19 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

IMPENDING TEXT WALL 

For those of us freaking about about player choice in DA2, and to a lesser extent, BioWare's other recent RPGs, I bring you this rather strange statement: rails are a GOOD THING.  Without rails, the plot would have no direction at all.  It would meander wildly like any sandbox game.  Rails are essential in any RPG that wants to have something resembling a coherent plot.

Here's the catch--in a good WRPG, the rails have to be invisible.  

In tabletop RPGs, good DMs who care about story and roleplaying pride themselves on being able to construct invisible rails for their PCs.  They have to give them direction.  They can't just let the PCs wander about constructing lemonade stands and swatting rats in an endless sandbox landscape.  The difference between a good DM and a novice DM is the good DM's ability to obscure the rails--to give the illusion of player choice and allow for a lot of roleplaying room while holding steady to a core plot.

BioWare faces the same challenge, magnified tenfold.  There is no human DM who can make on the spot decisions about how to handle the challenge of invisible rails.  There's just a computer, some dialogue trees, and coded decision points.  And this has to give the illusion of an immersive world in which every action impacts the world.  Think about all the BioWare RPGs we know and love.  For each and every one of them, the central plot was entirely on rails with no player choice whatsoever.  The Bhaalspawn defeats Sarevok, faces Irenicus, then tackles the prophecy.  The Warden, regardless of origin, becomes a Warden and saves Ferelden from the Blight.  Shepard undertakes various tasks--largely thankless--to defeat the Reapers and their proxy villains.  The amount of player choice in the key plot amounts to just about zero, same as any other kind of video game.

The illusion of player choice comes in secondary choices: what order to tackle the tasks, which NPCs to befriend or antagonize, whom to romance, PC customization and dialogue choices, etc.  I know you can make decisions that feel big in BioWare games, but even choices like Morrigan's ritual or the Council in ME1, which are highly significant in-universe, have no bearing whatsoever on the plot rails.  They're there to obfuscate the rails, to give the player lots of roleplaying room and the illusion of meaningful choice while maintaining the essential plot.  But again, this is NOT A BAD THING.  Unless you adore sandbox games 

For DA2, the amount of character customization that BioWare does or does not give us as far as Hawke is concerned has no impact on the plot rails.  Our choices in DA:O will probably come up again, but they too cannot fundamentally change the plot rails.  As much as we might like, BioWare can't tailor-make games for every Warden.  All they can do is construct a set of plot rails to take us through, then hide the rails so the Warden's actions have an in-universe impact without a critical in-game impact.

Having strong rails is what distinguishes a sandbox from a BioWare RPG.  Having the skill to hide the rails is what distinguishes a BioWare RPG from, say, Final Fantasy XIII 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I understand what you are trying to say. It makes it easier for the game developer to put a plot on rails and often, the story is more consistant as a result. But limiting the player to a human character from one origin with a set name isn't just putting us on rails after the freedom of DA:O, it's putting us on a prison train in a straight jacket with a gag in our mouths with our heads ductaped to the windows to watch the plot role by (Yes, I used role instead of roll, it's a joke).

[Sable Rhapsody]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I understand what you are trying to say. It makes it easier for the game developer to put a plot on rails and often, the story is more consistant as a result. But limiting the player to a human character from one origin with a set name isn't just putting us on rails after the freedom of DA:O, it's putting us on a prison train in a straight jacket with a gag in our mouths with our heads ductaped to the windows to watch the plot role by (Yes, I used role instead of roll, it's a joke).

Hmm.  I would say it's a cosmetic difference.  I mean, take a look at Baldur's Gate, which inspired both DA and the love of PC RPG players.  I doubt there are a lot of people on these forums who would hate on Baldur's Gate, but Baldur's Gate gave you a set character with a set backstory and set origin.  In fact, a VERY set origin :innocent:  Race, class, gender, and appearance were customizable.  It even canonized the party between BG1 and BG2, and had very little in the way of choices like, say, Morrigan's Ritual until the end games.  Compare to Hawke, where we get a predetermined last name, origin, and race.  class, gender, and appearance are customizable.

Planescape: Torment, widely considered one of the most brilliant CRPGs of all time, puts you firm on plot AND character rails.  You play as the Nameless One, an ugly-as-sin level 3 male fighter who wakes up in a mortuary with a talking skull, amnesia, and an extremely set backstory.  But the brilliance of PS:T came from its ability to hide the rails with the sheer depth of characterization and the overwhelming amount of player choice in interactions and secondary quests.

BTW, if you want the prison train with the straightjacket, FFXIII is the way to go   Sorry if there are any Square fans--I just love making fun of JRPGs.

[Zalocx]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 I mean, take a look at Baldur's Gate, which inspired both DA and the love of PC RPG players.  I doubt there are a lot of people on these forums who would hate on Baldur's Gate, but Baldur's Gate gave you a set character with a set backstory and set origin.  In fact, a VERY set origin :innocent:  Race, class, gender, and appearance were customizable.  It even canonized the party between BG1 and BG2, and had very little in the way of choices like, say, Morrigan's Ritual until the end games.  Compare to Hawke, where we get a predetermined last name, origin, and race.  class, gender, and appearance are customizable.

Planescape: Torment, widely considered one of the most brilliant CRPGs of all time, puts you firm on plot AND character rails.  You play as the Nameless One, an ugly-as-sin level 3 male fighter who wakes up in a mortuary with a talking skull, amnesia, and an extremely set backstory.  But the brilliance of PS:T came from its ability to hide the rails with the sheer depth of characterization and the overwhelming amount of player choice in interactions and secondary quests.

And Neverwinter Nights, and Icewind Dale, and all three Fallout games and I can probably go on. "predetermined character background" is nothing new. Why people are complaining about it ruining the "oldschool RPG feel" of DA when the old school RPGs themselves did this is beyond me:unsure:

[SSH83]

I give this thread A+ for showing of intelligence.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

That's precisely one thing about BG that kind of got old, the origin. I made a few characters but that was because I could try a different race, or class. Sure it made no sense for an elf to be a Bhaalspawn in DnD lore, it takes them too long to mature for Gorion to even be alive, but at least the option was there. What I don't like is when a game, especially in a series, gives you freedoms and in sequels takes those freedoms away. From what has been revealed (and I'm trying to be fair) the game is walking backwards to spit out a product that appeals to a generic formula created along the lines of Mass Effect...but in a fantasy world.



Oh, and I agree with you about the recent Final Fantasy games. I think the "Final" part in the franchise refers to the lack of options for the player to have any customization within the game. Not all JRPGs are as bad, but alot of companies try to mimic the FF success because, frankly, most people don't like to think and would rather stare at the pretty scenery scrolling by.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Zalocx wrote...
And Neverwinter Nights, and Icewind Dale, and all three Fallout games and I can probably go on. "predetermined character background" is nothing new. Why people are complaining about it ruining the "oldschool RPG feel" of DA when the old school RPGs themselves did this is beyond me:unsure:

The lack of race customization is a bit more restrictive, but not unduly so.  It's not like you could play a mutant winged elf in Fallout, and if anyone suggested it, they'd be summarily shot--and rightfully so 

@ Ryllen: I think, generally you're probably right.  We're all just a bit spoilt for choice after Origins.  No matter how much people complained about Origins being six pre-set characters (notice how most of the complaints vanished after the game was released?), it was quite unique in the origin stories, and the amount of depth and detail of background customization.  None of the old-school RPGs had anything like that amount of customization and backstory impact.  But this is Dragon Age 2, not Dragon Age: Origins 2--ORIGINS HARDER.

I can understand being frustrated at the limitations after the rather expansive origin stories of DA:O, but again, I think the difference is essentially cosmetic.  It's one more way to hide the plot rails.  If BioWare has chosen to dispense with that particular method of illusion of choice, fine.  They'll just have the implement the other ones better.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 08 juillet 2010 - 10:53 .

[hexaligned]

The only benefits I see would be if
A. Your writers aren't talented enough to pull off a more complex story arc, and make it enjoyable. (see Oblivion as an example of this)
B. Your target audience have the attention span, and attention to detail of middle schoolers.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator might be good business, it's not a marker of artistic integrity, or talent though. Even the best games are relatively shallow, there isn't a need for ALL of them to have the depth of a Saturday morning cartoon. Not that I'm saying DAO2 will, really just more of a general statement that came to mind from the FF13 talk.

Modifié par relhart, 08 juillet 2010 - 11:04 .

[SSH83]

Let's just pretend the drow never posted on this thread and carry on.

[Sable Rhapsody]

relhart wrote... Even the best games are relatively shallow, there isn't a need for ALL of them to have the depth of a Saturday morning cartoon. Not that I'm saying DAO2 will, really just more of a general statement that came to mind from the FF13 talk.

Hey, don't knock cartoons  Avatar the Last Airbender aired on Nickelodeon.  And if BioWare ever manages to make an RPG out of that IP that becomes even half as epic and amazing as the original TV series, I will start a religion devoted to them.  With Chris Priestly as evil chief devil.

Anyway, back on topic.  I think BioWare knows they need more depth to keep their fanbase happy.  And if I'm understanding you correctly, I agree--I don't think they'll pander to the lowest common denominator.  Say what you will about Mass Effect--it was excellent at allowing for player choice while keeping you on the tightest set of rails I've ever seen in an RPG.  It wasn't bad.  It didn't destroy RPGs as a genre.  It was just different.  It had a different way of implementing the illusion of choice, and it worked for some of us and didn't for others.  That's all.

DA2 is not horrible or evil or BioWare backsliding on an RPG.  It's different.  Sesame Street tells us that different is not bad.

SSH83 wrote...

I give this thread A+ for showing of intelligence.

I do try 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 08 juillet 2010 - 11:13 .

[Ecael]

There are some benefits of plot rails, but I believe those invisible plot rails were introduced because...

The RPG everyone is nostalgic about hasn't existed ever since they introduced:

• Full voice acting with lip-sync
• Realistic graphics with facial expressions and uncanny valley humans
• Immersive cinematic cutscenes
• In-depth romanceable characters/companions (in both personality and looks)
• Console ports.

The writers will always be limited to how much all those listed above will cost (and how much time it will take) for all the other dev teams to produce.

This started to occur since Knights of the Old Republic was released and will continue as long as people expect everything in that list above.

Those things streamline the plot because now it takes more than just a writer to make a story non-linear.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Ecael wrote...

There are some benefits of plot rails, but I believe those invisible plot rails were introduced because...

The RPG everyone is nostalgic about hasn't existed ever since they introduced:

• Full voice acting with lip-sync
• Realistic graphics with facial expressions and uncanny valley humans
• Immersive cinematic cutscenes
• In-depth romanceable characters/companions (in both personality and looks)
• Console ports.

The writers will always be limited to how much all those listed above will cost (and how much time it will take) for all the other dev teams to produce.

This started to occur since Knights of the Old Republic was released and will continue as long as people expect everything in that list above.

Those things streamline the plot because now it takes more than just a writer to make a story non-linear.

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree slightly.  Plot rails have always been there.  They've been there since BioWare first started making RPGs, and long before that too.  The magical non-linear RPG where every choice matters and characters are entirely customizable and the game adapts to your every action only exists in a) our deluded nostalgic imaginations or with a very good, very tolerant DM.  But I do agree that all the visual and audio demands of modern gaming make them that much more necessary, because of the resource restrictions on the writers.  One of the reasons why I have worries about TOR, despite being excited as all hell for it.

Honestly, though, we can't expect BioWare to dispense with the trappings of modern gaming. These things, and the resources they consume, are here to stay, and they're not a bad thing. How many people can honestly say they would've played DA:O with Baldur's Gate 2 style graphics and audio, and enjoyed it just as much? I can't say I would have. It still would've been a great game, but the amount of work put into appearance does have a role-playing benefit--immersion.

[Ecael]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree slightly.  Plot rails have always been there.  They've been there since BioWare first started making RPGs, and long before that too.  The magical non-linear RPG where every choice matters and characters are entirely customizable and the game adapts to your every action only exists in a) our deluded nostalgic imaginations or with a very good, very tolerant DM.

True. There never really is a "pure" RPG, especially in terms of video games.

But I do agree that all the visual and audio demands of modern gaming make them that much more necessary, because of the resource restrictions on the writers.  One of the reasons why I have worries about TOR, despite being excited as all hell for it.

Honestly, though, we can't expect BioWare to dispense with the trappings of modern gaming. These things, and the resources they consume, are here to stay, and they're not a bad thing. How many people can honestly say they would've played DA:O with Baldur's Gate 2 style graphics and audio, and enjoyed it just as much? I can't say I would have. It still would've been a great game, but the amount of work put into appearance does have a role-playing benefit--immersion.

Pretty much. People assume these things and still expect the writers to listen to their every whim, even though the writers have to literally predict what the other teams will be capable of making ahead of time.

Nobody wants silent characters and top-down gameplay with no cinematic graphics anymore. That's exactly what gamers take for granted these days - immersion.

relhart wrote...

The only benefits I see would be if
A. Your writers aren't talented enough to pull off a more complex story arc, and make it enjoyable. (see Oblivion as an example of this)
B. Your target audience have the attention span, and attention to detail of middle schoolers.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator might be good business, it's not a marker of artistic integrity, or talent though. Even the best games are relatively shallow, there isn't a need for ALL of them to have the depth of a Saturday morning cartoon. Not that I'm saying DAO2 will, really just more of a general statement that came to mind from the FF13 talk.

Irony: Complaining about professional writers using a horribly structured and poorly written argument.

I've babysit children that don't even whine half as much as some of the people on these forums. If BioWare is intentionally trying to target that middle school audience, then we might actually see fewer people crying on the forums in the future.

[Layn]

i didn't read everything, i stopped when i started laughing when i remembered how a friend dealt with the rails. "Theres this guy .... he looks interesting.... he looks like he is really giddy to tell someone something.... he looks like he has an adventure to offer... GO TALK TO HIM DAMMIT". very invisible rails.
And then there was  that one time i knocked the other player unconcious and dragged him to the next plot point because he was being uncooperative. That DM really isn't persuasive enough

Modifié par Crrash, 08 juillet 2010 - 11:53 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Crrash wrote...

i didn't read everything, i stopped when i started laughing when i remembered how a friend dealt with the rails. "Theres this guy .... he looks interesting.... he looks like he is really giddy to tell someone something.... he looks like he has an adventure to offer... GO TALK TO HIM DAMMIT". very invisible rails.
And then there was  that one time i knocked the other player unconcious and dragged him to the next plot point because he was being uncooperative. That DM really isn't persuasive enough

Well, there's DMs who handle the rails well, and DMs who don't   Some players are obnoxiously good at sensing plot rails, then immediately doing anything possible to escape them.  In tabletop RPGs, those players are usually a mixture of funny and aggravating.  In CRPGs, they're the people who complain about having to play a Warden in DA:O   Uh...wut?

Basically, the point that I'm trying to make to everyone who's upset about DA2 is that If you want a "pure" RPG where the game panders to your every need, you won't find it in a video game.  It's not "they don't make them like they used to."  THEY NEVER MADE THEM THAT WAY.  IT IS PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO.  You'll have to find yourself a good flexible tabletop RPG, a very talented and understanding DM, and a bunch of like-minded players.  That's at least feasible, though by no means easy.

[SSH83]

Man, that was a short discussion. O.o We can go 12 pages complaining about how the cover art doesn't feature a woman, but we can't get past 1 page on design. lol



I made a similar thread a while back on the topic, where I was trying to point out that creating a lot of dialogue branches for an illusion of choice is not necessarily.better than fewer dialogue branches but each more significant and more depth.



To put it in perspective, let's say a writer has enough time to write 20 branches of dialogue. If he wants to support 5 possibilities of PC choice, Then the dialogue can only go 20/5 = 4 branches deep. That's not a lot to go on in each path, so the best he can do is a short quirky response for each path, then wire them all back to the main thread pretty quickly.



On the other hand, the writer can decide to only offer a choice of 2 possibilities. Now each choice will lead to 20/2=10 branches, so you only have 2 choices, but each choice will lead to a more comprehensive and significantly different outcome.



it's a struggle between width vs depth.



In games like Dragon Age, there are 4~5 ways to handle each dialogue situation. The game can technically be played 4~5 times to experience the full experience that the game delivered. However, how many times do most players play though the game? Once? Twice? Thrice? If majority of gamers play only twice, isn't it better to have just 3 paths instead 5, but have those 3 paths be twice as good as any of the 5?



IMO, ME2 is an excellent RPG. Strong story, strong protagonist, and strong dialogues. I couldn't play as a fringe Sheperd who can hear voices in his head, but the Sheperds that i do get to play are so awesome that I don't really miss those tertiary possibilities. Having choices is good, but being on a rail is not bad at all if the ride is fantastically enjoyable.

[Sable Rhapsody]

SSH83 wrote...

Man, that was a short discussion. O.o We can go 12 pages complaining about how the cover art doesn't feature a woman, but we can't get past 1 page on design. lol

I made a similar thread a while back on the topic, where I was trying to point out that creating a lot of dialogue branches for an illusion of choice is not necessarily.better than fewer dialogue branches but each more significant and more depth.

To put it in perspective, let's say a writer has enough time to write 20 branches of dialogue. If he wants to support 5 possibilities of PC choice, Then the dialogue can only go 20/5 = 4 branches deep. That's not a lot to go on in each path, so the best he can do is a short quirky response for each path, then wire them all back to the main thread pretty quickly.

it's a struggle between width vs depth.

...

IMO, ME2 is an excellent RPG. Strong story, strong protagonist, and strong dialogues. I couldn't play as a fringe Sheperd who can hear voices in his head, but the Sheperds that i do get to play are so awesome that I don't really miss those tertiary possibilities. Having choices is good, but being on a rail is not bad at all if the ride is fantastically enjoyable.

I excised a little bit of the quoted stuff, but essentially I agree.  Breadth vs. depth, and I think depth is better, though the two have to be balanced.  I thought the original DA:O balanced them a little better than ME.  PS:T is a rare example of a game that went solely for depth--and pulled it off.

I'd rather have more character depth for a reasonable range of characters than greater breadth of characters, including some truly weird ones that make no sense.  Though I would hesitate at saying that being on rails is good if the ride's enjoyable.  I agree, but I'd prefer not to see the rails if it's being marketed to me as an RPG.  Ideally, I shouldn't even notice the rails until I'm off the ride, so to speak.

And it's late at night, at least where I am.  Harder to post intelligently now 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 09 juillet 2010 - 05:21 .

[Vicious]

I am happier when a character lives more on screen [Mass Effect] and less my imagination [DA:O]



I really hate comparing the games in such a way, but honestly I like it when the protagonist is fully represented, a living breathing part of the world, rather than a character who requires my imagination to bring life to.



I prefer to leave the imagination to pen and paper which does it better, anyway.

[Chuvvy]

Your argument is invalid. RDR is a sandbox and it has one of the best stories I've seen in a game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree entirely with the OP that any rails, if they exist, need to be invisible.

This is one of the reasons I oppose a voiced PC. That voice is a rail - it forces the development of the PC's personality in a particular direction, and does so explicitly.