1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

On a sort of related note, I'm a writer, and a horrible DM.

[LdyShayna]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Emergent narrative will never, ever work in a video game. Why? Computers can't think.

Which is strange, because several people (including myself) believe it has been done before in most of BioWare's previous games.  Thus...I don't think never, ever can possibly be true, but instead it depends on how you approach playing them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LdyShayna wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Emergent narrative will never, ever work in a video game. Why? Computers can't think.

Which is strange, because several people (including myself) believe it has been done before in most of BioWare's previous games.  Thus...I don't think never, ever can possibly be true, but instead it depends on how you approach playing them.

And this is important.  Emergent narrative HAS WORKED in every non-ME BioWare RPG ever released.

BG
BG2
NWN
KotOR
JE
DAO

All of them permit extensive emergent narrative.  Anyone who claims they can't simply doesn't understand what emergent narrative is.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And this is important.  Emergent narrative HAS WORKED in every non-ME BioWare RPG ever released.

BG
BG2
NWN
KotOR
JE
DAO

All of them permit extensive emergent narrative.  Anyone who claims they can't simply doesn't understand what emergent narrative is.

Rather than debate the point (including what is a very apparent trend toward removing the emergent narrative even in those set of games), I am going to point out that it is this precise feature which some gamers are rallying against. Which is to say, this is only a positive if you happen to think this is a good thing.

Remember, our debate in this thread was not whether Bioware supported it, but whether Bioware should support it, and what that means for the story, etc. etc.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

How can something be an option if it is not viable? Put another way, how can you argue I have a choice (and therefore freedom) when in fact it is only possible for me to choose one thing?

It would have to be possible for you to choose one thing (in that there is no physical restriction preventing it).  Howerer, there may be no conceivable circumstances under which you would.

You would never ever choose it, but you could.

Put another way - are you trying to make an argument similar to, say, compatibilism in determinism.

That's not what I was going for, but I can see the similarities.

That's false. If your posibility relies on the imposibility of something else, then it is equivalent to saying that something is not true. It's merely a matter of implication.

What am I supposedly claiming is impossible?  I don't see it.

That's false. Something can be an argument without a justified conclusion. In fact, something can be an argument with a poor or false conclusion. What makes something an argument is the form and the assertion, not the truth of the statement (in your eyes).

An argument for something would show it to be true (possibly allowing for some explicit assumptions).  That didn't happen here.

Saying something that is false and lying are not the same thing, because what matters is the intention of the person making the statement.

I think the awareness of the speaker matters, not his intent.  If you make a false statement that you know is false, then you're lying.  If you make a statement where you're aware that you don't know it ti be true, and it happens to be false, then you're lying (this happens a lot when people talk about the future).

No, that's also false. In that case you would just be arbitrarily naming things,

Yes.  Definitions are necessarily both arbitrary and immutable.  Otherwise they fail to serve as useful definitions.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All of them permit extensive emergent narrative.  Anyone who claims they can't simply doesn't understand what emergent narrative is.

I don't know if you're addressing me, but notice I never said emergent narratives could not be done in CRPGs.  I simply stated my opinion that they can't be done very well--or at least, not nearly as well as a tabletop game can do them. 

As a player of tabletop RPGs, I do not expect a CRPG to simulate them perfectly.  A human DM can be surprised by the actions of the players (and you'll see threads about this on PnP boards, to be sure).  A fully scripted CRPG will never be surprised by what the player does.

Modifié par Riona45, 31 juillet 2010 - 03:43 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It would have to be possible for you to choose one thing (in that there is no physical restriction preventing it).  Howerer, there may be no conceivable circumstances under which you would.

You would never ever choose it, but you could.

That's not what I was going for, but I can see the similarities.

Then to avoid that entire debate, let me just say that I reject compatibilism as a meaningless distinction. Logically possible is not equivalent to choosing (and, in fact, I would argue that in the case above in fact has a logically impossible action as well, because it requires supposing an agent that does not exist to create the counterfactual).

What am I supposedly claiming is impossible?  I don't see it.

Your definition of story requires this particular definition of story to be false. They are mutually exclusive.

An argument for something would show it to be true (possibly allowing for some explicit assumptions).  That didn't happen here.

That's a useless definition. You are saying that something is an argument only if it succesfully shows something to be true. If I speak words in an ordered fashion to present something as true but fail, then according to you I am not making an argument. Notice how hard it  was for me to even avoid the saying "if I argue for something," or "if I make a case for," or any other acceptable synonym for argue in the antecedent sentence.

This is just post hoc, and useless.

I think the awareness of the speaker matters, not his intent.  If you make a false statement that you know is false, then you're lying.  If you make a statement where you're aware that you don't know it ti be true, and it happens to be false, then you're lying (this happens a lot when people talk about the future).

Then by this standard predictions that do not bear out are lies, and that's just nonsensical.

Yes.  Definitions are necessarily both arbitrary and immutable.  Otherwise they fail to serve as useful definitions.

And where do definitions come from. We are not born with a priori knowledge of them. So they are up for debate, which seems to be what we are debating now, of all things.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 juillet 2010 - 03:43 .

[AndarianTD]

Reacher Gilt wrote...

However, the entire purpose of any video game, what differentiates them from any other form of entertainment, is the provision of interactive storytelling, or as Sylvius puts it: emergent narrative.

I disagree. Interactive storytelling is NOT co-extensive with what Sylvius calls "emergent narrative."

Every single game, RPG or no, must have player input as its focus, otherwise it's not a game.

True, but irrelevant, since player input is not incompatible with storytelling. I've already addressed this issue at length and don't have anything to add.

Bioware cannot out-cinematic a movie, or provide a more tightly woven plot than any novel.

Again true, but again also irrelevant. It's not the purpose of a story-based game to be a novel or a movie. It's something that combines elements of both: namely, a focused, plot-based narrative expressed in an interactive medium. Its purpose is precisely to tell a compelling story interactively. You can't get that with a novel or movie, but you can get it with a well-designed story-based game.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 juillet 2010 - 05:06 .

[desmod]

Unless dragon age 2 forces you to go through 13 chapters and not being able to use all your companions until the tenth chapter. While also making you wait until you get to the eleventh chapter before you can do any sidequest that are very generic, I will not complain and a cake for anyone who can guess which game I am talking about

[Vaeliorin]

AndarianTD wrote...
Again true, but again also irrelevant. It's not the purpose of a story-based game to be a novel or a movie. It's something that combines elements of both: namely, a focused, plot-based narrative expressed in an interactive medium. Its purpose is precisely to tell a compelling story interactively.

This isn't really an argument I want to get into, but I feel compelled to point out that it seems to me, as soon as you allow meaningful interaction, you're allowing emergent narrative.  As soon as you let a player do something of their own volition, they are going to assign a reason they did it (even if it's a simple as "it's what I would do") and thus begins an emergent narrative (because it forms a story not strictly told by the game/developers, nor necessarily one they intended.)

I suppose I should point out that when I say meaningful interaction, I think you need to allow the player not only a choice, but the ability to have a reason for that choice that the game doesn't contradict.  If the game is going to ascribe motivation, you might as well just pick choices randomly, because the game is going to play out the way the writer intended then, regardless of the player's choices.  It gets back to the whole idea that what you do isn't anywhere near as important as why you do it.

[AndarianTD]

Riona45 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All of them permit extensive emergent narrative.  Anyone who claims they can't simply doesn't understand what emergent narrative is.

I don't know if you're addressing me, but notice I never said emergent narratives could not be done in CRPGs.  I simply stated my opinion that they can't be done very well--or at least, not nearly as well as a tabletop game can do them. 

As a player of tabletop RPGs, I do not expect a CRPG to simulate them perfectly.  A human DM can be surprised by the actions of the players (and you'll see threads about this on PnP boards, to be sure).  A fully scripted CRPG will never be surprised by what the player does.

I think Sylvius is saying something a little different, though. As I understand his idea of "emergent narrative" in a game, it requires the game design to tread lightly on plot details to leave room for the player's imagination to "fill in the gaps" -- and in particular to supply the motive or purpose to go along with the events. It's an approach that effectively requires leaving gaping holes in the implementation for the player to "fantasize in." There's nothing wrong with that if it's what you like and want, but it makes for weak storytelling (it's more like computer-assisted fantasizing). Good storytelling relies precisely on including many compelling details that are carefully crafted to work together to create an integrated and immersive experience. Good interactive storytelling involves doing that while still maintaining a structure that allows for player choice and variation.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 juillet 2010 - 04:22 .

[AndarianTD]

Vaeliorin wrote...
I suppose I should point out that when I say meaningful interaction, I think you need to allow the player not only a choice, but the ability to have a reason for that choice that the game doesn't contradict.  If the game is going to ascribe motivation, you might as well just pick choices randomly, because the game is going to play out the way the writer intended then, regardless of the player's choices.  It gets back to the whole idea that what you do isn't anywhere near as important as why you do it.

I've already addressed that issue here and here. Bottom line:

AndarianTD wrote...

I would argue that in quality storytelling, you have to do more than just present a narrative; and that in quality computer-based interactive storytelling, the player selects from among a number of already defined plot-threads rather than co-contributing to an emergent narrative.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 juillet 2010 - 04:16 .

[Vaeliorin]

AndarianTD wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I suppose I should point out that when I say meaningful interaction, I think you need to allow the player not only a choice, but the ability to have a reason for that choice that the game doesn't contradict.  If the game is going to ascribe motivation, you might as well just pick choices randomly, because the game is going to play out the way the writer intended then, regardless of the player's choices.  It gets back to the whole idea that what you do isn't anywhere near as important as why you do it.

I've already addressed that issue here.

So basically what you're saying is that, in order to have good interactive storytelling, you have to make the interaction what I would consider meaningless.  This is, of course, contradictory, because if the interaction is meaningless, you no longer have good interactive storytelling.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that what you consider good interactive storytelling, I consider anti-thetical to the idea of role-playing.  Interactive storytelling (as you seem to define it) games are all well and good, I suppose, but not want I'm looking for in an RPG.

[AndarianTD]

Vaeliorin wrote...

So basically what you're saying is that, in order to have good interactive storytelling, you have to make the interaction what I would consider meaningless...

I suppose it comes down to the fact that what you consider good interactive storytelling, I consider anti-thetical to the idea of role-playing.  Interactive storytelling (as you seem to define it) games are all well and good, I suppose, but not want I'm looking for in an RPG.

Again, that's another issue that I've already addressed here. "RPG" has several different meanings among different gamers. So it may be antithetical to the kind of role-playing you have in mind, and I'm not knocking that. But I and others mean something rather different by the term.

This is, of course, contradictory, because if the interaction is meaningless, you no longer have good interactive storytelling.

I don't understand what you mean here by "meaningless." If anything, I would argue the reverse of what you're saying. It's precisely a set of events and choices that are presented in a form that is agnostic with respect to meaning and purpose that I would regard as "meaningless" (or at least, weak from a storytelling perspective).

As an example of "emergent narrative," think of the so-called "Good Path" and "Evil Path" that many CRPGs try to allow for. This tries to force-fit and shoehorn the same basic events and plotline into two radically different and incompatible sets of motivations assumed by the player. It's virtually never authentic as a storyline because the effective dramatization of radically different motivations would involve equally radically different events to go with them.

That said, I'm going to sign off this discussion. I think we've all had our say and some of us aren't going to agree. There's nothing wrong with that, and if anything it's to be expected.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 juillet 2010 - 04:56 .

[Aratham Darksight]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And this is important.  Emergent narrative HAS WORKED in every non-ME BioWare RPG ever released.

BG
BG2
NWN
KotOR
JE
DAO

All of them permit extensive emergent narrative.  Anyone who claims they can't simply doesn't understand what emergent narrative is.

I guess I am one of those people who doesn't understand, because I wouldn't have characterised any of those games except BG as having an emergent narrative. Half of them have scripted cutscenes, which you said was antithetical to it.

When I hear "emergent narrative", I think of Elder Scrolls, or Might and Magic. Games that consist predominantly of small, isolated chunks of optional content, with minimal character interaction.

These last 5 pages haven't been very useful in clearing up what is meant be the term in this discussion.

[Riona45]

AndarianTD wrote...


I think Sylvius is saying something a little different, though. As I understand his idea of "emergent narrative" in a game, it requires the game design to tread lightly on plot details to leave room for the player's imagination to "fill in the gaps" -- and in particular to supply the motive or purpose to go along with the events. It's an approach that effectively requires leaving gaping holes in the implementation for the player to "fantasize in."

It's certainly possible I am not on the same page with Sylvius, here.  When I think of "emergent narrative," I think about a story that is basically created (or strongly guided) by the actions of the players.

Thanks for your input.

Modifié par Riona45, 31 juillet 2010 - 05:22 .

[Riona45]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

I guess I am one of those people who doesn't understand, because I wouldn't have characterised any of those games except BG as having an emergent narrative.

And even the first Baldur's Gate game often put you on the rails.

[Vaeliorin]

AndarianTD wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
So basically what you're saying is that, in order to have good interactive storytelling, you have to make the interaction what I would consider meaningless...

I suppose it comes down to the fact that what you consider good interactive storytelling, I consider anti-thetical to the idea of role-playing.  Interactive storytelling (as you seem to define it) games are all well and good, I suppose, but not want I'm looking for in an RPG.

Again, that's another issue that I've already addressed here. "RPG" has several different meanings among different gamers. So it may be antithetical to the kind of role-playing you have in mind, and I'm not knocking that. But I and others mean something rather different by the term.

What it boils down to, in this case, then, is that there needs to be a new term for what you call an RPG.  To me (and I can't believe I'm going to paraphrase Sylvius here), the definitive trait of an RPG is role-playing.  Role-play isn't something that has multiple forms.  Role-play is the same as it's always been.  

to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction

I'd argue that in a game we can probably throw away the bit about an effort to understand a differing point of view, but the relevant part is assuming the attitudes, action, and discourse of another.  In an RPG, I either need to be able to have complete control of those attitudes, actions and discourse, or have enough knowledge of a character I'm given to know what those attitudes actions and discourse are (and I've yet to see a cRPG do that.  I've seen it in PnP games, but it required a 20+ page character sketch.)

This is, of course, contradictory, because if the interaction is meaningless, you no longer have good interactive storytelling.

I don't understand what you mean here by "meaningless." If anything, I would argue the reverse of what you're saying. It's precisely a set of events and choices that are presented in a form that is agnostic with respect to meaning and purpose that I would regard as "meaningless" (or at least, weak from a storytelling perspective).

It would be the opposite of what I meant by meaningful above.  If the reason for decision isn't left up to me (or rather, my character) but is rather left up to the writer, then the decisions my character makes are meaningless.  As I said several post above, why we do something is far more important than what we do.  If I'm just going to get told by the game what my motivation was for doing what I did, why should I care which choice I pick?

It's the same as having important morality meters in a game.  If where I stand on the whole good/evil divide is important to how the game functions (ME2 being an example of this) then I'm forced to make choices that are either good or evil, regardless of whether they're the appropriate choices for my character, so the choices become fundamentally meaningless.  I'm no longer playing my character, I'm just playing generic good guy or generic bad guy.

As an example of "emergent narrative," think of the so-called "Good Path" and "Evil Path" that many CRPGs try to allow for. This tries to force-fit and shoehorn the same basic events and plotline into two radically different and incompatible sets of motivations assumed by the player. It's virtually never authentic as a storyline because the effective dramatization of radically different motivations would involve equally radically different events to go with them.

I think that's rather patently not true.  It's entirely possible for 2 people to perform the same sets of actions, but have wildly different motivations for those actions.  It's when the game begins trying to define the motivations that drove my character to those actions that a problem occurs.  Whether you defeat a world-threatening evil because it's the right thing to do, or whether you do it out of a selfish sense of self-preservation, the things you do to defeat said evil need not vary widely (if at all.)

The "Evil Path" in many games quite often involves demanding extra rewards for services rendered.  But look at a game like DA.  If I demand extra money from someone, am I necessarily doing it because I'm evil?  Maybe I'm doing it because I feel I need the funding in order to best equip my armies to defeat the Blight.  Or look at the lyrium smuggling quest (arguably considered to be an "evil" quest.)  A devout Chantry follower could take that quest with the sole purpose of exposing those involved in the smuggling ring.  As soon as the game starts saying that I'm demanding the extra money because I'm greedy, it's taking my character away from me.  As soon as the game says I'm smuggling lyrium because I think the Chantries laws are stupid or pointless, it's taking my character away from me.  As soon as the game starts telling me I'm playing generic character B, with motivations X, Y, and Z (even if they're not how I envisioned my character) why should I care about this character any more?

Essentially, what you want for "good interactive storytelling" basically takes me away from any lasting connection from my character.  It's the difference between reading a book and playing an RPG.  If a character in a book dies, I might be upset about it when it happens, but it's not going to really have any lasting impact.  When an RPG character of mine dies, it means something to me.  When I think about how my first DA character was glad to sacrifice himself to kill the Archdemon, when he had that crystal moment of clarity and peace for the first time since he'd followed Tamlen into that cave...that lingers with me.  It still tugs at my heartstrings.  That's what I'm looking for in an RPG, and I can't have that when I'm playing a character that is defined by the game, and not by me.

Riona45 wrote...
It's certainly possible I am not on the same
page with Sylvius, here.  When I think of "emergent narrative," I think
about a story that is basically created (or strongly guided) by the
actions of the players.

I think what both Sylvius and I are getting at (and please correct me if I'm wrong here, Sylvius) is that the emergent narrative we're talking about isn't necessarily so much about the actions of the players, but rather the motivations behind the actions of the players.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what you do isn't anywhere near as important as why you do it.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 31 juillet 2010 - 05:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Riona45 wrote...

I don't know if you're addressing me, but notice I never said emergent narratives could not be done in CRPGs.  I simply stated my opinion that they can't be done very well--or at least, not nearly as well as a tabletop game can do them.[/quote]This I do not dispute.  And yet emulating that tabletop experience (without the need for other people) is what I think CRPGs should always be trying to do above all else.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

Your definition of story requires this particular definition of story to be false.[/quote]Not false so much as incomplete.  The definition offered described only one type of story.
[quote]That's a useless definition. You are saying that something is an argument only if it succesfully shows something to be true. If I speak words in an ordered fashion to present something as true but fail, then
according to you I am not making an argument. Notice how hard it  was for me to even avoid the saying "if I argue for something," or "if I make a case for," or any other acceptable synonym for argue in the antecedent sentence.[/quote]That are language is structured in a certain way is not evidence of anything beyond the structure of our language.
[quote]Then by this standard predictions that do not bear out are lies, and that's just nonsensical.[/quote]Those predictions would only be lies if they were not identified as predictions.

If I say "I predict the world will end in 2012," I've just made a statement about the present, not the future.  The core of that sentence was "I predict" - present tense.

If I say "The world will end in 2012", and I'm wrong about that, then yes, I have lied (I'm not lying yet, but I will have been lying once the truth value of my assertion becomes false).
[quote]And where do definitions come from. We are not born with a priori knowledge of them. So they are up
for debate, which seems to be what we are debating now, of all things.[/quote]But while they are up for debate, they are not yet definitions.

Once they are formalised (and thus become definitions) they are no longer up for debate.
[quote]Reacher Gilt wrote...

Every single game, RPG or no, must have player input as its focus, otherwise it's not a game.[/quote]I'm going to disagree with that, because it risks creating an unfortunate circumstance where the player's skill counts more than the character's skill.

This is why I count games and RPGs as different in kind.  Using the conventions of video gaming to describe RPGs (computer or otherwise) is an error of category.
[quote]AndarianTD wrote...

I think Sylvius is saying something a little different, though. As I understand his idea of "emergent narrative" in a game, it requires the game design to tread lightly on plot details to leave room for the player's imagination to "fill in the gaps" -- and in particular to supply the motive or purpose to go along with the events.  It's an approach that effectively requires leaving gaping holes in the implementation for the player to "fantasize in." There's nothing wrong with that if it's what you like and want, but it makes for weak storytelling (it's more like computer-assisted fantasizing).[/quote]I don't see how role-playing generally is much different from fantasizing, so it would then follow that a computer role-playing game would, as its core feature, offer computer-assisted fantasizing.

This is why I think your description of story-telling is incompatible with role-playing.  But since I think story-based games can rely heavily on emergent narrative to do the story-telling while still being story-based, a story-based game (as I would define the term) would still be compatible with role-playing.
[quote]Riona45 wrote...

It's certainly possible I am not on the same page with Sylvius, here.  When I think of "emergent narrative," I think about a story that is basically created (or strongly guided) by the actions of the players.[/quote]That's exactly what I mean.  What's causing some confusion is that I think the story in these games has to do with the decisions and motives of the PC, with the "main quest" serving as nothing more than a backdrop.

As a backdrop, the main quest is very important, but it doesn't tell the story.
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

In an RPG, I either need to be able to have complete control of those attitudes, actions and discourse, or have enough knowledge of a character I'm given to know what those attitudes actions and discourse are (and I've yet to see a cRPG do that.  I've seen it in PnP games, but it required a 20+ page character sketch.)[/quote]Right.  Since it's basically impossible for the game to give you all the information you would need to make decisions on behalf of the PC, you need to be able to decide those things yourself.  Otherwise, you can't really know why you're choosing one option over another at any point in the game.
[quote]It would be the opposite of what I meant by meaningful above.  If the reason for decision isn't left up to me (or rather, my character) but is rather left up to the writer, then the decisions my character makes are meaningless.  As I said several post above, why we do something is far more important than what we do.  If I'm just going to get told by the game what my motivation was for doing what I did, why should I care which choice I pick?[/quote]Exactly.  And this is why, 5 hours into Mass Effect, I was entirely indifferent to Shepard's welfare.  That she said and did things I didn't expect was more that sufficient to demonstrate that I didn't know her at all, and yet I was repeatedly asked what she would do.  How am I supposed to know that if I'm not privy to her motives?

Andarian's position appears to be that those motives will be revealed to me as part of the story-telling process (much as a book or movie reveals the motivations of their characters), but if I'm the one making the decisions I need that information in advance.  Otherwise the best I can do is treat the PC like a performing monkey, dancing for my amusement.  That is not a recipe for an immersive experience.
[quote]It's entirely possible for 2 people to perform the same sets of actions, but have wildly different motivations for those actions.  It's when the game begins trying to define the motivations that drove my character to those actions that a problem occurs.  Whether you defeat a world-threatening evil because it's the right thing to do, or whether you do it out of a selfish sense of self-preservation, the things you do to defeat said evil need not vary widely (if at all.)[/quote]Again, exactly right.

What you do tells us far less about who you are.  What reveals your character is why you do those things.

Looking at something as simple as an obviously evil act, let's say your character burns down a house, killing the person inside.  That's what he did.  What does that really tell us about him?

Now, suppose he burned down the house specifically in order to kill the person inside.  Or maybe he burned down the house for some other reason, but still knowing that person was inside and would likely die; did he not care about killing the person, or did he regret that it was necessary?  Perhaps your character was unaware there was a person inside.

This is the sort of thing that makes up the emergent narrative.  This is where the story-telling lives when it is created through role-playing, and the game you're playing is entirely unaware that it's taking place.
[quote]I've said it before and I'll say it again, what you do isn't anywhere near as important as why you do it.[/quote]I couldn't have said it better.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 juillet 2010 - 07:04 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

DA:O never gave me the choice of why.
I became a Warden because Duncan said it is the only way I stay alive.
And after the battle of Ogstar I did all those things because of "I am a Warden".

I think DA2 has good potential to give me the "why" aspect better than "that's what Wardens do".

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 31 juillet 2010 - 09:11 .

[Vaeliorin]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
DA:O never gave me the choice of why.
I became a Warden because Duncan said it is the only way I stay alive.
And after the battle of Ogstar I did all those things because of "I am a Warden".

I think DA2 has good potential to give me the "why" aspect better than "that's what Wardens do".

Sure it did.  You apparently just never bothered to take advantage of it.  It's not explicitly defined in the game, though.  That's the entire point.

[Jimmy Fury]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
DA:O never gave me the choice of why.
I became a Warden because Duncan said it is the only way I stay alive.
And after the battle of Ogstar I did all those things because of "I am a Warden".

I think DA2 has good potential to give me the "why" aspect better than "that's what Wardens do".

Sure it did.  You apparently just never bothered to take advantage of it.  It's not explicitly defined in the game, though.  That's the entire point.

That's not a very functional arguement...
"Origins never gave me a choice of why"
"It did it just wasn't really there"
?
If it isn't defined in the game then it can't be considered a choice the game provided...

A better argument would be:
Yes it did, the final conversation you have with your parents as a Human Noble gives you the ability to choose your motivation for leaving.  You can: Leave to find Fergus. Leave to get revenge on Howe. Leave to save your own behind. etc. (I can't recall all of the dialogue choices off the top of my head, apologies.)

[rolson00]

i really dont see how "Why is BioWare taking a dump on continuity?" thread is anything to do with this one

[javierabegazo]

rolson00 wrote...

i really dont see how "Why is BioWare taking a dump on continuity?" thread is anything to do with this one

The OP is distressed over the new changes (i.e. direction) with the Darkspawn design amid other things. Seems fairly similar to me?

Pitch me an argument as to why it's not sufficiently similar and I'll open it, I'm not beyond reasoning. It's just at a few glances on the pages of that thread, it seemed like it could move to here

[Jimmy Fury]

rolson00 wrote...

i really dont see how "Why is BioWare taking a dump on continuity?" thread is anything to do with this one

I pmed Javier about that.
try this one instead: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3274086/

-erp. ninja'd-

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 31 juillet 2010 - 05:58 .