188 réponses à ce sujet

[Upper_Krust]

Hollingdale wrote...

I am of the opinion that the ''classical bioware here are four areas visit them in whichever order you like'' is really quite unnecessary and bad for their games and that this shows quite clear in Dragon Age. Here are some arguments for:

1. Linearity would allow Bioware to pace their stories better and it would allow them to write them more complex and better without running into complications.

2. Linearity would allow Bioware to present their worlds in a more logical fashion rather than having players randombly stroll through the world.

3. Linearity would remedy the problem with getting certain party members near the end of the game giving little time to get to know them.

4. Choosing which order you venture through areas is not true freedom. True freedom consists within freedom of making choices that shape the game's story and more effort could be put into this without the complications that often arise in getting story to make sense no matter how you play it.  Yeah this is similar to point 1.

I think the main problem with the "Choose What Order You Play This Group Of Levels" approach is that the order in which you play them is pretty much irrelevant. It would have been nice if perhaps something different happened in them depending upon the order they are completed.

Redcliffe
Brecilian Forest
Mages Tower
Haven
Orzammar

Perhaps the first two are as normal, the third and fourth choice are under Seige by the Darkspawn, while the fifth choice is completely overrun by Darkspawn.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with a game like this being completely linear. Choices of actions could still force consequences and change.

In fact you could still have the illusion of choice by making the main plot linear, but just allowing the sub-plots to be undertaken at any point. 

[Kalcalan]

Hollingdale wrote...

Kalcalan: So basically you cant play an RPG with a linear story unless it offers massive side questing? This strikes me as rather ignorant. I take it you have never played a JRPG or NWN2 and MOTB? Many of them contain replay value.
Yes naturally the replay value would decrease with a more linear plot but saying that it would vanish completely is a grave overstatement.

It is also a fact that linear plot if properly written will ALLWAYS be dramaturgically better than a free one. As I stated earlier just try having a writter of classic litterature writing a book where you get to read four of the mid chapters in whichever order you like. It wouldn't, it couldn't be as well balanced as a normal book.

On a sidenote it may be hailed as avant garde but that's hardly the case with games anyway.

FYI I don't appreciate some random dude on the net calling me "ignorant" it's easy to hide behind a computer screen and show disrespect to other posters when they've taken the time to reply to your post with a constructive comment. If you have some valid argument post it but I'd appreciate if you didn't start throwing insults around. I've been playing CRPGs ever since the late 90s and pnp RPGs since the late 80s so think twice before making disparaging remarks like that. I'm an old school Western RPGs player so I'm not into JRPGs and I won't
comment on them but I do know how RPGs work. Don't get cute with me if you don't want to make a fool of yourself.

Back on topic: NWN2 is IMO a total failure as a game (shoddy camera, buggy engine
among other things). Try playing MOTB with a good character and you'll
get stuck (RPwise).

Take the Witcher for instance, it's a very linear game but inside every chapter you can decide whether you want to complete some quests before the others. Still, despite its three different endings it is very linear and has much less replayability than a game like DAO.  Are you going to argue that The Witcher has more replayability than DAO?

Or take Jade Empire. It's a really cool game, but replay value is almost non existant. You can replay a game like this if you wait for some months, you can't expect many things to be different either.

It doesn't mean that the Witcher or Jade Empire are not great games, it just means that they don't have much in the way of replayability and that is not an overstatement to say so (really, unless you really have too much free time and nothing better to do than to replay the same quests in -almost- the same way and in the same order).

I don't know if you have played the original Fallout, but it was a great game that allowed almost complete freedom but still had a main quest that could be played in different ways. This game would tend to prove that linearity is not necessary in order to have a great game.

Going back to the basics, a pnp RPG player would tell you that anything linear is unimaginative and boring. You use big adverbs like "dramaturgically" and talk about "classic litterature" (by the way, the word literature in English is spelled with only one 't') but you fail to acknowledge the fact that RPGs and CRPGs are not novels, scripts or screenplays... They are meant to be played not read like books hence your point about linear games having a better writing is utterly irrelevant.

What you didn't get in my previous post is that linear games need more content to hide the fact that they are indeed linear. What would be the point of replaying DAO if there was only one origin and if you had to do the quests according to a predetermined sequence?

The different origins and various choices that can be made are necessary to allow for some replayability, take that away and we are left with a rather bland and limited game.

[Traesket]

thegreateski wrote...
What am I commenting on? Your insanity obviously.

You just said that going to the Dwarves, Elves, and Mages had nothing at all to do with the story . . . even though those parts of the game make up THE MAJORITY of the story.

Linearity? How would the game's story be any better if it was linear? Linearity does not equal good writing.

It would seem you didn't even attempt to fathom my post. All you did was quote the first five lines of text because you probably didn't bother reading the rest. Then you resorted to personal insults rather than actual arguements.

Looking at it, it seems you didn't even bother reading the thing you quoted. So, in order to make it extremely clear:
I, Traesket, am not Hollingdale. I said that linearity might have made the game better, but I did point out that it's probably more a case of bad writing from Biowares part. To give an example.
In Zelda, you are usually to collect 3 things in order to open a door. You go through a temple in order to reach these things and then you have them.
In DAO you need to find 4 things (4 armies). To get these, you have to solve their personal problems. Bioware might have thought something like "All the leaders of the world are ****s. They won't lift a finger to save the world unless you clean their backyards first" (this would fit for the dwarves, wellknown for their ****-ness). However, it only makes it feel as if you're doing something utterly pointless that has nothing to do with saving the world. At my first playthrough I honestly thought getting the 4 armies was a sort of "sidequest", such as getting all the members of the crew in ME2 to make the end easier. And even then (in ME2) you're actually going through trouble to GET TO THE PERSON rather than helping him/her/it with tidious little tasks that might just as well have been taken care of AFTER you'd saved the world. The extra-things there are the characters sidequests, which you don't HAVE to do.
It's not original writing, it's just annoying. It's like John Cusack staring at explosions and the world coming to an end for 10 seconds each scene when he's in a REAL HURRY getting the hell away from the explosions and stuff in 2012.
I guess I've actually managed to talked myself into realising what the bad part of this non-linear soup is (and I actually mentioned it before, but it might be more clear now): The fact that all of those things might as well have been sidequests like similar things were in ME2. When you're doing your playthroughs, you want a feeling of being in a hurry to save the world. Because, that's what everyone saying all the time throughout the game. "YOU are in a hurry".
Then to be forced to stop and do these stupid should-be sidequests is just a tidious stop in the storyline.
And I don't see the reason those 4 locations is what makes the game have replay-value anyway tbh. What does it matter anyway? Those four locations are the same regardless of what order you get to them. Why would that make it better in replays? It's mainly those 4 areas I disaprove of. Like the post under me mentions, choosing Liara's mission last actually has an impact on ME1.

Modifié par Traesket, 08 avril 2010 - 03:54 .

[Daeion]

Honestly I hate linearity in games because it takes away some of the choices we get to make and restricts the introduction of characters. Say for instance that I start the game a game as the healer/support class, well then I don't need to go straight to the location where I find the support NPC, I can instead decide that I want a little more melee or ranged damage or a tank, Awakening is a better example of this setup then Origins. In a linear game you are always going to get new members in the exact same spot, regardless of what you may need to better flesh out your party.



To me, non linear setups actually allow for deeper stories when implemented correctly. What BioWare needs to do is besides just giving you 4 locations to visit in any order, have the order that you visit them matter, similar to how when you pick up Liara in ME can influence the first meeting but on a grander scale. What if waiting to go to a location had a greater impact on the story and what you were trying to accomplish in a specific area? Your choices start to matter more and the story IMO becomes more engaging.

[Imaze Rhiano]

Compared to Bethesda Software's games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 - Dragon Age origins is very linear. You basically only choose order of play, what components you are playing/not playing and maybe bit change end results - but basically very linear experience if you compare it to Bethesda's sandbox games.



I have played DA once completly through - and now trying to play with evil character second time - but very likely I am going to skip most of content second time - I already know how those linear dungeons will end. It is completly different in games like Fallout 3 where you suddenly notice that "game ended" and your character has maxed out level - and you haven't even visit half of locations in your map yet. Then you need to play again with different character, and again... and again...



If Bioware would take rest of choices away - it would feel like some boring movie where you are just interactive actor. Can't be much more linear than this.

[Hollingdale]

Kalcalan wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Kalcalan: So basically you cant play an RPG with a linear story unless it offers massive side questing? This strikes me as rather ignorant. I take it you have never played a JRPG or NWN2 and MOTB? Many of them contain replay value.
Yes naturally the replay value would decrease with a more linear plot but saying that it would vanish completely is a grave overstatement.

It is also a fact that linear plot if properly written will ALLWAYS be dramaturgically better than a free one. As I stated earlier just try having a writter of classic litterature writing a book where you get to read four of the mid chapters in whichever order you like. It wouldn't, it couldn't be as well balanced as a normal book.

On a sidenote it may be hailed as avant garde but that's hardly the case with games anyway.

FYI I don't appreciate some random dude on the net calling me "ignorant" it's easy to hide behind a computer screen and show disrespect to other posters when they've taken the time to reply to your post with a constructive comment. If you have some valid argument post it but I'd appreciate if you didn't start throwing insults around. I've been playing CRPGs ever since the late 90s and pnp RPGs since the late 80s so think twice before making disparaging remarks like that. I'm an old school Western RPGs player so I'm not into JRPGs and I won't
comment on them but I do know how RPGs work. Don't get cute with me if you don't want to make a fool of yourself.

Back on topic: NWN2 is IMO a total failure as a game (shoddy camera, buggy engine
among other things). Try playing MOTB with a good character and you'll
get stuck (RPwise).

Take the Witcher for instance, it's a very linear game but inside every chapter you can decide whether you want to complete some quests before the others. Still, despite its three different endings it is very linear and has much less replayability than a game like DAO.  Are you going to argue that The Witcher has more replayability than DAO?

Or take Jade Empire. It's a really cool game, but replay value is almost non existant. You can replay a game like this if you wait for some months, you can't expect many things to be different either.

It doesn't mean that the Witcher or Jade Empire are not great games, it just means that they don't have much in the way of replayability and that is not an overstatement to say so (really, unless you really have too much free time and nothing better to do than to replay the same quests in -almost- the same way and in the same order).

I don't know if you have played the original Fallout, but it was a great game that allowed almost complete freedom but still had a main quest that could be played in different ways. This game would tend to prove that linearity is not necessary in order to have a great game.

Going back to the basics, a pnp RPG player would tell you that anything linear is unimaginative and boring. You use big adverbs like "dramaturgically" and talk about "classic litterature" (by the way, the word literature in English is spelled with only one 't') but you fail to acknowledge the fact that RPGs and CRPGs are not novels, scripts or screenplays... They are meant to be played not read like books hence your point about linear games having a better writing is utterly irrelevant.

What you didn't get in my previous post is that linear games need more content to hide the fact that they are indeed linear. What would be the point of replaying DAO if there was only one origin and if you had to do the quests according to a predetermined sequence?

The different origins and various choices that can be made are necessary to allow for some replayability, take that away and we are left with a rather bland and limited game.

Quite the touchy fellow.

I wasn't aware that dramaturgy was too a big a word for games, perhaps dramatic
structure would actually have been a more appropriate word. Nonetheless, it only
adds to the irony of the whole ''u hurted my feelings im pro oldskool
gamer!'' thing you've got going on, that your post contains little
apart from sly remarks regarding my spelling or choice of words.

You call NWN2 a failure of a game because of technical issues that have little to do with the games story which is much better than that of Dragon Age, what is it that's so hard about singling the one aspect that is relevant to the discussion? I  do not if someone says Fallout 3 is a great example of why freedom rox! Start pointing out a bunch of stuff that I hate about that have nothing to do with it's freedom as means to prove why linearity is superior.

Furthermore why would a game manuscript not be comparable to that of a book or even a movie?

Most roleplaying games do still contain theese elements: http://en.wikipedia....ags_pyramid.svg

The fact that you play through a game adds to this fact, it does not remove it.

Notice however that with the way the 4 area system (the Rising Action part) fails badly to work its way up to the climax. This is due to the fact that  while travelling around freely in a relaxed fashion helping different factions with their petty quarrels just to gather the aid of their militia nothing really happens to bring the main story forward. Sure you get theese little dream sequenses and you even stumble across some darkspawn on the worldmap but really, nothing happens to help build up the climax of the story (which is ruined even further by it's predictability which I've allready explained).

Indeed the line of Rising action in freytags pyramid would lie flat if applied the story of Dragon Age.

Furthermore your statement that linear games require more content is wholly false. It is rather so, that the more free your world is the more content you need to fill it with in order for it to not appear ghostlike and empty.

And honestly I don't get why you think the 4 area system so hugely boosts replay value. A linear game could contain just as many sidequests so what I wonder is the magic behind being able to complete the same stories in a different order? You've still done them before you know.

Still you and I probably are probably just too different on this matter. While you cling to replayability and state, whether you are aware of it or not,  that games can never have stories as great as those of literature, I myself would very much like to see a game that combines both great story and gameplay.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 08 avril 2010 - 04:40 .

[Hollingdale]

Imaze Rhiano wrote...

Compared to Bethesda Software's games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 - Dragon Age origins is very linear. You basically only choose order of play, what components you are playing/not playing and maybe bit change end results - but basically very linear experience if you compare it to Bethesda's sandbox games.

I have played DA once completly through - and now trying to play with evil character second time - but very likely I am going to skip most of content second time - I already know how those linear dungeons will end. It is completly different in games like Fallout 3 where you suddenly notice that "game ended" and your character has maxed out level - and you haven't even visit half of locations in your map yet. Then you need to play again with different character, and again... and again...

If Bioware would take rest of choices away - it would feel like some boring movie where you are just interactive actor. Can't be much more linear than this.

I've never said take away choices or side quests. Let them flourish, just remove the god forsaken 4 area system that didn't work at all in Dragon Age and make the progress linearly through the world. (That is not to say that the player will not be able to backtrack freely or stray of on sidequests!)

In fact it would probably be easier to add heavier choice and greater consequences without the 4 area system which I've allready pointed out.

[k9medusa]

Why not add more 4 area systems? Like 8 or 16 or even 32 area systems? With that many areas, the game will feel more open and many have muti - main plots or drive into more of the PC background story some more....

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hollingdale wrote...

In the below link I 've drawn a very crude and simple graphic representation of how linearity is seperated from the 4 area system used in Dragon Age aswell as in both KOTOR games. There is also a text that elaborates on the subject.

WARNING, the below link does however contain spoilers regarding the aforementioned games

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

Your image presents a false dichotomy.

Yes, BioWare's games do typically tell you what the story is and then let you do the constituent parts in any order, but that's by no means mandatory.  Why should they have to tell you what the story is at all?  Why not let you uncover the pieces out of order and have them only make sense once you've found all 4?

Baldur's Gate did a better job than most at keeping the actual plot of the game secret from the player, though it did that by having a largely linear path amidst a bunch of side-content (with no real way to know what was side-content and what was the core plot without doing a lot of it).

KotOR could have achieved something similar by presenting the galaxy as little more than a scavenger hunt.  Leave all four of those plot-related planets there, but don't tell the player there are four of them.  Then add two more planets which are only slightly related to the main story.  Then set the player lose.

This preserves the player agency present in BioWare's template without revealing the whole structure of the game in advance (like KotOR and DAO do).

BG was made in the style of classic RPGs like Questron and the eraly Ultima games (anything prior to U5) where the player character is dropped into the world without any real instruction as to what to do next.  That's what I want to see more of in games.  RPGs don't need to tell us what to do; they should let that be driven by roleplaying concerns.  I suppose the more sandbox-style games still do that, to some degree, but there's no reason why other games couldn't do that.

It wouldn't really work in DAO, of course, because of the overarching urgency of the main plot.  That the Blight is coming is made clear right a the beginning - you can't just wander around and do what you like after that.  Whereas, in BG you absolutely could do that and easily justify it from a roleplaying perspective.  And KotOR could easily have been structured that way by providing less exposition on Dantooine.

Linearity limits player agency, and as such I generally oppose it (I certainly oppose obvious linearity - BG's linearity was cleverly disguised).

I see no reason why modern gamers can't find their own way in games as opposed to being told where to go and what to do there.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 avril 2010 - 05:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh, and I do disagree that linear games aren't replayable. I happily replay linear games. I played through Jade Empire 3 times in rapid succession. I've played through the incredibly linear Dungeon Siege far more times than that.

[Daeion]

Hollingdale wrote...

Imaze Rhiano wrote...

Compared to Bethesda Software's games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 - Dragon Age origins is very linear. You basically only choose order of play, what components you are playing/not playing and maybe bit change end results - but basically very linear experience if you compare it to Bethesda's sandbox games.

I have played DA once completly through - and now trying to play with evil character second time - but very likely I am going to skip most of content second time - I already know how those linear dungeons will end. It is completly different in games like Fallout 3 where you suddenly notice that "game ended" and your character has maxed out level - and you haven't even visit half of locations in your map yet. Then you need to play again with different character, and again... and again...

If Bioware would take rest of choices away - it would feel like some boring movie where you are just interactive actor. Can't be much more linear than this.

I've never said take away choices or side quests. Let them flourish, just remove the god forsaken 4 area system that didn't work at all in Dragon Age and make the progress linearly through the world. (That is not to say that the player will not be able to backtrack freely or stray of on sidequests!)

In fact it would probably be easier to add heavier choice and greater consequences without the 4 area system which I've allready pointed out.

I have to disagree that the 4 area system didn't work in DA and that you can't pace a story.  The key is making sure that the story continues to develop regardless of where you go and that the order of how you do things affects what is happening in game.  Perhaps putting off rescuing a beseiged army means that when you do show up there are more enemies for you to fight through, less people to rescue, and perhaps the potential party member is no longer available.  I really can't believe people are argueing for linearity when one of the biggest complaints about the recent FF games has been how linear they have become.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also, there's more to the story than just the authored narrative provided by the game designers. There's also the emergent narrative - that's the story created through the player's own roleplaying. The development of the PC's personality and his relationships with others - that's all in the player's hands. A linear game makes it harder to let the player develop the emergent narrative at his own pace.

[Hollingdale]

I agree with much of what is written in your post Sylvius I just really didnt like how it worked in Dragon Age, the blight was a poor plot mechanic tbh.



I'm guessing bioware will keep the area system that they used in Kotor (and Obsidian used in Kotor 2), and Mass Effect 1+2 aswell as DAO, for Dragon Age 2 but I do hope they pull it off better this time. And I can't help but hope they do something along the lines of Neverwinter Nights 2 or BG's because It's getting too predictable as it is now.

[Kalcalan]

Hollingdale wrote...
Quite the touchy fellow.

I wasn't aware that dramaturgy was too a big a word for games, perhaps dramatic
structure would actually have been a more appropriate word. Nonetheless, it only
adds to the irony of the whole ''u hurted my feelings im pro oldskool
gamer!'' thing you've got going on, that your post contains little
apart from sly remarks regarding my spelling or choice of words.

You call NWN2 a failure of a game because of technical issues that have little to do with the games story which is much better than that of Dragon Age, what is it that's so hard about singling the one aspect that is relevant to the discussion? I  do not if someone says Fallout 3 is a great example of why freedom rox! Start pointing out a bunch of stuff that I hate about that have nothing to do with it's freedom as means to prove why linearity is superior.

Furthermore why would a game manuscript not be comparable to that of a book or even a movie?

Most roleplaying games do still contain theese elements: http://en.wikipedia....ags_pyramid.svg

The fact that you play through a game adds to this fact, it does not remove it.

Notice however that with the way the 4 area system (the Rising Action part) fails badly to work its way up to the climax. This is due to the fact that  while travelling around freely in a relaxed fashion helping different factions with their petty quarrels just to gather the aid of their militia nothing really happens to bring the main story forward. Sure you get theese little dream sequenses and you even stumble across some darkspawn on the worldmap but really, nothing happens to help build up the climax of the story (which is ruined even further by it's predictability which I've allready explained).

Indeed the line of Rising action in freytags pyramid would lie flat if applied the story of Dragon Age.

Furthermore your statement that linear games require more content is wholly false. It is rather so, that the more free your world is the more content you need to fill it with in order for it to not appear ghostlike and empty.

And honestly I don't get why you think the 4 area system so hugely boosts replay value. A linear game could contain just as many sidequests so what I wonder is the magic behind being able to complete the same stories in a different order? You've still done them before you know.

Still you and I probably are probably just too different on this matter. While you cling to replayability and state, whether you are aware of it or not,  that games can never have stories as great as those of literature, I myself would very much like to see a game that combines both great story and gameplay.

I do agree that our viewpoints are too different to be reconciled. Good
job on checking your spelling on that last post of yours by the way. By
the way think twice before calling somebody names (especially
"ignorant") when you use inappropriate words and can't be bothered to
check your spelling.

FYI dramaturgy refers to drama and the writing of plays. Using it when posting about games is fairly inappropriate... Dramatic structure is slightly better but still not particularly relevant (unless you elaborate).

You misread every point I've made and it's getting tiresome. I posted that linear games needed more extra content to conceal the fact that they are linear.

To reply to your last remark (I won't dignify the rest of your blabbering with an answer), games can have great stories but you can't compare them with (real) literature (which is not just about story). It's just not the same. You're comparing two different things like oranges and bananas (but I don't expect you to get that either).

Nevertheless I'd like to thank you for making it clear to me that trying to discuss in a constructive and civilized manner on a forum is impossible without being called names by a poster who thinks he is the master of irony and wit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hollingdale wrote...

I agree with much of what is written in your post Sylvius I just really didnt like how it worked in Dragon Age, the blight was a poor plot mechanic tbh.

I agree that the implementation of the Blight really didn't leave much room for exploration of your character or his motivations at your own pace.  The story has URGENCY written all over it right from the start, and that constrains gameplay quite a lot.

I do hope that BioWare moves away from the urgency model in future games.  And I've been telling them that for quite some time.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, and I do disagree that linear
games aren't replayable. I happily replay linear games. I played
through Jade Empire 3 times in rapid succession. I've played through
the incredibly linear Dungeon Siege far more times than that.

You've also said in the past that you enjoy repetitive tasks.  I would be willing to wager that the majority of people don't enjoy repetitive tasks.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Baldur's Gate did a better job than most at keeping the actual plot of the game secret from the player, though it did that by having a largely linear path amidst a bunch of side-content (with no real way to know what was side-content and what was the core plot without doing a lot of it).

I'd argue that Baldur's Gate did it by having a main plot that was nonexistent for the majority of the game.  Between first leaving Candlekeep and finding Sarevok's papers, everything you do is esentially sidequests, the largest of which coincidentally involves people important to the main plot.  I still maintain that my character in BG had absolutely no reason to want to get involved with the iron shortage subplot, nor any reason to want to go to the city of Baldur's Gate (where, with the amount of people around, he'd be more exposed to unexpected attack.)

This is why I prefer Icewind Dale 1 to BG 1.  (Yes, I know this is sacrilege to most people.)

BG was made in the style of classic RPGs like Questron and the eraly Ultima games (anything prior to U5) where the player character is dropped into the world without any real instruction as to what to do next.  That's what I want to see more of in games.  RPGs don't need to tell us what to do; they should let that be driven by roleplaying concerns.  I suppose the more sandbox-style games still do that, to some degree, but there's no reason why other games couldn't do that.
...
I see no reason why modern gamers can't find their own way in games as opposed to being told where to go and what to do there.

I maintain that there needs to be some sort of direction given in a game.  It doesn't need to be as explicit as "go here and do this" like is so common in modern games, but you need something to get you started.  Otherwise, I think it's too overwhelming to have this whole world to explore and no idea where to even start (which is, when I think about it, odd, because computer games tend to be the only time when I have this issue.)

Anyway, on the subject of linearity, I've got to admit to a bit of ambivalence.  I find that even in games that have non-linearity, I usually play through them in the same order...only occasionally in DA have I switched up the order in which I did things (which was actually nice, because it made at least the first area much harder.)

[keesio74]

The main benefit for me in having a linear story is that we can abandon level scaling since the game can predict what level you will be at each point and challenge you appropriately.



That said, I always have it in my head that a true RPG is non-linear and FPS is more linear. Maybe because my "golden age" of RPG was Ultima 5, Might and Magic 3, Wasteland, etc and all those games were pretty open. You go where you want. If you go somewhere that is too hard, you get your ass kicked. I guess in a way it was linear... it was best to go in a certain order because some areas were just too hard too early.

[Traesket]

Kalcalan, dude. He didn't call you any names. He simply remarked that your opinions on JRPGs seemed ignorant. Either way, even if he was wrong in calling you ignorant you're no better with your rants that are all non-contributive to the topic at hand. And definitively not more constructive and civilized just because you dress up your own insults in sly remarks on his spelling.



I suggest looking away from the screen for 10 seconds and breath the next time someone insults you.

[thegreateski]

Traesket wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
What am I commenting on? Your insanity obviously.

You just said that going to the Dwarves, Elves, and Mages had nothing at all to do with the story . . . even though those parts of the game make up THE MAJORITY of the story.

Linearity? How would the game's story be any better if it was linear? Linearity does not equal good writing.

It would seem you didn't even attempt to fathom my post. All you did was quote the first five lines of text because you probably didn't bother reading the rest. Then you resorted to personal insults rather than actual arguements.

You know. Instead of writing a huge wall of text you could have just said . . . "I believe that collecting allies using the treaties should have been a side quest. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it."

Oh and I did read and understand your first post. I do not quote an entire post because I believe in keeping threads nice and neat.

As for insulting you . . . I insulted you AND countered your argument. There is a difference.
For what it's worth though, I regret calling you insane. That was unkind.

Modifié par thegreateski, 08 avril 2010 - 08:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Incidentally, those choices about where to go are excellent roleplaying opportunities.



I played a Human Mage who went first to the Circle Tower, because he knows the power of magic.

I played a Dalish Elf Rogue who went first to Orzammar, because he knows that the Dwarves have the greatest knowledge of darkspawn.

I played a Elven Mage who first went to Warden's Keep because the cachet of winning it back would make it easier to sway other allies.

I played a Dwarven Noble who first went to Denerim to collect Gorim, and as a result heard of the Sacred Ashes and went there next, without ever having visited any of the four main areas.



These decisions is where roleplaying happens. These decisions are an important part of RPGs.

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...
I'd argue that Baldur's Gate did it by having a main plot that was nonexistent for the majority of the game.  Between first leaving Candlekeep and finding Sarevok's papers, everything you do is esentially sidequests, the largest of which coincidentally involves people important to the main plot.  I still maintain that my character in BG had absolutely no reason to want to get involved with the iron shortage subplot, nor any reason to want to go to the city of Baldur's Gate (where, with the amount of people around, he'd be more exposed to unexpected attack.)

Going to Baldur's Gate is a red herring here -- you can't go there until you've got a plot reason.

The question is whether the player want to go to Nashkel or not. And once he finishes Naskel, does he want to follow the lead from there? But I agree that there's an issue -- Nashkel comes across as no more important than any other sidequest, except that the recruited NPCs want to go there. I thought this was kind of ham-handed -- it's like putting a big "This Way to Main Plot" arrow up.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

I agree with much of what is written in your post Sylvius I just really didnt like how it worked in Dragon Age, the blight was a poor plot mechanic tbh.

I agree that the implementation of the Blight really didn't leave much room for exploration of your character or his motivations at your own pace.  The story has URGENCY written all over it right from the start, and that constrains gameplay quite a lot..

It's funny how you two agree about the mechanic being bad, but want it changed in opposite directions.

Note that the game style determines plot mechanics to a certain extent. You can't do real urgency and still have a lot of player discretion. You can do the fake urgency of DA:O, BG2, or KotOR, but that's it. You can have total freedom by abandoning urgency -- like in Morrowind, where Dagoth Ur's been at work for literally centuries, so it doesn't matter how much the player screws around. Or you can have real urgency by throwing out strategic choice for the player.

Also note that typical hero stories don't feature a lot of freedom for the hero. Which proves nothing, since the conventions of heroic narrative are debatable, but if you're trying to emulate other media you'll come down against strategic freedom for the PC. Are CRPGs a different enough medium to break with those conventions?

[filetemon]

The "four areas then final battle" system would be perfect and add replayability if they included the "if you do this first then the other area changes in result of your actions and plays different"



for example: if you do redcliffe first, orzammar declares a new king by themselves and you have to gain his loyalty. Or maybe he decides he won't help you and you have to recruit the legion of the dead.



Or: if you do Brecilian forest first, the tower of magi is lost to the apostates and demons but you can swarm it with hordes of werewolves.And bands of scattered templars fight you on random sites for not helping them.



Or: If you go to Ferelden first, you have the chance to sneak on Loghains castle and kill him, provoking a civil war, having to end the war before Alistair can claim the throne. If you did orzammar before ferelden, you can ask for the dwarf king's army help to pacify ferelden.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I'd argue that Baldur's Gate did it by having a main plot that was nonexistent for the majority of the game.

Yes, that was great.

Between first leaving Candlekeep and finding Sarevok's papers, everything you do is esentially sidequests, the largest of which coincidentally involves people important to the main plot.

Again, I think this is an ideal construction.

I still maintain that my character in BG had absolutely no reason to want to get involved with the iron shortage subplot, nor any reason to want to go to the city of Baldur's Gate (where, with the amount of people around, he'd be more exposed to unexpected attack.)

That is BG's one glaring flaw.  A perfectly reasonable desire for the PC is to run away from all these assassins, rather than hunting down their source - but the game doesn't let you do that and doesn't give any reason why.

I maintain that there needs to be some sort of direction given in a game.  It doesn't need to be as explicit as "go here and do this" like is so common in modern games, but you need something to get you started.  Otherwise, I think it's too overwhelming to have this whole world to explore and no idea where to even start (which is, when I think about it, odd, because computer games tend to be the only time when I have this issue.)

That overwhemling feeling has benefits.  Since the player can't just go do what he's supposed to do (as there isn't anything he's supposed to do), he's forced to limit the scope of his concerns to his character.  It promotes roleplaying, something gamers seem to be doing less and less these days.

Anyway, on the subject of linearity, I've got to admit to a bit of ambivalence.  I find that even in games that have non-linearity, I usually play through them in the same order...only occasionally in DA have I switched up the order in which I did things (which was actually nice, because it made at least the first area much harder.)

I've changed the order every time I've played through DAO, but I play through BG in mostly the same order every time.  The same for KotOR (both games I still play).

AlanC9 wrote...

The question is whether the player want to go to Nashkel or not. And once he finishes Naskel, does he want to follow the lead from there? But I agree that there's an issue -- Nashkel comes across as no more important than any other sidequest, except that the recruited NPCs want to go there. I thought this was kind of ham-handed -- it's like putting a big "This Way to Main Plot" arrow up.

The first time I played BG, I somehow missed Xzar and Montaron, and I didn't go to the Friendly Arm Inn (it seemed foolish to keep following Gorion's plan given that he'd already led us into one ambush), so no one ever told me to go to Nashkel.  However, I went there because it was the opposite direction from the Friendly Arm, and once there I picked up two party members, both of whom wanted to go to the Gnoll Stronghold.  So I thought THAT was where the main plot was.

By the time I got back I'd pretty much forgotten that I was looking for a main plot and just started acting in my character's interests.  Only then did I brave the Nashkel mines.  But even then I didn't find the main plot because I didn't read Mulahey's notes carefully, so I didn't ever go looking for Tranzig.  As it happened, I was using a cabinet in an inn in Beregost to store excess equipment, and it was in that room where I found Tranzig.  Because I wasn't looking for him, it felt more like he was ambushing me, and that worked out brilliantly.  Only then did I start tracking these people down, because they'd attacked me in my own room at the inn.

AlanC9 wrote...

Also note that typical hero stories don't feature a lot of freedom for the hero. Which proves nothing, since the conventions of heroic narrative are debatable, but if you're trying to emulate other media you'll come down against strategic freedom for the PC. Are CRPGs a different enough medium to break with those conventions?

Absolutely.  CRPGs grant something other heroic media do not: player agency.  The whole point of these being computer games rather than books or movies is that the player has some input into what happens.  That's a difference in kind.

[AlanC9]

filetemon wrote...

The "four areas then final battle" system would be perfect and add replayability if they included the "if you do this first then the other area changes in result of your actions and plays different"

Interesting ideas, but depending on how they're done they could take a hell of a lot of dev time.

for example: if you do redcliffe first, orzammar declares a new king by themselves and you have to gain his loyalty. Or maybe he decides he won't help you and you have to recruit the legion of the dead.

Most of the Orzammar/ Deep Roads quest could be kept intact, if the new king sends the PC out looking for the Paragon. You could even keep the Jarvia sequence as a way for the PC to prove himself to the new king. But you'd lose a fair amount of content by doing it this way unless someone writes new quests.

Or: if you do Brecilian forest first, the tower of magi is lost to the apostates and demons but you can swarm it with hordes of werewolves.And bands of scattered templars fight you on random sites for not helping them.

This is pointless. There'd be no reason to go to the tower at all if you can't win the aid of one of the groups there. You could have all the mages killed if the player goes there, in which case it's pretty much like siding with tte Templars. The only thing you'd really have to change is introducing Wynne outside the tower.

Or: If you go to Ferelden first, you have the chance to sneak on Loghains castle and kill him, provoking a civil war, having to end the war before Alistair can claim the throne. If you did orzammar before ferelden, you can ask for the dwarf king's army help to pacify ferelden.

This would need a huge amount of scripting to be any good.