

Just so long as they also include fast travel. I don't like how Dragon Age seems like, now more than ever, a series in search of an identity. It doesn't bode well for the third game.

Does this mean it won't play on my ps3?

Bioware announced that Dragon Age III has shifted to next-gen consoles, and is being developed from the ground up on new hardware. With that being the case, I highly doubt it will be on any current gen platform. DA3 is aimed at PS4, 720, and Wii U from what I understand, as well as PC obviously.

They also need to take note from Skyrim and Bethesda in general by embracing the mod community. Skyrim is only still thriving because of mods. I have 120+ in my Nexus Mod Manager right now and have logged over 150 hours since day 1. They need that kind of longevity to keep DA3 alive.

This is a cherry-picked quote, because Flynn has clarified the point that they want to go back to what was done in Baldur's Gate, having a controlled world to explore, instead of a sandbox world like Skyrim.

Either way I am against it because I had no trouble with the linearity both Dragon Age games had. Hell, BioWare has done that since Kotor anyway...

I should point out that Skyrim is the type of model they want to achieve, but I think, realisticly, they are better at doing what they do best already.

Hopefully they don't take from Bethesda and Skyrim the magical talent of lousy ports unable to accept DLC due to poor development.

Seriously, just two months Bethesda FINALLY released a patch to make Skyrim stable on PC and reduce the stuttering and poor frame rate. ONE YEAR!

I recently switched to the PC version from the PS3 version. As you could expect, the difference in performance, framerate, resolutions, and load times is very dramatic. While on PS3 the load times are horribly long, on PC they are almost non-existent. My only issue with the PC version is its sensitivity to minimization. This game hates it when you try to do anything else while the game is running. So if you're going to play Skyrim on PC, you better make sure your PC isn't doing anything else. The only thing it seems to be ok with, for some reason, is Skype. As long as I get in the call before launching the game, Skyrim is cool with it. lol

Very true! Even with 120+ mods that I run the initial load time is less than 1 minute. Since you just switched think about modding! I'm writing a whole series on modding different parts of the game. Here's the link to section of my site. h t t p : / / binarymessiah.wordpress. c o m /category/blogs/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-mods-the-very-bes​t/

Mind the spaces. GR won't let you post links to cut down on spam. Nexus Skyrim is thriving with thousands of mods and I can't tell you how awesome it is to see graphic enhancements that use SSAO, better anti-aliasing, Depth of Field, Bloom, and other advanced graphics options that Bethesda didn't provide.

Some stuff still isn't fixed. There's some nasty CTD glitches in at least one quest in the main game.

Although I like Skyrim better I actually really liked DAO very Bioware " many different areas to explore" as opposed to a sandbox world and hope it stays like that