245 réponses à ce sujet

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

tmp7704 wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

He's telling a story, you're playing the character of the story. You aren't playing Hawke, you're playing Hawke as told by the narrator. At least, that's my understanding of it.

I think this is reversing the cause and effect, so to speak -- as i understand it, the segments you play establish the way things actually happened "x years in the past" and the dwarf is simply relating this "in the present" to the other NPC who wants to find out what Hawke is/was like.

Which is very similar to how in Alpha Protocol and such games you actively play past events and that is being related by the character to another "in the present" -- no one is making distinction about those that you "aren't playing X but X as told by X" Somehow the difference from that in having narrator be a separate person seems to be throwing people off.

Well I hope that's the case. It is my understanding from what I've read, though, that it isn't. Any confirmation from the devs? I'd be very interested to know.

[aberdash]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Oh, but you see, Dear Abby, you did not say "name one RPG", you said "name one GAME". Nice try, though.

Still hanging around trying to take pot shots at me? Do you really have nothing better to do? 

They were successful because of running and jumping and "in the face!". People couldn't care less about their stories considering reviews call assassins creeds story bad and dont even mention prince of persias. By all means if the people that want these titles to have somehow proven me wrong and claim a hollow victory then by all means go ahead. I'll just be here waiting for a successful game to be mentioned with a solid story that was told in framed narrative to be mentioned somewhere.

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Oh, but you see, Dear Abby, you did not say "name one RPG", you said "name one GAME". Nice try, though.

Still hanging around trying to take pot shots at me? Do you really have nothing better to do? 

They were successful because of running and jumping and "in the face!". People couldn't care less about their stories considering reviews call assassins creeds story bad and dont even mention prince of persias. By all means if the people that want these titles to have somehow proven me wrong and claim a hollow victory then by all means go ahead. I'll just be here waiting for a successful game to be mentioned with a solid story that was told in framed narrative to be mentioned somewhere.

Sorry, but reviews are not always accurate. The only way to judge a game for its story...is to actually play the game.

[aberdash]

I've played AC2 and part of AC1 and wasn't too impressed. Most of my time was spent jumping from building to building and stabbing guards.

[tmp7704]

aberdash wrote...

People couldn't care less about their stories considering reviews call assassins creeds story bad and dont even mention prince of persias.

If the story of the game isn't called bad (while the other is) then perhaps the story of the first game wasn't actually found bad at all. And weren't you trying to make a point that no game ever with this approach to narrative was successful because of such narrative? Yet you were given example of successful game where such narrative didn't even register as annoyance. Maybe it's less of issue for average player than you try to make it sound and they're more open minded for such things?

Hmm that reminds me, Max Payne games also used this format. They were successful, and the approach to the story was actually one of the praised elements if i remember right.

[aberdash]

Well then I stand corrected. Framed narrative is perfectly fine when the game doesn't require you to give 2 ****s about the story.

Like I said great gameplay makes up for a lot. Civ has no story at all and you'd be hard pressed for find anyone that would say they are bad games.

Modifié par aberdash, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:23 .

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

I've played AC2 and part of AC1 and wasn't too impressed. Most of my time was spent jumping from building to building and stabbing guards.

I'd encourage you to play the entire Prince of Persia stories...because the story is actually interesting.

[tmp7704]

No game ever requires to give 2 stars about the story. It doesn't mean no one ever cares, though.

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

Well then I stand corrected. Framed narrative is perfectly fine when the game doesn't require you to give 2 ****s about the story.

Like I said great gameplay makes up for a lot. Civ has no story at all and you'd be hard pressed for find anyone that would say they are bad games.

As has been said, many, many times, AP was praised for its story...its just that the gameplay was really, really bad.

[aberdash]

tmp7704 wrote...

No game ever requires to give 2 stars about the story. It doesn't mean no one ever cares, though.

If you weren't playing bioware games for the story you'd stop about 10 minutes in.

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

No game ever requires to give 2 stars about the story. It doesn't mean no one ever cares, though.

If you weren't playing bioware games for the story you'd stop about 10 minutes in.

Actually, a lot of people didn't like Dragon Age's story. They loved the characters and the world though; thats what got them hooked.

[tmp7704]

Why, are you saying BioWare games have no other interesting aspects but their story?

Because it looks plenty people got their kicks out of DA because of its combat system alone. Horses for courses and all that.

(and by the same token some people can actually pay attention to story in games other than RPGs, too)

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:31 .

[aberdash]

DA has an ok combat system but it pales in comparison to what it was trying to imitate, BG combat. ME2 and DA have combat that can keep you entertained but besides them bg2-present day has just been a snooze fest gameplay wise.

[tishyw]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...
 The ability to choose where you'd go next was just another choice, for the sake of replayability, really, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO DO IT. That's the only thing you controlled - the choices your character made. Anything else was a pre-determined consequence TO THOSE CHOICES. It's an illusion, nothing more.

True, but my concern with the framed narrative is that even these few choices are being taken away from us.  For example when the warden left Lothering there was a choice of where to go - the circle Tower, Redcliffe, etc - you could do these in any order that you liked.  You could also revisit any of these place at any time.  For example I needed to go back to Redcliffe because I had the bug where the Elven boots didn't appear, but I wasn't sure if it was the bug or if I'd just missed them, so I went back to check.

From what the devs have said, with the framed narrative that's being used, we'll be bundled from one area to another with no say in where we're going or the order that we do it, and with no option of going back if we missed something.

So yes, while our choices in DA:O were only superficial, from what we've heard it appears that they will be even more limited in DA2, which makes it less like a RPG and more like a platform game.

[tmp7704]

tishyw wrote...

True, but my concern with the framed narrative is that even these few choices are being taken away from us.  For example when the warden left Lothering there was a choice of where to go - the circle Tower, Redcliffe, etc - you could do these in any order that you liked.  You could also revisit any of these place at any time.  For example I needed to go back to Redcliffe because I had the bug where the Elven boots didn't appear, but I wasn't sure if it was the bug or if I'd just missed them, so I went back to check.

From what the devs have said, with the framed narrative that's being used, we'll be bundled from one area to another with no say in where we're going or the order that we do it, and with no option of going back if we missed something.

There's probably a difference here caused by the fact the storyline also moves through time -- much like in DAO you couldn't visit Lothering once it was burnt down, and you couldn't defeat archdemon in Denerim until the Landsmeet was done, and that in turn couldn't happen until you had your treaties all arranged.

Although it doesn't rule out making choices, per se. For example, nothing prevents the framed narrative from including a scene where Hawke actually chooses whether they go to place A or the place B, and the action then unfolding accordingly.

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 juillet 2010 - 02:26 .

[FedericoV]

aberdash wrote...

Well then I stand corrected. Framed narrative is perfectly fine when the game doesn't require you to give 2 ****s about the story.

You're wrong. AC 1/2 background story is really interesting and fresh. AC is a successfull franchise mostly for the good graphics/cinematic approach and the narrative/storytelling. Gameplay is what have been mostly criticized by the players and the franchise would have failed if it was for gameplay alone (especially the first game). Honestly, AC story is more "original" (whatever it could mean for a game) than DA:O's one (wich is the same old story that Bioware is telling since the time of Kotor). DA:O is written very well and have some fantastic joinable NPC. There is some good world building there (nothing that I could not find in a good D&D expansion... but still better than average). But the story is unoriginal at best.  The fact that a game does not have choices and consequences for players, does not mean that the story is bull**** or that players do not care about it while playing the game. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 28 juillet 2010 - 11:03 .

[FedericoV]

tishyw wrote...

From what the devs have said, with the framed narrative that's being used, we'll be bundled from one area to another with no say in where we're going or the order that we do it, and with no option of going back if we missed something.

Well, imho it's too soon to reach those kind of conclusion. I understand your concern but probably we will have some kind of freedom to choose the order of Varric's. Or maybe our choices during Hawke's story will determine the sequence of tales. Or maybe in the 10 years of history of Hawke there will be a longer "tale" that we'll give us more room for exploration.

Having said that: DA:O's was not a sandbox game and there was more the illusion of free adventuring that the reality of it. I would not be surprised if 90% of the payers would have played the game areas in the same sequence (tower of the chantry, redcliffe, brecilian forest, urn of sacred ashes, orzhammar, deep roads with chantry/redcliffe as the only alternative in most playthrough).