245 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

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...

Oh cool, so my Hawke can still be a dwarf or an elf? History just remembered him/her as a human...

[FDrage]

FedericoV wrote...

Assassin Creed I & II. Successfull enough?

never played AC2, aside from technical "limitations", the main reason actually was the I was dissapointed with the way of story telling. It was kind of a surpirse to me with the "memory recall" technology. Such a surprise that I was completly disapointed and taken out of the setting. I kind of was expecting a complete historic setting ...  ... so from my point of view AC1 isn't a good example .



Anyway ... the way of story telling sounds, in principle, interesting and I'm all for some experimenting instead of doing the same old stuff. The one concern I got at present is that due to the narative structure the game ends of feeling too "episodic" or a bit "disconnected". Which not necessary is a bad thing, in principle, but could feel weird depending on the writing, storytellin elements and general game mechanics.
But then these are all my specuclations based on not much information ... will have to see how it developes as more info will be available.

[Quinnzel]

Think of the newgame+ though. You have the end of Verricks tale, he sits back down and smiles. Another old man appears, saying something like "Well ye see, wot I herd was..." played the right way the narrative could spiritually take that old formula of old men round an inn table arguing whose version of a legend is correct. Sort of how you can ask Morrigan which version of Flemmeths tale is the 'truth'

[FedericoV]

@FDRage: I liked AC I and loved AC II (you know, I live in Italy/Tuscany and I know the places of the game very welll. A strange but interesting experience indeed!). I think that the animus was a great trick to tell the story in an interesting and fresh way.

But our opinions are not the point. Aberdash asked to name a game with a frame/flashback narrative structure that has been successfull in term of sales and critic appraise. AC I and II sale's records have been great and the critical/fan acclaim for the sequel has been mostly unanimous.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:53 .

[Estelindis]

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.

I think AP's flop had little to do with its framed narrative, which was awesome, and more to do with controls, camera, and combat balance, which were somewhat lacking.  (That said, I enjoyed AP thoroughly and have already bought it twice: once for myself, and once for a friend.)

[AllThatJazz]

Estelindis wrote...

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.

I think AP's flop had little to do with its framed narrative, which was awesome, and more to do with controls, camera, and combat balance, which were somewhat lacking.  (That said, I enjoyed AP thoroughly and have already bought it twice: once for myself, and once for a friend.)

Agreed. The framed narrative was one of AP's strengths, I thought. Excellent story, well told, but with some clunky gameplay letting it down a little. Very enjoyable game, and if DA2 can implement a similar structure, but with more polish to the game, then I'm happy. 

[aberdash]

FedericoV wrote...

Assassin Creed I & II. Successfull enough?

More running and jumping and face stabbing. Apparently nobody can name an RPG that was succesfull. Because you know, we are talking about RPGs here.

[Artemis_Entrari]

aberdash wrote...
]More running and jumping and face stabbing. Apparently nobody can name an RPG that was succesfull. Because you know, we are talking about RPGs here.

What RPG do you even like?  I'm curious, because you pretty much crap on every single recent RPG known to man.

[aberdash]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

What RPG do you even like?  I'm curious, because you pretty much crap on every single recent RPG known to man.

NWN+KOTOR=every single recent rpg known to man. Good to know.

[Artemis_Entrari]

aberdash wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

What RPG do you even like?  I'm curious, because you pretty much crap on every single recent RPG known to man.

NWN+KOTOR=every single recent rpg known to man. Good to know.

You trashed AP, Jade Empire, ME1 and 2, you weren't overly fond of DA:O, and I'm going to assume you didn't like NWN2 or KOTOR2 either (feel free to correct me on that)

[aberdash]

I didn't trash AP I said it flopped. Never said anything about JE but yeah its a bad game. Never trashed ME1 or 2 but 1 definitely had flaws while I liked 2. NWN2 and KOTOR2 were huge improvements over the firsts but they suffered from obvious problems.

[Wittand25]

Did not have both Icewind Dale games have a narrator telling the story long after it was finished ?

Drakensang 2 similary has a dwarf telling a story that happened thirty years in the past as frame for the story. Having a narrator telling stories that already happened is not an uncommon feature for a RPG and if done right it can work rather well.

[Solid N7]

hahaha the whinners are really funny people, first they complain about they can´t play as dwarf in DA2, then they asume that you play as the dwarf varic and they are angry because you play as dwarf hahaha.

[Lem Lemoncloak]

aberdash wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Assassin Creed I & II. Successfull enough?

More running and jumping and face stabbing. Apparently nobody can name an RPG that was succesfull. Because you know, we are talking about RPGs here.

Not many RPGs have tried the framed narrative. So it's hard to find any example really.

And regarding AP, it didn't flop because of its framed narrative. On the contrary, it was one of its strengths.

[Solid N7]

to aberdash

Like I said to the other whinners and complainers if don´t like the change in DA2 then don´t buy period. OHHHH wait you don´t have any game in your profile, so you are thief and still complain haha how the mexicans says "lismonero y con garrote hahahaha"

[Roland Aseph]

Solid N7 wrote...

to aberdash
Like I said to the other whinners and complainers if don´t like the change in DA2 then don´t buy period. OHHHH wait you don´t have any game in your profile, so you are thief and still complain haha how the mexicans says "lismonero y con garrote hahahaha"

Nothing to see here, move along...just a Troll

[FedericoV]

aberdash wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Assassin Creed I & II. Successfull enough?

More
running and jumping and face stabbing. Apparently nobody can name an
RPG that was succesfull. Because you know, we are talking about RPGs
here.

No sir. You asked for a successfull game. Not a successfull RPG. Read again your answer.

I know RPG very well, since I've played them for more than 20 years and mostly pen and paper. There's nothing in flashbacks as a narrative structure that do not permit to sell a game. There have been many many many commericial failure in the history of CRPGs and they were mostly linear games. So, see? Your argument is flawed.

Btw, that sort of attitude towards action games (jumping and running) only show that your vision of gaming is narrow and that you have not played those game and that you don't even know what you're talking about.

Wich, at the end is the whole point of the discussion. You think that RPG are x, y and z since they have been mostly like that in the past you do not accept an innovation like framed narrative or flashbacks, only because it's new, using absurd argument like "you are playing the dwarf and not Hawke". 

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:29 .

[Jonathan Seagull]

Addai67 wrote...

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying.  If Hawke is having sexytime on screen, it's because Varric (sp?) is telling Cassandra about it.  Some Chantry chick.

Let me start with the obvious disclaimer that I don't know any more about the game than anyone else here (except the devs).  However...

I feel like people might be making more of the narrative device than is actually there.  In any game/movie/whatever where the story is being told by a character, I think there's a point where the audience can be reasonably expected to understand that they're actually being shown what happened, rather than implying that the existance of a narrator must mean that he or she is actually taking the time to talk about every single thing that we see.

For example, Forrest Gump is largely told as Forrest talking about his life, but I don't actually think that he's telling these strangers about how, as a boy, he naively mimicked the sounds the principal made while having sex with Forrest's mom.  Likewise, I don't think Varric will actually be talking about how "Then, we walked up to the guard, and the guard asked if we needed something, and Hawke said 'No,' and we kept walking."

Out of curiosity, aberdash, is this part of your concern as far as side-quests, random interactions, etc. go?  That since there's no reason for Varric to be talking about those things, there's no reason for them to be included?  If so, I would again say that I think people are probably making the narrative device more than it is.

[tmp7704]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

I feel like people might be making more of the narrative device than is actually there.  In any game/movie/whatever where the story is being told by a character, I think there's a point where the audience can be reasonably expected to understand that they're actually being shown what happened, rather than implying that the existance of a narrator must mean that he or she is actually taking the time to talk about every single thing that we see.

Getting the same impression; there seems to be very different ideas of the framed narrative than how they typically work out in games and/or movies. It's just a handy device to tie together events into cohesive whole and to fast-forward between points of interest, with a chance to thrown in some exposition the main character wouldn't be in position to know themselves. And for the most part, it's entirely off-screen.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

But David, I think some of us, even most of us, prefer to have a canonical understanding. I have no problem with retconning, essentially we do it all the time IRL when we find something new about a civilization or species that we didn't know before.  I don't like the idea of having no idea what actually happened. When you tell the story in the form you're going for in DA2 it kind of destroys any speculation of events and timeline. You have no idea if what you played actually happened, unless specified by the game, and thus when we get into discussions we could be assuming and going down the wrong route.

Take ME2 for example. I've read quite a few theories about how ME3 might play out, and while most are garbage, I'd wager a few are close to the mark (unless you do something completely new to the series), and thats a good thing. Their probably wrong on a lot of levels, but their all plausible.

I guess it's  just that I like to feel what I'm doing has meaning, and when there's a good chance it's nothing more than the wild mind of the narrator it has a lot less meaning. Even if I kill a bunch of innocent people it doesn't matter because they're still alive.

Another thought is that stories and universes tend to start out vague and go more into detail in later series. The first story may make reference to "A Great War Thousands of Years Ago" as a major event in the past. We don't know how it played out, but it's hopeful that the authors will elaborate on it later, be it a trilogy of it's own or a part of another title. That sense of enlightenment you get from finding out what really happened is gone when there's no cannon. The narrator could tell us that Side A started the war by invading Side B, when actually it was an attempt by Side A to send reinforcements to Side B that was completely misunderstood.


I doubt this all makes sense, it's just flowing from my head, but I just feel I'd rather be there as it's happening than be the figment of the narrators perspective.

[tmp7704]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

When you tell the story in the form you're going for in DA2 it kind of destroys any speculation of events and timeline. You have no idea if what you played actually happened

Since you played it, it happened. The narrator relates the story as you've personally shaped it "in the past". Sure, he may embellish when it comes to how big Mike Hawke really was, but how exactly do you imagine a move from that to "it never really happened, at all" would work? Is the external narrator's devious magic powers so great that he can make you hallucinate about making non-existing decisions and choices?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

tmp7704 wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

When you tell the story in the form you're going for in DA2 it kind of destroys any speculation of events and timeline. You have no idea if what you played actually happened

Since you played it, it happened. The narrator relates the story as you've personally shaped it "in the past". Sure, he may embellish when it comes to how big Mike Hawke really was, but how exactly do you imagine a move from that to "it never really happened, at all" would work? Is the external narrator's devious magic powers so great that he can make you hallucinate about making non-existing decisions and choices?

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. Might it of happened? Possibly. Did most of it happen? Probably. Does that mean he won't lie about something? Nope. He could tell the story of how we slayed the Beast of Mecktoch and we could play that level while in actuallity Hawke was 300 miles away when that monster was slain. 

[Grommash94]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

When you tell the story in the form you're going for in DA2 it kind of destroys any speculation of events and timeline. You have no idea if what you played actually happened

Since you played it, it happened. The narrator relates the story as you've personally shaped it "in the past". Sure, he may embellish when it comes to how big Mike Hawke really was, but how exactly do you imagine a move from that to "it never really happened, at all" would work? Is the external narrator's devious magic powers so great that he can make you hallucinate about making non-existing decisions and choices?

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. Might it of happened? Possibly. Did most of it happen? Probably. Does that mean he won't lie about something? Nope. He could tell the story of how we slayed the Beast of Mecktoch and we could play that level while in actuallity Hawke was 300 miles away when that monster was slain. 

But, what if it is like: You play it, you go to a city, you are jailed, you break free and kill your jailor, who is an arl...but then it skips to a cutscene where Verrik is saying that Hawke rushed into the city, and, after slaying thousands of guards, killed the conniving arl. So you know what happens, but Verrik makes up a lie, which you know is actually a lie.

Modifié par Grommash94, 27 juillet 2010 - 10:54 .

[tmp7704]

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.

[Bryy_Miller]

aberdash wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Assassin Creed I & II. Successfull enough?

More running and jumping and face stabbing. Apparently nobody can name an RPG that was succesfull. Because you know, we are talking about RPGs here.

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

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:21 .