245 réponses à ce sujet

[jackkel dragon]

I believe someone mentioned Alpha Protocol? That's a gerneral idea of what we'll get with the narrative. We'll get some opening to the scene, play the game, then the narrator will shape the story around our game choices.

And a no-canon route is great for connectivity. Suppossedly (not holding breath) DAO choices will continue to carry on through imports in games like DA2 and future Dragon Age games. Of course, there is a "default/canon" for people who haven't played the other games, but not taking a solid stance on what specifically happened in Dragon Age is a good move. Why? Ticks less people off. (Example? KOTOR. Revan = Man, Exile = Woman? That's not how I played it...)

[guru7892]

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...

... like jesus?

[jackkel dragon]

guru7892 wrote...

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...

... like jesus?

Due to religious proclivities, I'm not sure if I like where you're going. But you have a good point: 4 gospels in the Bible, with different depictions of Jesus. One is more divine, one is more human, etc. And that's not counting the gospels that were rejected early on...

But I've seen bad things happen to good threads when religion appears. I suggest moving on, saying "yeah, it's a bit like that."

[Roland Aseph]

Mary Kirby 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?

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.

I'm in the midst of playing it now...and I'm sorry I just don't/didn't have that take on what's going on. I felt my character was "in the time" and I was guiding him and his party from quest to quest and onward to the next local and adventure.

I've never felt that I was playing a myth or fable that "might" be inaccurately remembered.

I've felt like "I" was making the History as I played.

That's completely different from what I'm seeing DA2 is all about...

[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 .

[sporky1]

David Gaider 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?

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.

In Tim O'brien's Things They Carried, a True War Story is defined not by something that actually happened, but that strikes true in finding meaning in war. In other words, even though a story can be completely fake, its point is what makes the story true. It may sound absolutely insane that Hawke does all the things the 3rd person narrator says, but if his version sounds believable in the context of the turbulent state that the events took place.

Oh, and I love how people are criticizing the writer's for not telling the player's what actually happened. Its a game, so it obviously never happened. If anything, the idea that what we se in the game may not necessarily be true just bring it closer to reality.

[Kileyan]

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.

Thanks for the info. I do admit a bit of a  nagging feeling in the back of my mind, when I saw the narrative style set up, was that we'd play our hearts out, create our really cool and powerful version of Hawke, and at the end all we'd learn that everything he was supposed to have done was exxageration, luck and lies.

I mean, those kind of , it was all a dream tropes are popular in movies, and not beyond a game dev trying out. It was only a small nagging feeling, I didn't think you'd really end someones 10-25 hours of play by saying it was all a dream, but I still feel better seeing what you just said!

[aberdash]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

A book is not a game. 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.

Modifié par aberdash, 27 juillet 2010 - 12:59 .

[BlackyBlack]

aberdash wrote...

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.

So you didn't even like DAO ? So, you're just trolling

[aberdash]

I wouldn't say I didn't like it I would say I think it is much less than it could have been.

BG: ToB was a huge disappointment but I wouldn't say I hated it. The NWN expansions were as bad as the core game. And KOTOR was a god awful game.

Modifié par aberdash, 27 juillet 2010 - 01:05 .

[sporky1]

aberdash wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

A book is not a game. 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.

...Seems you completely misread his quote. He is not calling a game a book. Every type of art, including a game, has a story behind it. Games are fun because you play a part in the story. They are not the same, but certainly similar. The story element of a game is great if it reaches the level a book can, in addition to great graphics, combat, etc.

[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.

[BlackyBlack]

aberdash wrote...

And KOTOR was a god awful game.

[aberdash]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

[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.

[Roland Aseph]

David Gaider 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?

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.

This isn't the same thing as just a plain old story. Come on, surly you get the argument here??

You've already set the story and "canon" if you will into place. We have the World and Histories you created.

We played a game/story IN that world and fans want more.

But you're not giving us a new experience in the DA IP and world. This is a re-telling of a Tale that may or may not be accurate...and from what we've been told thus far, various parts are indeed embellished and/or exaggerated.

This weakens the power and meaning of the narrative across the board. And by creating a fableized (?sp) character and placing them in a story/game setting that is "already" been lived multiplies the problem. We're no longer carving out our own path (within a set framework granted) but rather re-living a set destiny that's already happened and now being retold by someone who's very ability to recall the facts is in question lol

The whole idea for this game as well as the drastic changes in graphic style continues to scream that this should of never been considered a Sequel but rather it's own stand alone game. I mean it's not even an accurate representation of the IP, it's a fairytale in the IP...so how exactly is that suppose to really matter to anyone in the end?

Sorry but the whole premise just doesn't work for me.

Of all the lands and colorful characters that could of been used to further the players experience...this along with all the other changes seems to be the biggest stretch you could of taken.

Guess we'll see if it pays off or not.

Modifié par Roland Aseph, 27 juillet 2010 - 01:18 .

[aberdash]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

Modifié par aberdash, 27 juillet 2010 - 01:18 .

[Kileyan]

aberdash wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

Name the top 3 in your mind that were a failure? Ya know, the ones that already proved this was a fundamentally flawed experiment.

This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things. Bioware catches a lot of flack for their predictable decade old hub style, stories. Yet if they try something different, they are told to stick with what works.

I"m cool with a different style of story telling, as long was when it is all over, the story really did friggin happen!

[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