180 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalmarath]

Well, Dragon Age was supposed to be the "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate series lol.

[ReinaHW]

I'm hoping they'll retain the gender choice for the main character, instead of 'manly man must save world because it's a man's job' nonsense which has kept gaming in a rut for a while with developers still only creating boring, unimaginitive male characters.

I prefer a gender choice that can allow the player to create/play their character to their liking, instead of being forced with a generic male and having no say over the character.



After almost three decades of gaming and being forced with male characters more often than not, then the rare chances to have a gender choice and a well written female character are a breath of fresh air in a stale industry.

One of the things I enjoyed about DA:O was having a choice of races, sure it was only three races, but it was nice to see it, especially since it's so rare to have the chance to play as a non-human character.

I still tend to play as human, but my first character in DA:O was the city elf, female of course, and I enjoyed her Origin story a lot, while the human ones were honestly somewhat boring. The Dwarf ones were pretty good as well as the Dalish Elf.



But more choices would have been nice, like a body option to that the player could costumise the character body to match their idea of their character.



A story can be all well and good, but if the player has little to no say on the character they play as, then it cna be hard for the player to care if they care nothing for the character they play as.

Combining a story with character creation, with gender choice, and making sure the story is a strong one can make all the difference.



Instead of 'man save/kill, man thump chest, man the greatest'. Such things are outdated, old fashioned and limiting.

A creative writer and creative developers would find a way to make a strong story with a great character cration and still have the story fit to however the player has made their character.



If such things existed in the gaming industry as whole.

[the_one_54321]

mopotter wrote...
On the whole I don't replay games that don't give me character choices of some kind.  I want to play the game more than once or twice.  I want to play the game for years, which I do with all of the ones i've listed.

Ah, ok I think I understand you. (I loved Chrono Trigger btw) But I'll pose the same question I asked a little ways above. What if the writiers could take on an evolution and exploration of character where you just weren't allowed to design that character? Think along the lines of Chrono Triger.

[the_one_54321]

ReinaHW wrote...
But more choices would have been nice, like a body option to that the player could costumise the character body to match their idea of their character.

While I don't agree with you on pretty much any of the "manly" comments, I do agree about the body models. I don't specifically want to see customization, but I couldn't stand the look of the standard body models in DA:O, and that animation system needs to go.

[pprrff]

Kalmarath wrote...

Well, Dragon Age was supposed to be the "spiritual successor" to the Baldur's Gate series lol.

hence the word  'spiritual'.

[Khayness]

pprrff wrote...

Khayness wrote...

'cause DA:O gave us hope that dice rolling true RPGs still exist, now they just crushed it by limiting us.

Lol, how is dice rolling true RPG fun? If it weren't for changes and inovation that brought RPGs from the dice rolling and whatever D&D aspects, the genre would have been dead as far as gaming goes.

Dead with dignity.

Now it's being slowly eaten while it sells out itself.

[Batman90]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

Replayability.

Do you know why I only play games like Final Fantasy one time through, while I play games like KOTOR, Fallout, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc. multiple times through?  Because of the options, and how it alters the gaming experience on different play throughs.

The thing about Final Fantasy (Aside from FFXIII), though, is that there is plenty of replay value because there's always stuff that you can tend to miss throughout the main campaign, without any way to go back and get it. Usually a weapon or sidequest or special item of some sort, and because of this, I tend to replay FF games about as much as I do BioWare titles.

The thing is, there are other ways to handle choice in videogames than "let's have around three or four story "segments" that you can do in any order and then two preset ones at the beginning and end of the game. Oh, and you get to choose whether to be a nice guy or a dick." That is very conservative thinking in terms of game development. Now, what if we had game where you're directed to go to this town, but there are multiple ways of getting to this town? You can take the road as normal, but you'll encounter bandits upon the road; or, you can travel across the hills, where the wild and dangerous BUFFALOHEMOTH roam. Or, you could brave an underground cave, and face the treacherous giant spiders that lurk within.

The storyline is still "linear"--as in, you're requested to go to the town--but the little stuff in-between is quite varied. I'd like to see BioWare design games in that way; concentrate less on allowing "big choices," but instead, put in a bunch of little choices that aren't handed to you on a silver platter. That way, things would feel far more fluid and natural, and far less structured.

[CLime]

My argument with options is that the player needs to have as many as are possible while keeping those choices meaningful. While I still prefer choices in who you can be in terms of race, the choices that are most important are your actions. A linear storyline in a game doesn't mean you have no choices in that story. Honestly, with the obsession on non-linear storylines, I'd like to see a good linear storyline RPG.

I don't expect DA2 will be significantly more or less linear than Origins, but that really has nothing to do with race.  All the origins dovetailed into Ostagar anyway.  I prefer my elf rogue to my human mage as far as roleplaying, but I know if I swapped the races the stories would change very little.  I agree with the main point, anyway- The problem with all these different origins is that it's difficult to support them throughout the game.  There aren't any origin-specific quests or zones, because it's hard to justify devoting the resources when only a fraction of your audience will experience it but it takes just as long to create as everything else.

My instinct is that BioWare didn't just cut the origins because it's not in the title anymore, but rather so that they could add a bit more relevance and depth to the PC's background.  Remember KotOR? Remember Jade Empire? Both those games had a consisten backstory for the character, which allowed the writers to give it significance.  In Origins you knew everything about your character from day one.  There was development, but no discovery.  That doesn't mean Hawke has to the last of an ancient bloodline or the son/daughter of archvillian X, just maybe that the companions' backgrounds won't overshadow the PC's so much.

Modifié par CLime, 08 juillet 2010 - 05:28 .

[AlanC9]

Paromlin wrote...
Alright. Going to extreeemes™ is not earning you any points. I didn't say I want a sand-box seamless world. I said I want a non-linear game. Period. "Great story" or not, tastes are subjective, I prefer much much more (much much) a non linear game. What's unclear about that I don't know.

I'm not clear about how much non-linearity you need to be happy.

[Beerfish]

It's the eternal struggle for computer games and rpgs. The more linear a game is the tighter and higher the quality of the story normally. The less linear and more choices for the player the looser the story gets. It's a very delicate balance no doubt about that. It also is a big factor in the length of time games can come out as well.

[AlanC9]

Batman90 wrote...
The thing is, there are other ways to handle choice in videogames than "let's have around three or four story "segments" that you can do in any order and then two preset ones at the beginning and end of the game. Oh, and you get to choose whether to be a nice guy or a dick." That is very conservative thinking in terms of game development. Now, what if we had game where you're directed to go to this town, but there are multiple ways of getting to this town? You can take the road as normal, but you'll encounter bandits upon the road; or, you can travel across the hills, where the wild and dangerous BUFFALOHEMOTH roam. Or, you could brave an underground cave, and face the treacherous giant spiders that lurk within.

The problem with this is that you end up burning a fair amount of dev time for relatively little gameplay. Area design is a big time sink, and always has been. I can see it working if you have a lot of repurposed areas -- ME1 did something like this with the UNC missions, which had procedurally-generated planets and a lot of generic buildings and mines. Would that work for you?

[the_one_54321]

Batman90 wrote...
The thing is, there are other ways to handle choice in videogames than "let's have around three or four story "segments" that you can do in any order and then two preset ones at the beginning and end of the game. Oh, and you get to choose whether to be a nice guy or a dick." That is very conservative thinking in terms of game development. Now, what if we had game where you're directed to go to this town, but there are multiple ways of getting to this town? You can take the road as normal, but you'll encounter bandits upon the road; or, you can travel across the hills, where the wild and dangerous BUFFALOHEMOTH roam. Or, you could brave an underground cave, and face the treacherous giant spiders that lurk within.

This would be really neat. To see a game that had a time structure to it, and taking some paths would cut off others and change a few results. DA:O had that to some degree, but a number of the quests just watied patiently for you to make time for them. Also having more "path" choices and not just the "pick sides" or "be nice or be bad." 

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Paromlin wrote...
Alright. Going to extreeemes™ is not earning you any points. I didn't say I want a sand-box seamless world. I said I want a non-linear game. Period. "Great story" or not, tastes are subjective, I prefer much much more (much much) a non linear game. What's unclear about that I don't know.

I'm not clear about how much non-linearity you need to be happy.

Why would you like to know? You'd like to discuss it?

[Kalmarath]

pprrff wrote...

hence the word  'spiritual'.

Dragon Age, the spiritual successor to.. uh.. Mass Effect!

Hmm, no problem I guess. Bring on the Sheppard Hawke!

[pprrff]

In the end, other than the 30 min of game play unique to your origin, player's race/sex had little impact to the the game as a whole other than 5 or 6 lines of different dialogue. It's not like a Darwvan character had a completely different way of selecting the king, and the dalish still made you do their bidding even if you are dalish. I don't think people will miss much.



Beside, I'm not entirely convinced that there are absolute no unique origins in this game. Just because you have to be human doesn't mean that your human background can't be different. Even Commander Shepard can choose between biography.

[Batman90]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem with this is that you end up burning a fair amount of dev time for relatively little gameplay. Area design is a big time sink, and always has been. I can see it working if you have a lot of repurposed areas -- ME1 did something like this with the UNC missions, which had procedurally-generated planets and a lot of generic buildings and mines. Would that work for you?

I kinda disagree with this; I think having multiple "paths" and varied environments are feasible. I see Final Fantasy XII as a sort of precursor to this; not exactly the same as what I'm talking about, and certainly not as sophisticated, but a stepping stone. In FFXII, there are numerous wide, open areas with varying paths in-between towns and story segments. While the game didn't give you choices such as, "I'm going to kill or help this guy," it did give players the feeling of exploration and immersion. And there was plenty of side-content scattered around.

The choices ultimately need to be more subtle; for example, early on in the game, a player could be searching a cabinet in someone's house and finds a key, and later in the game, you find a chest containing a powerful weapon that you unlock with that key. You aren't told that there is a weapon within that chest or where the key is; you just open it up if you have the key and get the weapon, and if you don't have the key, you'll shrug and head on, never knowing what was in the chest or where the key was. Choices don't need to be shoved in the players' faces; instead, it should be a subconscious process. What I'm getting at is that while the main story would be the same on the exterior, ultimately, no two players' playthroughs are going to be the same.

[the_one_54321]

Batman90 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The problem with this is that you end up burning a fair amount of dev time for relatively little gameplay. Area design is a big time sink, and always has been. I can see it working if you have a lot of repurposed areas -- ME1 did something like this with the UNC missions, which had procedurally-generated planets and a lot of generic buildings and mines. Would that work for you?

I kinda disagree with this; I think having multiple "paths" and varied environments are feasible. I see Final Fantasy XII as a sort of precursor to this; not exactly the same as what I'm talking about, and certainly not as sophisticated, but a stepping stone. In FFXII, there are numerous wide, open areas with varying paths in-between towns and story segments. While the game didn't give you choices such as, "I'm going to kill or help this guy," it did give players the feeling of exploration and immersion. And there was plenty of side-content scattered around.

The choices ultimately need to be more subtle; for example, early on in the game, a player could be searching a cabinet in someone's house and finds a key, and later in the game, you find a chest containing a powerful weapon that you unlock with that key. You aren't told that there is a weapon within that chest or where the key is; you just open it up if you have the key and get the weapon, and if you don't have the key, you'll shrug and head on, never knowing what was in the chest or where the key was. Choices don't need to be shoved in the players' faces; instead, it should be a subconscious process. What I'm getting at is that while the main story would be the same on the exterior, ultimately, no two players' playthroughs are going to be the same.

I completely agree with this guy right here. In all honesty, FFXII may have felt like one of the most realistic worlds portrayed in any fantasy game to date. And it's precisely because of the physical construction of the map and choices.

[mopotter]

the_one_54321 wrote...

mopotter wrote...
On the whole I don't replay games that don't give me character choices of some kind.  I want to play the game more than once or twice.  I want to play the game for years, which I do with all of the ones i've listed.

Ah, ok I think I understand you. (I loved Chrono Trigger btw) But I'll pose the same question I asked a little ways above. What if the writiers could take on an evolution and exploration of character where you just weren't allowed to design that character? Think along the lines of Chrono Triger.

It's a good thought and on a future game, if they came out immediately and said they were going to do a game featuring Katherine Smith, a simple woman thrown into a complicated situation using her skills to survive, I'd check it out.

[Wuxia]

I'm one of the few (?) that thinks 'The Lord of the Rings', 'The Wheel of Time', 'A Song of Ice and Fire' etc. are all extremely good despite the fact that you can't add an 's' to every 'he' and you can't read the 'evil ending' where Frodo becomes the next Sauron and has the Fellowship killed by his almighty army of evilness



Why should it be any different for games? Sure, have a customisable appearance, gender option and different classes for development but no more. With strong core gameplay mechanics in the combat and character development as the foundation, linearity would make Dragon Age go from good to amazing.



I'm not a fan of stories made of unconnected modules with the illusion of freedom: I would rather be immersed in a strong and compelling narrative. If DA2 does have choices I want them to flow into the story, not be shoved into your face, to give a linear 'one-story-only' feel; I don't see that as feasible though so I just hope it is more linear and loses the modular feel.

[the_one_54321]

Banon Loire wrote...
I'm not a fan of stories made of unconnected modules with the illusion of freedom: I would rather be immersed in a strong and compelling narrative. If DA2 does have choices I want them to flow into the story, not be shoved into your face, to give a linear 'one-story-only' feel; I don't see that as feasible though so I just hope it is more linear and loses the modular feel.

While I do think that DA:O did a pretty good job of this, I am mostly in agreement with you. The modular aspect of  "free" games often takes something away from the game.

[AlanC9]

Paromlin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Paromlin wrote...
Alright. Going to extreeemes™ is not earning you any points. I didn't say I want a sand-box seamless world. I said I want a non-linear game. Period. "Great story" or not, tastes are subjective, I prefer much much more (much much) a non linear game. What's unclear about that I don't know.

I'm not clear about how much non-linearity you need to be happy.

Why would you like to know? You'd like to discuss it?

Unless you've given up on DA2 already, it's relevant.

[AlanC9]

Batman90 wrote...
I kinda disagree with this; I think having multiple "paths" and varied environments are feasible. I see Final Fantasy XII as a sort of precursor to this; not exactly the same as what I'm talking about, and certainly not as sophisticated, but a stepping stone. In FFXII, there are numerous wide, open areas with varying paths in-between towns and story segments. While the game didn't give you choices such as, "I'm going to kill or help this guy," it did give players the feeling of exploration and immersion. And there was plenty of side-content scattered around.

The choices ultimately need to be more subtle; for example, early on in the game, a player could be searching a cabinet in someone's house and finds a key, and later in the game, you find a chest containing a powerful weapon that you unlock with that key. You aren't told that there is a weapon within that chest or where the key is; you just open it up if you have the key and get the weapon, and if you don't have the key, you'll shrug and head on, never knowing what was in the chest or where the key was. Choices don't need to be shoved in the players' faces; instead, it should be a subconscious process. What I'm getting at is that while the main story would be the same on the exterior, ultimately, no two players' playthroughs are going to be the same.

Having checked out of JRPGs a long time ago, I can't really follow your example about FFXII.

I don't follow how the key thing works. The only reason I wouldn't get that key is if I never entered the house at all, or at least never looted it. And if entering the house is optional, then we're right back where I said we were in terms of needing to build areas that only a few people will see.

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...



Unless you've given up on DA2 already, it's relevant.

I'll give up when they confirm all enemies will be scaled, like in DA.
Sorry, I can't give you an exact "measure" of how much non-linear the game needs to be. Let's say BG 1 was an excellent example of an enjoying non-linear exploration. Which is of course what I meant when I said non-linear (this just to spare you the extra analyzation part ).

[Batman90]

I don't follow how the key thing works. The only reason I wouldn't get that key is if I never entered the house at all, or at least never looted it. And if entering the house is optional, then we're right back where I said we were in terms of needing to build areas that only a few people will see.

The building could or could not be optional, it wouldn't matter. Let's say it's one building among several other buildings, and for one reason or another, whether the plot takes you there or you just feel like checking it out, you enter the building. The thing is, the cabinet that contains the key would be easy-to-miss, hidden among other objects (Or it could be hidden inside the cabinet itself).  When you find the key, you pick it up and throw it in your bag; since there are no immediate chests in the area, you just forget about it.

The key is subtle and hidden. It isn't presented to you on a silver platter; it isn't right out in the open begging you to take it, and what the key unlocks isn't expected by the player.

[ReinaHW]

Comparing a JRPG where there is no choices, no character creation and more often than not is some generic male teen who looks very femanine, and should have been a female character in that case, and a story so generic that a four year old could probably write something better to a game where the player's actions could affect the story, the player can choose gender, race and basically have a reasonable say on their character is like comparing rotted meat to fresh meat and saying what's more edible.

JRPG's are still very much in a time where choice was non-existent and the player did as they were told to do while WRPG's can cater for choice, not always, but at times they do.
I prefer WRPG's to JRPG's any day now, I'm tired of the usual 'male teen must save world'universe' nonsense. Especially the sub-genre hasn't progressed to the point of character creation, gender choice and general choices.

Until JRPG's progress the backwards notion of 'must have more CGI and prettier visuals', I doubt I'll be returning to them.

Modifié par ReinaHW, 08 juillet 2010 - 06:36 .