188 réponses à ce sujet

[Harcken]

I completely agree with most others in this thread, I'd much prefer "chapters" or "acts" instead of, here are 4 cities go travel in each and then proceed to 1 hour long final level. This pseudo-linear mold creates the problems you briefly outlined, the stories of each town must be completely separate, the main storyline doesn't really progress, and there aren't as many "shocking events" with companions, or otherwise; because the game doesn't know if you picked them up already.



For me, the perfect RPG follows 4 or 5 acts in which act 1 is an extremely linear 10 hour intro, act II is linear in terms of story (i.e. get placed in a large city, can quest or journey in said city as you please) for another 10 hours, act III entails traveling about in a pseudo-linear fashion like all of dragon age (10 hours), and act IV and V get progressively linear as they near the finale.

[thegreateski]

Hollingdale wrote...

The point is your argument as to why linearity is not a good element was just the fact that it's a Jrpg element which is an obvious assosiation fallacy.

I did not say that it's a bad element. I was simply quoting you and then disagreeing.


Besides . . . there are other types of elements aside from good elements and bad elements.

[Andari_Surana]

I think DAO in present form would have been better off being linear....



Its pretty challenging to try to balance weapon/armor/encounters all independent of the player levels, or the order the player pursues them. While the game does try to scale items/encounters, unless its done expertly its a pretty big drawback. Armor/weapons for instance only scale base damage, not all stats/restiances/+attributes, etc.



However, if your going to make the game world so open ended, you might as well take the next step, and make the order in which goals/environements are visted a key feature of the plot and rewards the player received.

[AlanC9]

Hollingdale wrote...
On a sidenote Bioware did a rather poor job with the ending in Dragon Origins as it often woulnd't make any sense if you had taken certain decisions indicating that they did go in over their heads with it. 

At the risk of going all spoilerish, what particular choices didn't work for you?

[soteria]

Meh. I enjoyed having that choice. Replayability aside, to me it was part of getting into my character and role playing. I do enjoy the focus on storytelling that good JRPGs have, but I also enjoy making the (superficial) choices that RPGs give you. I guess I like donuts and I like burgers and I don't want to mix them (in this particular way).

[Wozearly]

Interesting comments on this page...so some people would prefer a story where the locations and the order of progression were all static, with sidequests were all scripted into "Do the quest in this specific window of time or lose it" so that the plot could be explored in greater depth, more 'surprises' thrown in for companions who you'll definitely have some form of attachment to, and a more structured progression of difficulty in gameplay.



I'd be a bit sceptical on all counts, to be honest. Static progression only gives you a massive boost to characterisation and surprise events if you also know which characters the player has been spending in-game time with. Which means maximum of 3 companions, or lots of 'you must have (x) companion with you for all of Act 2'. Not going to do much for player choice, there.



Turning it another way, I'd be inclined to say that what people are asking for are things like:



"Can we have more surprising events for characters",

"Can we make our choices in one 'act' or 'arc' affect the others (and the result of the game) more",

"Can we have a more elegant method of scaling difficulty by level"



Personally, I don't think being linear is a requirement for any of these. For the second one, it would actually help to be non-linear, as then the order you do the four story arcs in would make a nice way of being able to introduce effects from your earlier choices in other game areas.

[BomimoDK]

i think you guys are getting into nitpicking. this game is JUST as linear as BG2 was and just as open as BG1.

in BG1. you have access to 60% of the areas from the getgo. but areas like the bandit camps, cloakwood and baldur's gate unlock after you progress the story. that's linearity at a certain level and it helped the game.

at first when playing BG2. i was dissappointed since it has you fleeing from the dungeon. then you have some of the world at your feet again. although for a limited time. you gather 10000 gold and when you give the starting signal, you're in for 15-25 hours of linear gameplay untill chapter 6? when the game says: "allright old chap, you can finish up your sidequests now, but i reccommend you go vampirehunting and gameending" and you do.

the only "mistake" in this game is you get almost everything thrown at your feet when you get started. "there mate, 4 treaties, a big city and a classic bioware dungeon stuffed with win and epic" so, you go clear it all up. and then you start the end and you realize, there's nothing more, just sub areas to others and some game ending.

so, yeah, this game could have used some "forced" storytelling. strangely, i feel that awakening is giving me exactly that. but talking about linearity in this game is a bit weird since all you have to do to get linear play is to tell your self to go all the way with the major quests when you start them. the only linear spot is if you manage to get caught.

so, i think this and other bioware games are fine because it's not. "here, just stroll around and do something" or "let us tell you a movie" it's more like "ok, mate, you decide what you want to do at this time. we've prepared a lot for you, a great story and some voluntary encounters. you decide, but we're gonna take you through this some way or another." it's vaguely limited freedom with the feeling of total freedom. it's Bioware, Black Isle and Obsidian entertainment. THE western RPG developers who do **** the awesome way.

/fanboy. did anyone get what i meant?

on another note. someone mentioned lack of linearity in NWN... what the? weren't you there? it's the definition of linedancing. don't get me wrong, there are sidequests. but as far as i remember, there are no worldmap and the areas included are only those who you HAVE to pass through on your way to *plot quest*. no sidequest areas with no connection to the main plot at all. i will always see NWN as a marathon of steps backwards from Baldur's Gate for the sake of community. Dragon Age is back there, where Baldur's Gate went, but with the community bonuses of NWN. something to be proud of Bioware.

Modifié par BomimoDK, 07 avril 2010 - 08:57 .

[Aybeden]

In general I disagree that the game would benefit from more linearity. I much prefer having choice and flexibility in how I approach the game. That's important to roleplay for me and also benefits replayability.

In any case, there is a certain amount of linearity already, e.g. in order to complete all parts of some quests you have to progress others, and of course you need to take forward the main quests before you can progress towards the game's end.

Modifié par Aybeden, 07 avril 2010 - 09:05 .

[Siham]

RobUnreal wrote...

even though it is not traditionally linear, Dragon Age does actually have a recommended progression. Even though you could, technically, go to Orzammar after Lothering, it isn't recommended as the enemies are of higher levels than, say, Redcliffe or The Circle Tower. The Circle Tower is actually the recommended step after Lothering.

Is it true? I thought that the levels of your ennemies were automatically accorded to your own level, wherever you are.

[BomimoDK]

Siham wrote...

RobUnreal wrote...

even though it is not traditionally linear, Dragon Age does actually have a recommended progression. Even though you could, technically, go to Orzammar after Lothering, it isn't recommended as the enemies are of higher levels than, say, Redcliffe or The Circle Tower. The Circle Tower is actually the recommended step after Lothering.

Is it true? I thought that the levels of your ennemies were automatically accorded to your own level, wherever you are.

both are partially true. they are growing stronger according to that line of progression but they also scale to your strength

[Nikatjef]

BomimoDK wrote...
both are partially true. they are growing stronger according to that line of progression but they also scale to your strength

   I can attest to that.  In my current game, my character wanted to get back to Orzammar quickly to avenge the death of their brother...  Unfortunately, they were stopped briefly at Redcliffe.  Anyway, they made it to Orzammar and are now engaged getting revenge for the death of their brother.

   In previous games I generally left Orzammar and the deep roads for last or near to last, as such I got a good feel for just how difficult it was at higher levels.  In this run my character is much lower level and while some things are easier due to class, overall the difficulty is about the same, comparitavely speaking of course.

[Hollingdale]

It was such a long time ago that I played NWN 2 but as far as I remember that game was more linear and it did have a much better story than DA imo.

Then again Awakenings bodes well for Dragon Age 2, even if it's short the pacing is waaaay better and it's darker and more serious and not overly goofy. (unlike original Dragon Age.)

Edit: Yeah after looking it up NWN 2 did have a nice arch system which allowed for a way more interesting story progression.

You have to admit that it's pretty ****e that you basically allready know what's gonna happen in Dragon Age by the time you leave Lothering (Get your 4 treaties go to the final battle, there are no twists or anything that makes the story take an unexpected turn) meaning you that there's never really anything exciting waiting around the corner.

Though NWN 2 was developed by Obsidian not Bioware.. but meh Bioware should be able to do the same.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 07 avril 2010 - 02:40 .

[Darcerenity]

Hollingdale, I played NWN2 and MotB expansion and loved both, particularly expansion, but I would disagree that the story line in NWN2 was better...I think I'd call them comparable, but I think the dialogue options and voice acting kicking DA:O over the top. But what I find funny is that a lot of people who played NWN2 complained that it was too linear, locking all types of characters into making the same generic decisions. It didn't bother me, but I have to admit that while DA:O might not be perfect, it does do a much more complete job of allowing the PC to react to and--in turn--influence the game environment. Just my two cents, of course.

[Hollingdale]

Well no matter what choices you make in the four areas the game still progresses completely predictably and this lack of suspence really makes the game much more dull that it should be.



This is not a problem in the NWN2 and Motb much thanks to their greater linearity.

Although come to think of Kotor 2 did manage to add suspense despite using the same basic system as Dragon Age, albeit obsidian did spice their game up with obligatory surprise arch after you've completed a set amount of areas. Also the story does kinda surprise you after you've done all the areas and gathered the Jedi.



**** bleh maybe Obsidian are just more skilled writers than Bioware...

[k9medusa]

RobUnreal wrote...

even though it is not traditionally linear, Dragon Age does actually have a recommended progression. Even though you could, technically, go to Orzammar after Lothering, it isn't recommended as the enemies are of higher levels than, say, Redcliffe or The Circle Tower. The Circle Tower is actually the recommended step after Lothering.

Not true, because of level scaling
... in theory, the monsters will scale to your char, therefore, you can go
anywhere. This is 20+ page thread on this topic -- LOL:o

[k9medusa]

Nukenin wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Nukenin wrote...
<_<

You loved writing that didn't you? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/cool.png[/smilie]

I think DA has a good structure.  The illusion of choice but eventually we all get funneled to the same destination.  It mixes it up a bit for replayability.  I'm content. 

That is my vote alsoB)

[Andari_Surana]

Hollingdale wrote...

Well no matter what choices you make in the four areas the game still progresses completely predictably and this lack of suspence really makes the game much more dull that it should be.

This is true, and why i think its ok to go more linear because the freedom to go where u want is really just an illusion of choice.  It doesn't effect the game/plot.  If it did, that would be cool.  But unless the game is designed to offer different paths/opportunities based on where you start your journey, it seems not worth it imo.  Because the downside is needing to scale those environments across a broad range of adventurers.  

And well scaling can be done, it seems like things are going to be better balanced if devs know the particular level of the player (or at least narrow the range a bit). Just look at awakening and everyone whose saying its balanced around playing the Orlesian warden and not an imported character.  Proper scaling is not someting easily accomplished.

Modifié par Andari_Surana, 07 avril 2010 - 03:23 .

[Hollingdale]

Allright WARNING this image contains possible spoilers! So don't click unless you've allready played through Kotor and Dragon Age.

In the image that the link will take you to I elaborate a bit on why in terms story the 4 area system is bad compared to linearity.

http://img28.imagesh...4areasystem.jpg

Personally I do find that after my first playthrough I metagame a lot and try to discover everything rather than caring much about the story meaning I am hardly as engaged as during the first playthrough anyway. I suspect others in general have similar experiences but I may be wrong.

I also want to add that it's wrong to think linearity would hurt side questing, there's no reason as to why that should be.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 07 avril 2010 - 04:57 .

[Kalcalan]

Funny how some players seem to think that DAO is not linear. It is a rather linear game, the fact that you have a few choices to make regarding the order in which you are going to do the quests that must be completed to finish the game doesn't make it a non linear game.



Linearity in DAO has a great advantage though. It makes level scaling believable because you have to progress through different stages your characters have to level up before being able to complete a major quest and that is a good thing. Otherwise it would be possible to complete a Treaty quest with a low level character (thanks to the level scaling) and that would be preposterous.



As it is DAO is fine. If it were more linear it would no longer be a game but a succession of cutscenes broken with some fights...

[Hollingdale]

Please counter the points I made in the image above If you can.

[oyzar]

I think the game is too linear. There are different endings but they all come from the same gameplay. You can chose what order to do the quests but you still have to do them and the only things that are different about them is the level of the opponents. Heck you can even romance 3 characters on the same playthrough, romancing one doesn't cut you off from romancing another later on the same playthrough, their responses to major events doesn't change that much either(this is probably true for most companions, if you bring them or not obviously changes how they respond to events but you don't get hours of extra content from changing around the party if you spend enough time with each the first time around). Problem is that multiple paths through the game would require huge amounts of extra work given how much time voicing everything takes. Then there is the problem that people wouldn't really be able to see most of the game through a single playthrough. There is a large audience who will only bother to play the game once and bioware is obviously catering to those more than the people who want a game that they can play 10+ times and still discover new things on every playthrough (other than tactics anyway). I've personally played the game 2 times and started a third and really even if you take all the different choices than you did the first time, the result in the end is still the same. The way people react to you really should change depending on your choices. As of current it doesn't change all that much. The reaction to a grey warden who did things the mean/practical way is exactly the same as one who did all the good way trying to save everyone.

[Realmzmaster]

Does your linear progression allow for different origins or must all the characters have the same origin as in BG1. The point of most linear stories is that all the characters (regardless of race or social staus) have the same origin. How does your linear model take into account different origins? Different origins allow for different dialogue choices as evident when a human noble approaches the king as opposed to a city elf in DA:O.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 07 avril 2010 - 06:23 .

[gingerbill]

Valarioth wrote...

A properly written linear RPG will always outclass a "choose your own adventure" RPG in terms of story, pacing, and character development.  The trade off is there is slightly less replayability compared to being able to choose where you go on subsequent playthroughs--you always know what will happen and in what order.

I would love to see Bioware develop a truly linear RPG.  Final Fantasy X was extremely linear and it had very good pacing, story telling and character involvement (though it's far from a better RPG than Dragon Age).  I feel Bioware could deliver a fantastic linear RPG--like playing a movie-game hybrid.

disagree , the style doesnt decide wether the story will be good or not , the game can be structured either way .

Also which linear RPG outclasses DA:O ? none outclass it , you might prefer one but thats just personal taste . I thought DA:O had great pacing , story telling and brilliant character involvement . Personally i can't stand jrpg's the one's i have tried seemed designed for young teenagers like final fantasy .

hollingdale - I think you mistake that offering choice's is there for replayability , i don't think its is , for me personally it has nothing to do with that . I think it's mainly for the illusion of freedom , that's what i like about choice's . It's to do with feeling in charge and making your own desiscions , nothing to do with replayability .

edit - cant belive you said this " **** bleh maybe Obsidian are just more skilled writers than Bioware... " , euurgh . Cant believe anyone thinks kotor2 was a patch on the original. I guess we have diffrent tastes.

Modifié par gingerbill, 07 avril 2010 - 06:31 .

[Slithermorph]

I say linearity is the worste thing that can happen to an RPG.  Did you read the above post about turning the game into a movie?  That's exactly what happens.  The whole point of an RPG is to NOT be linear.  The whole point of these games is to make a fantasy world that you can roam around in.  Anyone remember FFX?  Linear.  Crap.  Anyone who wants linear should be looking for a shooter or a platformer.  For me, the old school feel and non-linear story is what made DA:O and DA:A.

[Hollingdale]

Your ignorance betrays you. You obviously haven't played FFX considering the fact that one can freely roam around in it's world and the reason FFX sucks is hardly due to it's relative linearity mainstory wise. Again this is such a very obvious association fallacy. Please present real arguments.

Just because the story progresses in a linear fashion doesn't that you can't visit older locations freely in whichever way you want to. It simply means that you unlock areas as you progress to them through the mainstory.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 07 avril 2010 - 09:21 .