12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Can't at the moment. Studying.

BTW, just as a completely random note. When a girl asks me to tell her about history (specifically Islamic / Arabic history), my stomach gets a weird case of butterflies.

[ejoslin]

greengoron89 wrote...

I'm curious about something: in some YouTube videos I've seen, the final dialogue with Loghain before dealing the killing blow to the Archdemon is a little different from what I keep experiencing. In the video, Loghain states "I would've expected you to kill me for what I did to you, yet you did not. You've proven a friend."

In my playthroughs, however, he's never said that last part about proving to be a friend. I don't understand how to get this extra bit of dialogue - does anyone here know what I'm doing wrong?

You're not doing anything wrong. That comment from Loghain only happens if he's friendly, and in the vanilla game that cannot happen. If you're on a PC you can use the console to get him to friendly, or you can use an optional component of my mod that enables the switch to happen.

Modifié par ejoslin, 24 octobre 2011 - 01:22 .

[tklivory]

Sooooo...

Politics as portrayed in games (excluding RTS, because otherwise it would kick all the other games' asses, so i'm limiting it)

I think (from what I've read, since I haven't actually played it) that DA2 is the coloring book of politics in games - strong lines that can only be inexpertly filled in as you progress because there just isn't much substance there to start with and, no matter what you do, you can't change the outline.

On the other end of the spectrum lie the blank canvas and oils of Deus Ex (the first one) and Culpa Innata, games with amazing amounts of detail and a heavy reliance on politics to propel the gameplay forward, and forces the player to make judgments in the game that reverberate through the entire playthrough and influence the rest of the gaming world in which you play.

In games that have a pre-determined story, what are your favorite games with *real* politics, and why?  Where do they excel?  Where do they fail?  Is politics integrated into the gameplay itself, or merely used as just another plot device?

I ask because in these forums I've seen two game series often get compared with each other: Dragon Age and The Witcher, and usually in those conversations politics and its portrayal are invoked.  I would therefore be especially curious as to how people view these series vis a vis the politics explicitly and implicitly laid out in the games.

Discuss.

Modifié par tklivory, 26 octobre 2011 - 05:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...

Politics as portrayed in games (excluding RTS, because otherwise it would kick all the other games' asses, so i'm limiting it)

I have not played any RTS that portrays politics that well (barring maybe the Total War series but they are illustrating the real world). RTS usually have great political settings, but in the story itself, it's not that great.

I think (from what I've read, since I haven't actually played it) that DA2 is the coloring book of politics in games - strong lines that can only be inexpertly filled in as you progress because there just isn't much substance there to start with and, no matter what you do, you can't change the outline.

Not even, because those lines make little sense to begin with and are not political.

On the other end of the spectrum lie the blank canvas and oils of Deus Ex (the first one) and Culpa Innata, games with amazing amounts of detail and a heavy reliance on politics to propel the gameplay forward, and forces the player to make judgments in the game that reverberate through the entire playthrough and influence the rest of the gaming world in which you play.

Based on my experience of DX:HR, Deus Ex is less about politics and more about philosophy. The political  dynamics, which were small, were in service of the broad ideas and themes. 

The best way to describe it imo is that it's leaning towards Political Theory.

In games that have a pre-determined story, what are your favorite games with *real* politics, and why?  Where do they excel?  Where do they fail?  Is politics integrated into the gameplay itself, or merely used as just another plot device?

Without a doubt, The Witcher 2. Because it has no bipolar dichotomy, no heroes vs villains, no idiots vs the insane, no supernatural elements stripping human agency, with several more or less competent and reasonable major and minor factions all interelated in a vast web of political intrigue, all culminating in the Loc Muinne Conference in Act 3.

TW2 excells in international relations and political intrigue. I would not say it failed perse, but it does not explore domestic politics as much (barring the Pontar Valley on Iorveth's path). I would have been interested to find out more about Redania's domestic politics, but it would not make that much sense to explore it entirely. Also the Temerian civil war was not explored either, which while understandable, could have been hinted at more in Act 1. 
But those our minor isues, in general TW2 excells in that regard.

Not sure I understand your last question. If you consider choices to be part of gameplay, then yea politics is integrated in the gameplay, though within reason, Geralt is a lone Witcher on a hot chase, he is not supposed to be political influencial. In some areas, it is used as a plot device and Iorveth's path kind of forces Geralt to fight with Saskia (albeit he can have different reasons as to why), while on Roche, Geralt is not with Henselt perse. But that for me is not a big deal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 octobre 2011 - 05:39 .

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have not played any RTS that portrays politics that well (barring maybe the Total War series but they are illustrating the real world). RTS usually have great political settings, but in the story itself, it's not that great.

Well, I'll admit I'm not an RTS player, mostly.  Maybe I was fooled by the names (Civilization, Total Empire, &c)   I thought Tropico at least would be political.  I mean, don't you play a dictator?

Not even, because those lines make little sense to begin with and are not political.

Not political in terms of governance, perhaps, but political in terms of 'polis', which religion is a huge part of (and the 'pro or anti Chantry' bit seems a large part of the plot in DA2).  The Chantry (like the IRL religions it is partially patterned after) does wield great influence in Thedas and the governing thereof.  Now, obviously, not having played DA2 I'm extrapolating based on what I've read, I used the coloring book analogy because I meant that the lines can't be changed, even if the player does everything else the way they want to.  Which shows a definite step back in DAO, where political intervention was direct and immediate.  I've wondered, in DA2, what good is it, as Hawke, to be a 'great power' or Champion or whatever, but never use it in for political means?

Based on my experience of DX:HR, Deus Ex is less about politics and more about philosophy. The political  dynamics, which were small, were in service of the broad ideas and themes.

The best way to describe it imo is that it's leaning towards Political Theory.

I was referring to the original Deus Ex, sorry for the confusion.  Though I haven't played DX:HR (yet), I've discussed it with those who have, and they agree that in DX:HR, the 'politics' are relativistic and used as set pieces and backdrops, not really engaged with (reduced to Political Theory, as you say).  The original DX was a bit more gutsy, though you don't directly change the people at the top of the system.

Without a doubt, The Witcher 2. Because it has no bipolar dichotomy, no heroes vs villains, no idiots vs the insane, no supernatural elements stripping human agency, with several more or less competent and reasonable major and minor factions all interelated in a vast web of political intrigue, all culminating in the Loc Muinne Conference in Act 3.

TW2 excells in international relations and political intrigue. I would not say it failed perse, but it does not explore domestic politics as much (barring the Pontar Valley on Iorveth's path). I would have been interested to find out more about Redania's domestic politics, but it would not make that much sense to explore it entirely. Also the Temerian civil war was not explored either, which while understandable, could have been hinted at more in Act 1. 
But those our minor isues, in general TW2 excells in that regard.

TW2 did have an advantage in that it was able to draw from a rich tapestry of pre-existing written work in the novels and short stories, rather than having it all created for the game.  For instance, one of my favorite games (the which I've already mentioned) was Betrayal at Krondor, and one reason I liked it was because of the relation it had to the series of novels by Feist.  I'm not saying TW2 cheated or anything , but it did have the leg-up in terms of previous world-building.  Rather than creating from whole cloth, they were able to adapt.

Of course, they did a phenomenal job of doing so, which is all on the development team for being able to take something from such a rich origin and distil it into an experience that was also good as a game.  (*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Digression aside, from the political point of view, TW2 (aside from previously stated benefit) also succeeded because it didn't treat the player like an idiot, but expected you to come up to their level.  As much as I love DAO, I felt beat over the head on occasion with some of the more heavy handed methods of establishing what the PC should be feeling.  (I mean, really?  Did Cailan have to be *that* much of a glory-hound to contrast with Loghain's divergent philosophy? <_<)  In DAO, you are handed a bastard son or a widow and told 'Now choose!'.  In TW2, the tapestry is more complex and varied - and you're not expected to *do* anything about all of it, but you better damn well be aware of it, and accept the consequences of your actions based on your knowledge.

Not sure I understand your last question. If you consider choices to be part of gameplay, then yea politics is integrated in the gameplay, though within reason, Geralt is a lone Witcher on a hot chase, he is not supposed to be political influencial. In some areas, it is used as a plot device and Iorveth's path kind of forces Geralt to fight with Saskia (albeit he can have different reasons as to why), while on Roche, Geralt is not with Henselt perse. But that for me is not a big deal.

Yes, to an extent that is what I meant.  In DAO, for example, the 'political' choice boils down to Anora vs. Alistair, but the real choice is Loghan live vs. die, which is not *entirely* a political choice (though you can certainly RP it that way), and thus I would qualify as a plot device as the choice with the most affect on gameplay is the Loghain one and not the Anora vs. Alistair one. (Same with Bhelen vs. Harrowmont, no actual difference in gameplay).  Whereas in a game like Fallout New Vegas, who you choose to side with directly affects what doors are open, what quests are available, and what other people think about your PC, and that choice is a political choice because you are siding/fighting people who control that little slice o' the world.  TW2 has a mixture of mechanics and gameplay choices, and, like the Eastern European world the author comes from, no man can escape from the machinations of those at the top.  In this sense, although Geralt doesn't control all the politics or political events in the game, the politics is a much greater part of the gameplay than in DAO or FNV.

Hmmm... Hopefully some of that made sense.

Modifié par tklivory, 26 octobre 2011 - 09:13 .

[Costin_Razvan]

(*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Battle For Middle Earth I REALLY begs to differ.

[tklivory]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

(*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Battle For Middle Earth I REALLY begs to differ.

Oh, right, forgot about that one...  But weren't RTS excluded from this discussion?

*ahem*

*sigh* and still no good non-RTS LOTR game... *sniff*

Better?  

[Odin2040]

As far as Loghain goes, I believe he may have let Cailan die because of Anora as well. I just played the Return to Ostagar dlc and read Cailan's private letters. That pervert Eamon (with his child bride) wanted Cailan to marry a young-er girl (I stress younger because Anora wasn't even 30 then) so he could have sons. Cailan was allegedly upset over this but in the end he was exchanging letters with Empress Celene and she was even going to come visit if it were not for the Darkspawn invasion.

That one letter that mentioned a "permanent alliance" was crumpled and then smoothed out. If Loghain read this, I can see why he was furious. Maric's son was entertaining the idea of leaving his daughter (or as Eamon said "putting her aside"). Not only that, the one he is leaving her for is an ORLESIAN! (his most hated enemies). And the cherry on top is that this is no ordinary Orlesian, she's the EMPRESS! To forever unite the country his family and commarades died to protect and free to the ones that enslaved it for decades.

If this was the ultimate reason for his betrayal, then I couldn't blame him.

Of course, trying to kill me was personal, so I still defeated him in front of everyone in the end. But still...

[Costin_Razvan]

If I could kill Cailan myself I would.

Gladly even.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

If I could kill Cailan myself I would.

Gladly even.

Even this would have made me feel better. . .


"What, me worry? 'Tis a glorious day!"

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

(*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Battle For Middle Earth I REALLY begs to differ.

Is it good?  Lore-conforming?  The spouse owns it, but I stopped trying to play Tolkien games after being disgusted by LOTRO.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
Well, I'll admit I'm not an RTS player, mostly.  Maybe I was fooled by the names (Civilization, Total Empire, &c)   I thought Tropico at least would be political.  I mean, don't you play a dictator?

Dont know it.

Not political in terms of governance, perhaps, but political in terms of 'polis', which religion is a huge part of (and the 'pro or anti Chantry' bit seems a large part of the plot in DA2).  The Chantry (like the IRL religions it is partially patterned after) does wield great influence in Thedas and the governing thereof. 

Even then, the inner Chantry dynamics are not explored and instead we get a plethora of incompetent and stupid characters. It did not explore the Chantry more than origins, indeed it may have done even less exploration. In DA:O, we had people like Genitivi and Justine who showed us or at least hinted at the inner ideological differences. DA2 had none of that barring Petrice's extreme stance against the Qunari, but the entire plot there was isolated from the main plot of the story. 

TW2 did have an advantage in that it was able to draw from a rich tapestry of pre-existing written work in the novels and short stories, rather than having it all created for the game.  For instance, one of my favorite games (the which I've already mentioned) was Betrayal at Krondor, and one reason I liked it was because of the relation it had to the series of novels by Feist.  I'm not saying TW2 cheated or anything , but it did have the leg-up in terms of previous world-building.  Rather than creating from whole cloth, they were able to adapt.

Of course, they did a phenomenal job of doing so, which is all on the development team for being able to take something from such a rich origin and distil it into an experience that was also good as a game.  (*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Digression aside, from the political point of view, TW2 (aside from previously stated benefit) also succeeded because it didn't treat the player like an idiot, but expected you to come up to their level.  As much as I love DAO, I felt beat over the head on occasion with some of the more heavy handed methods of establishing what the PC should be feeling.  (I mean, really?  Did Cailan have to be *that* much of a glory-hound to contrast with Loghain's divergent philosophy? <_<)  In DAO, you are handed a bastard son or a widow and told 'Now choose!'.  In TW2, the tapestry is more complex and varied - and you're not expected to *do* anything about all of it, but you better damn well be aware of it, and accept the consequences of your actions based on your knowledge.

I am not sure it has that much of an advantage, when it's taking the setting to places it  didn't go to before. And Thedas is inspired in many ways by our own history, so I do not think TW2 holds that great of an advantage.

And indeed, TW is much more subtle and less about polarized extremes (like Bhelen vs Harrowmont, though I still consider it the highlight of Origins alongside Loghain). What I really loved about Origins was Eamon's ambiguous position, he added a lot of subtelty and a whole different perspective on the Landsmeet. But in general, like you said, Bioware games are not subtle and like to beat us on the head with forced bipolar dichotomies. DA2 took that to the extreme, and decided that in order to make a situation murky, all 2 factions have to be made totally idiotic and / or insane. TW1 and 2 handled it very differently.

I think it's more pertinente to compare TW1 with DA2 as both deal with the escallation and breaking out of a conflict between a religious military order and an oppressed minority. The former was subtle, intelligent and nuanced. The latter....not so much.

Yes, to an extent that is what I meant.  In DAO, for example, the 'political' choice boils down to Anora vs. Alistair, but the real choice is Loghan live vs. die, which is not *entirely* a political choice (though you can certainly RP it that way), and thus I would qualify as a plot device as the choice with the most affect on gameplay is the Loghain one and not the Anora vs. Alistair one. (Same with Bhelen vs. Harrowmont, no actual difference in gameplay).  Whereas in a game like Fallout New Vegas, who you choose to side with directly affects what doors are open, what quests are available, and what other people think about your PC, and that choice is a political choice because you are siding/fighting people who control that little slice o' the world.  TW2 has a mixture of mechanics and gameplay choices, and, like the Eastern European world the author comes from, no man can escape from the machinations of those at the top.  In this sense, although Geralt doesn't control all the politics or political events in the game, the politics is a much greater part of the gameplay than in DAO or FNV.

Well the choice in Act 1 on who to side with provides a rather big difference in the game itself. But it's also following a narrative, so yea i'd agree that TW2 does both and I like it that way. It would not make sense for Geralt to be too influencial in a game that spans a few weeks at most. 

While I would not consider it political perse, Alpha Protocol had the best implemented rise to power, should one elect to go on that path. It is based on cumulative choices and not just one at the very end. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 octobre 2011 - 06:56 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai67 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

(*sigh* and still no good LOTR game... *sniff*)

Battle For Middle Earth I REALLY begs to differ.

Is it good?  Lore-conforming?  The spouse owns it, but I stopped trying to play Tolkien games after being disgusted by LOTRO.

They only had a movie license at the time so they could only follow the plot of the movie, which they did very very well. Sure there's some changes....like hey BOROMIR lives ( though he can die if you fail a side quest ) but that's in the Good Campaign.

In the Evil Campaign you pretty much conquer Rohan, then Gondor. Kill Frodo and Sam, take the Ring and burn Minas Tirith.

It's a very good game in terms of gameplay...well my perspective and they do have 3 big actors from the movies playing in the game.

BFME2, which I don't consider as good as BFME1 in terms of gameplay has a more interesting plot: The War in the North. Following Glorfindel and Gloin as they battle it out across the north against Sauron's Horde. Then there's the fall of Dol Guldor.

BFME2: Rise of the Witch King follows the fall of Arnor, it's the most interesting of them all.

 While I would not consider it political perse, Alpha Protocol had the best implemented rise to power, should one elect to go on that path. It is based on cumulative choices and not just one at the very end.  

"I can make the world any way I want."

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Boromir's horn of Gondor in that game was badass.

[Costin_Razvan]

Simon Templeman narrating the tutorial was awesome...

Sigh shame EA shut down the MP servers.

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Even then, the inner Chantry dynamics are not explored and instead we get a plethora of incompetent and stupid characters. It did not explore the Chantry more than origins, indeed it may have done even less exploration. In DA:O, we had people like Genitivi and Justine who showed us or at least hinted at the inner ideological differences. DA2 had none of that barring Petrice's extreme stance against the Qunari, but the entire plot there was isolated from the main plot of the story. 

Incompetent and stupid characters?  Why did you not like the game, then?

Again, I can't discuss DA2 directly as I haven't played it yet, but from the reviews/videos/blogs I've read about it, I feel like they really portrayed the Chantry much more simple and one-sided.  Which makes me a little sad...

I am not sure it has that much of an advantage, when it's taking the setting to places it  didn't go to before. And Thedas is inspired in many ways by our own history, so I do not think TW2 holds that great of an advantage.

Advantages only in that the details of the characters, timeline, nations, etc were made before the game began development.  DG et al had to make up all that stuff themselves.  Also, I see Thedas as based on Western fantasy motifs more than history, but that may just be me...

And indeed, TW is much more subtle and less about polarized extremes (like Bhelen vs Harrowmont, though I still consider it the highlight of Origins alongside Loghain). What I really loved about Origins was Eamon's ambiguous position, he added a lot of subtelty and a whole different perspective on the Landsmeet. But in general, like you said, Bioware games are not subtle and like to beat us on the head with forced bipolar dichotomies. DA2 took that to the extreme, and decided that in order to make a situation murky, all 2 factions have to be made totally idiotic and / or insane. TW1 and 2 handled it very differently.

I think it's more pertinente to compare TW1 with DA2 as both deal with the escallation and breaking out of a conflict between a religious military order and an oppressed minority. The former was subtle, intelligent and nuanced. The latter....not so much.

Club to head, eh?  *sigh*

Well the choice in Act 1 on who to side with provides a rather big difference in the game itself. But it's also following a narrative, so yea i'd agree that TW2 does both and I like it that way. It would not make sense for Geralt to be too influencial in a game that spans a few weeks at most. 

While I would not consider it political perse, Alpha Protocol had the best implemented rise to power, should one elect to go on that path. It is based on cumulative choices and not just one at the very end. 

Another one on my 'have bought and haven't played yet' list.  Can't wait for Christmas break...

Modifié par tklivory, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:07 .

[Plaintiff]

Depth doesn't change the fact that he's a paranoid schizophrenic with a penchant for backstabbing.

I wouldn't trust him with a cup of coffee.

[Persephone]

Plaintiff wrote...

Depth doesn't change the fact that he's a paranoid schizophrenic with a penchant for backstabbing.

He's neither paranoid (As WH, Awakening and DAII confirm his suspicions) nor is he a schizophrenic. (That's wrong by definition)

And backstabbing? Depends on your interpretation of events. Past recruitment, he is 100% loyal and willing to deal the killing blow so you may live. So, no, definitely no backstabbing there.

[Costin_Razvan]

How does Witch Hunt confirm what Loghain thinks?

[KnightofPhoenix]

The bannorn turning to Redcliffe for leadership? I'd say that's more of a reaction to his political incompetence.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 octobre 2011 - 09:01 .

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The bannorn turning to Redcliffe for leadership? I'd say that's more of a reaction to his political incompetence.

That and Orlesian friendly as well as married to an Orlesian Arl Eamon pulling the strings.

[Costin_Razvan]

I got thinking today about why I like Loghain and it occurs to me that after playing Alpha Protocol and the Witcher Games I just don't think he is that great in the game as I think he is.

Rather it's his voice acting, his love for his country and vastly more important the two BLOODY YEARS I spent arguing for him that makes dear to me...that and having such interesting discussions in this thread. I don't look back at any character in DA:O as being memorable, not even Bhelen or Morrigan.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 29 octobre 2011 - 10:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I know why I think he is a great character, but he's certainly not the epitome of intelligence and competence. Radovid can teach him a million things. Heck, Henselt is more clever than him (and in some ways, more badass). Thenagain, it's Bioware, they don't do competent characters well if ever. Yes in many ways, Morrigan is incompetent. If they were aiming for her to be a manipulator, then she sucks at it. But I'd argue that's because of the curse of being a companion. Best example, Wrex. He was virtually nothing in ME1 (except a cool badass), and turned into this in ME2 because he was no longer a companion (yea, more and more I am starting to hate Bioware's companion formula).  

It;s the tragedy surrounding him and the fact that he was a very human opponent that makes me like him so much. That and he almost single handedly made Origins' main plot tolerable.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 octobre 2011 - 11:45 .