11 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonPogo]

Ok so I know this is all speculation at this point. However I don’t know if I like the whole third person telling the tale of Hawke. I mean will the whole game be flashbacks being told by this person? Are we to believe that EVERYTHING we do in the game is somewhat suspect to reality? Will this take away options like going back to camp to talk with our companions between missions? I mean they could have us do one storyline mission then go to a cut seen of the Seeker and the Dwarf and right into the next one.
 
Also having a third person narrative gives the storyteller a unique option to canonize whatever story they want rather than the players choices. I AM NOT SAYING BIOWARE IS DOING THIS OR WILL! Just saying if Bioware is not kind of upset about the dead Warden issues or that some people did not bone Morrigan. Well in DA2 they could just say that is what happened the Dwarf just got that part of the story wrong.
 
 
Again just to clarify these are thoughts and fears I have about what I have read about the game so far. Just putting them out there. While I have faith Bioware will do good with it there it is. 

[Mary Kirby]

jackkel dragon wrote...

The fact that the story may be wrong allows more customization of the story. "Your" Hawke may have been a Psychopath, but "I" was told that he was loving and kind. The "haze" around Hawke's legend allows for things to be told differently by different players without forcing a "canon."

That's how I took it anyway. Take it or leave it...

This is pretty much exactly the idea.

[Mary Kirby]

Herr Uhl: Sometimes? Bear in mind that occasionally Varric gets called on his exaggerations and has to recant.



Malanek: I never said that didn't happen. I just said the idea is that Varric being the narrator allows more player customization of the story.



shepard_lives: No, he's not glued to you or anything. The story happens over a long period of time, remember? What he isn't present for, he can certainly find out about from Hawke or other characters later. Or just make up. He's always happy to do that, too.

[Mary Kirby]

Roland Aseph wrote...

Isn't having a Non-Canon (imagined, fake..) storyline a waste of time in the IP's grand scheme of things?

What's the point?

Haven't you played DAO? Everything in Thedas is shrouded in uncertainty. Every major event in history is just a story, and most of those stories change based on who is telling them. This is a story of some people and events that are very important to Thedas history, told by someone who was there. It's skewed, but it's as true and as false as everything else in history.

[David Gaider]

FedericoV wrote...
No. Because the tale of Varric will change according to your choices in game.

You are confusing the form of the narrative, with the story itself.

Exactly. It will make more sense when you play the game, I suppose, but the narrative frames the story-- it doesn't determine how it plays. If someone's fear is that, at some point, we'll just hand-wave the entire thing and say "well it was just all in Varric's head" I would respond with: why would we do that? Playing around a little with the details might be okay, but at its heart the player needs to have agency. It's a story that the player is directing, like any other.

[David Gaider]

aberdash wrote...
So we should rely on the devs word even if there is nothing ingame to prove everything did in fact happen as stated. Did you take a course in terrible game design 101?

Have you ever read a book? A story is a story, and a game is one that you participate in and direct. If you're simply looking for things to object to, however, then by all means I'm not going to stop you.

FedericoV wrote...
Are you happy with the "no canon" direction you have taken with the DA's franchise? Don't you think that the continuity between games will suffer a lot because of that? Sorry if I ask but I'm very curios (I was one of the few who supported the "canon" direction whatever the canon would have turned to be...).

"No canon" direction? You mean the fact that there is no canonical story? Why wouldn't I be happy with that? I could see it working either way, to be honest, but I like the idea of the world being reactive to your earlier choices and i suspect many others will as well.

Modifié par David Gaider, 27 juillet 2010 - 12:47 .

[David Gaider]

aberdash wrote...
A book is not a game.

I didn't say a book was a game. I said a story was a story. A story in a game is an interactive story.

And if you think being put in the role of the character and being told to decided how the story continues is the same a reading a book no wonder I've been dissapointed by every thing you've been a lead writer/designer of.

I think that books experiment with narrative structure, and there's no reason not to do it with games. There are possibilities with interactive storytelling that games have barely scratched. If you wish to stick to one narrow view of what you think it must be or what an RPG must be-- by all means do so. You're bound to be disappointed with a lot of things.

[David Gaider]

aberdash wrote...
You make it sound like this is some grand experiment that has never been tried before. It has and it failed when they did it. Why you think you can make this fundamentally flawed method or telling a games story will work is beyond me.

Ah, so you know exactly how we're doing it and how the story plays out. Well, I guess I can't argue with that, then.

[Mary Kirby]

aberdash wrote...

If you know of a game with a framed narrative that has had great commercial sucess I would love to see it.

Alpha Protocol was the last to do it and it flopped.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

[David Gaider]

aberdash wrote...
If you know of a game with a framed narrative that has had great commercial sucess I would love to see it.

Alpha Protocol was the last to do it and it flopped.

It's odd only because I so rarely see people on these forums suggesting we should only do what has been financially successful before.

Well, I guess we'll see, won't we? I suspect you'll dislike what we have planned-- most people who are determined enough to dislike something usually do-- but as a writer I've found it a fun and different take on our usual method of presenting a story. Take that as you will.

[David Gaider]

aberdash wrote...
My main concern is the narrative is going to be forcing me through the game. If there is enough that we can do between the major plot points then it wont bother me. If we can do side-quests, chat up our party members, screw around in camp for a while, explore a random cave, and then continue on with the story I'm fine with it.

I'm not going to go into details about how the story is laid out just yet... but of course you can do these things. Are you assuming you wouldn't?

[David Gaider]

slimgrin wrote...
Well, this is a Bioware game, which from my experience tend to be pretty focused on the main narrative rather than free-form gaming. I have to say I kinda assumed I wouldn't either. And lets face it, many have said the side quests in DA:O were lacking.

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing, then. He didn't ask if there was free-form world exploration a la Oblivion/Fallout-- of course we don't do that. But of course there will be plenty of side-quests to do, large and small, and things to do such as talking to your party members (among many others).

Modifié par David Gaider, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:32 .