245 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

More info http://social.biowar...1/index/3249780



-There are two narrators and one who appears to be a dwarf claims to have known Hawke and likes to exagerate about him stating he was 14 feet tall and could kill a hurlock with a single blow. The other appears to be a female human warrior who is trying to get information about Hawke and is asking the dwarf about him and the dwarf states "How do you know I wont make it up as I go?"

[Bryy_Miller]

aberdash wrote...

O rly?

I think you're mixing up the fact that it's still the player's story, and your choices do matter, with the idea of the framed narrative being a liar. Say that Varric says "and Hawke totally climbed the Giant Ogre's back for three days", when in reality, it took one catapult. It still happened.

[fchopin]

Herr Uhl wrote...

From the joystiq preview:

Thanks for the link.

[FedericoV]

aberdash wrote...

As I said earlier:

Just think of it as you being the dwarfs imagination and are playing out the events in his head. Thus deciding how he tells the story.

So, as I said earlier, according to your position than the story of the Odissey is how the events of Odysseus played in the head of Homer with the inspiration of the muses. Interesting, I've never looked that way . And sorry, I do not think that's like you put it.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:54 .

[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.

[aberdash]

FedericoV wrote...

So, as I said earlier, according to
your position than the story of the Odissey is how the events of
Odysseus played in the head of Homer with the inspiration of the muses.
Interesting, I've never looked that way [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]. And sorry, I do not think that's like you put it.

You are not playing a role in the odyssey.

Poems =/= games.

Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:58 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

fchopin wrote...

Randy1083 wrote...

aberdash wrote...

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?

Have to agree with this. Whats the point of dedicating a sequel to a story that for all we know was completely made up?

[pedantic]The story in the first game was completely made up, too.[/pedantic]

The point is to have fun and enjoy the game.

Yes but to be fun it has to make sense.

Evidently you havn't seen "Hot Tub Time Machine"... Continue with the disucssion...

[Super_Cat]

I like the looseness of the story telling in Dragon Age. It really helps you connect to the story you affect with your choices.

I've really loved how Bioware has continued to avoid declaring anything that was affected by players choice as official canon in one choice or the other.

It was really off putting to play through KOTOR as a female only to be told that the main character was canonically male. Of course I think that was the Star Wars/Lucasarts end that declared that and not Bioware.

Since Dragon Age is Bioware's alone they can leave the canon loose so all players can feel their choices are part of the real story.

Modifié par Super_Cat, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[aberdash]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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?

[tmp7704]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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

Totally getting a flashback to that Monkey Island 2 bit when you spend too long time hanging on the ropes and plummet into the acid pit of horrible death... highlight of the game.

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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 played the game? No? 

Do you know if you will get to see/play Hawke at the time of Cassandra's interrogation? No?

[Bryy_Miller]

aberdash wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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?

Dude, we've already given you examples of this thing in motion. I'm going to assume that you just get off on naysaying at this point.

[FedericoV]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thanks Mr. Gaider! Or Should I call you Dave :happy:?

I know that it's not very polite to abuse your presence on the board like that... but can I ask you a question I had in mind since DA2 has benn announced? I think that it's not OT.

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...).

[aberdash]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Dude, we've already given you
examples of this thing in motion. I'm going to assume that you just get
off on naysaying at this point.

k bai

Game developers rarely use this method of storytelling so one must assume there is a good reason why.

Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:09 .

[odiedragon]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I hope you are able (or, should I say, allowed to) hole true to that line.

I'm hard pressed to think of one single thing out of all the information we've been given about DA2 that I like, or a decision I agree with. The potential for hand-waving in this scenario given this narrative setup scares me the most out of everything we've learned.

Please stand firm if this is truly your position. I know it won't be easy, heck, I have no choice but to bend over and take it from my employer. The literally hold my life in their hands (thanks to political talk I won't get into here) at the moment. What we've learned about the changes in DA2 points to a lot of giving in and being blinded by Shepard-Dollars. I hope that trend can be mitigated in the future, and you will be able to not-handwave and still remain gainfully employed.

[fchopin]

Varric sounds more like Dandelion's writings on Geralt, he likes to exaggerate.

[FedericoV]

aberdash wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

So, as I said earlier, according to
your position than the story of the Odissey is how the events of
Odysseus played in the head of Homer with the inspiration of the muses.
Interesting, I've never looked that way [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]. And sorry, I do not think that's like you put it.

You are not playing a role in the odyssey.

Poems =/= games.

They are both part of the "storytelling family". The fact that you happen to (role)play the protagoinst, don't change the fact that you are telling a story. And still, you are confusing a literary trick used to tell the story in a better way, with the story itself.

[HTTP 404]

I think/guessing the narrative in DA2 will help keep certain things canon and transition the game to DA3.

[Bryy_Miller]

odiedragon wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I hope you are able (or, should I say, allowed to) hole true to that line.

This would fall under something Gaider is not in charge of, actually. So he'll write whatever path they bring him down.

[tmp7704]

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?

It's not like there's anything in game to prove things happened "for real" in DAO either. For all you know, your character may be just hallucinating the whole story while unconscious after taking the sip from the Joining cup.

[aberdash]

FedericoV wrote...

They are both part of the "storytelling
family". The fact that you happen to (role)play the protagoinst, don't
change the fact that you are telling a story. And still, you are
confusing a literary trick used to tell the story in a better way, with
the story itself.

In a game you must assume a role. A poem is read to you and requires no involvement on your part. Now in DA2 you can either assume your role is Hawke and that damn dwarf from the future keeps interrupting your roleplaying. Or you assume you are playing a the dwarf telling the story. To me the latter makes more sense.

Modifié par aberdash, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:21 .

[BlackyBlack]

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?

lol, this is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Can you really prove anything in Origins really happened and wasn't a dream by a Warden? Or can you prove Shepard did just hallucinate the Reapers? Or is there anything ingame in Alpha Protocol or The Witcher or BioShock or Half Life or ANY video game to really prove that that certain event really happened?

Actually, NONE of those things really happened. IT'S A FRAKING GAME

Modifié par BlackyBlack, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:24 .

[Addai]

tmp7704 wrote...

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?

It's not like there's anything in game to prove things happened "for real" in DAO either. For all you know, your character may be just hallucinating the whole story while unconscious after taking the sip from the Joining cup.

That would be a huge gotcha and there's no indication of such a thing, whereas a narrator framing a flashback would make it just so tempting to tomfool.

But I trust the writers not to implement it in gimmicky fashion, and this is the least of my worries about the new game, especially hearing that the intention is to let player agency rule.

[Bryy_Miller]

BlackyBlack wrote...

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?

lol, this is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Can you really prove anything in Origins really happened and wasn't a dream by a Warden? Or can you prove Shepard did just hallucinate the Reapers?

Actually, NONE of those things really happened. IT'S A FRAKING GAME

Don't even try, he's just trolling at this point.