155 réponses à ce sujet

[Anarya]

Arrtis wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

Cut the pay of writers and your good.

Hah. So you want the writing team to quit the gaming industry in favor of higher paying fields and the next game to be amateur hour? Interesting approach.

How about the fans write the story...FOR FREE!!!
Community fanfic contest to be featured in Biowares next game?

Not that there aren't good fanfic writers out there, but do you really want to play Second Life: the RPG? The horrors...the horrors. *thousand-yard stare*

[Arrtis]

Bioware will put down guidelines.

So should not turn out too horrible.

[Dave of Canada]

Anarya wrote...

But Origins was linear at the beginning and end, it was just the middle that gave you wiggle room.

It was an extremely long middle.

[zahra]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Well I'm hoping the original idea for which Muffinking (leader of Muffinmen, peace be upon him) was used as an example is how it's going to play out in practice.

The Muffinking Reside over Loft, while his title make him out to be a child, he is a powerful leader.

trying.... not.... to ... get...obsessed...with....Muffinking....


On an on-topic note, I am quite excited about this Rashomon-style narrative, and I actually wouldn't mind if freedom in terms of "which quest goes first" is reduced if they compensate with an awesome narrative. Because thats the whole point of them limiting our freedom (like abolishing origins etc) right? To give us a stronger storyline? [Or Gaider, Kirby etc just love making nerds cry for the fun of it and because when they drink our tears it gives them super powers.]

[Hollingdale]

I hope they make the game more linear, the 4 arch system they used in Origins is not good.

I made a thread about this ages go and here's a link containing some of my arguments for favouring linearity (warning contains spoilers about origins and about kotor):

http://img28.imagesh...4areasystem.jpg

In short the only thing to be gained from non linearity is an improved emergent narrative (although it hardly deserves to be called narrative anyway) and replay value.

On the other hand linearity allows for a much better central narrative (with actual suspense yay), a much better world presentation, more dramatic choices and no scaling problems.

I can't stress enough how bad the 4 arch system is, you get the entire story spoiled in the beginning and you spend all your time in between the beginning and the end doing mundane tasks in order to collect artefacts/star maps/treaties or whatever because in the places you visit no one else gives a **** if the world ends or not.
This is true for pretty much every game that has used the 4 arch system.

If Bioware intend on having some amount of free roaming in Dragon Age 2 I bloody hope they do it Baldurs Gate 2 or 1 style or come up with something new.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 02 septembre 2010 - 12:38 .

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

But Origins was linear at the beginning and end, it was just the middle that gave you wiggle room.

It was an extremely long middle.

Yes but again, what's stopping DA2 from allowing you the same freedom in the middle parts? Hawke's destiny is becoming the "Champion of Kirkwall", which probably involves a humble beginning and then several acts of heroism(or antiheroism?) wherein he gains renown/infamy before whatever climactic ending. Does it matter what order the impressive feats take place in? I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to.

[Anarya]

Hollingdale wrote...

I hope they make the game more linear, the 4 arch system they used in Origins is not good.

I made a thread about this ages go and here's a link containing some of my arguments for favouring linearity (warning contains spoilers about origins and about kotor):

http://img28.imagesh...4areasystem.jpg

In short the only thing to be gained from non linearity is an improved emergent narrative (although it hardly deserves to be called narrative anyway) and replay value.

On the other hand linearity allows for a much better central narrative (with actual suspense yay), a much better world presentation, more dramatic choices and no scaling problems.

I can't stress enough how bad the 4 arch system is, you get the entire story spoiled in the beginning and you spend all your time in between the beginning and the end doing mundane tasks in order to collect artefacts/star maps/treaties or whatever because in the places you visit no one else gives a **** if the world ends or not.
This is true for pretty much every game that has used the 4 arch system.

If Bioware intend on having some amount of free roaming in Dragon Age 2 I bloody hope they do it Baldurs Gate 2 or 1 style or come up with something new.

These are all very good points.

[Hollingdale]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

But Origins was linear at the beginning and end, it was just the middle that gave you wiggle room.

It was an extremely long middle.

It was an extremely bad middle that had nothing to do with the main story.  The actual main story was linear anyway.

Seriously why not just put out more sidequests and having completely linear instead of having the majority of the game be nothing but sidequests in disguise? At least then the main story wont have to have be spoiled in the beginning and then stop for 30 hours and then finish just as you knew it would.

[Dr. wonderful]

zahra wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Well I'm hoping the original idea for which Muffinking (leader of Muffinmen, peace be upon him) was used as an example is how it's going to play out in practice.

The Muffinking Reside over Loft, while his title make him out to be a child, he is a powerful leader.

trying.... not.... to ... get...obsessed...with....Muffinking....

He is bisexual.

On topic, If you guys love the Movie, you should pick up the Princess bride book it just as funny as the movie, Also I love DA:O has my favorite line in the game:

"Sword? What sword?"
"Sten, Rip his arm off."
"Oh you mean his sword?"

[Sable Rhapsody]

filaminstrel wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Just about every RPG is linear; some just do a better job covering up the linearity than others. Dragon Age? You become a Warden, do X Y and Z tasks, and defeat the Blight. Baldur's Gate? You defeat your psycho bro, your psycho stalker, and the psycho lady who was high priestess for your psycho dad. BioWare's pretty good about covering up the linearity; Square-Enix, not so much.

Well I think linearity has a couple of components. One, does the main quest have multiple paths/multiple orders in which you can go from beginning to end, and can the ending itself differ from playthrough to playthrough? Two, aside from the main quest, how much else is there to be done in the world?

I think a game like DAO is moderately nonlinear in both aspects. There are multiple orders you can take on the main quest, and while the ending is basically the same regardless, there are nuances. And the game has a significant amount of sidequests as well (although admittedly a lot of them are filler and boring).

A game like Morrowind (never played Oblivion) is maxed out on #2, but the main quest itself is actually pretty linear, from what I remember.

See, for me, things like side quests and different orders of objectives don't so much make the game nonlinear as they just cover up the linearity.  It's more of a word choice preference, I guess: what you call "moderately nonlinear" I call "hidden linearity."  At the end of the day, no matter what, you still become a Warden, deal with four major plot points in one to three different ways each, call the Landsmeet, and defeat the Blight.

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with that.  Nothing wrong with linearity, as long as it's either expected or in an RPG, well-hidden.  No one expects Call of Duty or Uncharted to be nonlinear.  And they're still fun games.  But in RPGs, we generally expect the rails to be a bit better hidden.  So long as the game FEELS freer than it is and looks bigger than its boundaries, I'm fine.

The mark of a good RPG is my inability to sense the railroading and invisible walls until I've finished the game, either because the game has done a good job pulling me into the primary plot, or offered me enough wiggle room to roleplay that I don't feel the need to go off the rails.

Hollingdale wrote...

If Bioware intend on having some amount of free roaming in Dragon Age 2 I bloody hope they do it Baldurs Gate 2 or 1 style or come up with something new.

The Baldur's Gate series was still split into very distinct chapters.  Not 4 arch, but each chapter had a very distinct objective.  Not terribly different from DA, KOTOR, etc. in my opinion.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 02 septembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[Dave of Canada]

Anarya wrote...

Yes but again, what's stopping DA2 from allowing you the same freedom in the middle parts? Hawke's destiny is becoming the "Champion of Kirkwall", which probably involves a humble beginning and then several acts of heroism(or antiheroism?) wherein he gains renown/infamy before whatever climactic ending. Does it matter what order the impressive feats take place in? I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to.

It would limit the feats and how dire they are, though. For example, imagine a scenario similar to the werewolves and Redcliffe, they wouldn't make sense if the scenario was still as dire as say four years ago.

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Yes but again, what's stopping DA2 from allowing you the same freedom in the middle parts? Hawke's destiny is becoming the "Champion of Kirkwall", which probably involves a humble beginning and then several acts of heroism(or antiheroism?) wherein he gains renown/infamy before whatever climactic ending. Does it matter what order the impressive feats take place in? I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to.

It would limit the feats and how dire they are, though. For example, imagine a scenario similar to the werewolves and Redcliffe, they wouldn't make sense if the scenario was still as dire as say four years ago.

Why would they need to talk about the other feats during whatever one you're currently playing, though?

[Onyx Jaguar]

I agree with Hollingdale

[Dave of Canada]

Hollingdale wrote...

It was an extremely bad middle that had nothing to do with the main story.  The actual main story was linear anyway.

Using the treaties to recruit allies to fight the Blight while dealing with Loghain's interventions has nothing to do with the main story? >.>

[LaztRezort]

Captain Hex wrote...
The passage of time also allows for greater possibility of past missions having an effect on future ones. In Origins, if you go the nicey route and make the werewolves human again, it doesn't really impact anything more than your army. Imagine if a year had elapsed between then and your last mission. People who did that mission early on may have later in the game found former werewolves now inhabiting Redcliffe or Denerim etc. with the possibility for interesting side quests as a result.

I  agree.  "Linearity" can mean several things, but if we are talking getting to choose the order of chapters/sections, then I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.  Some sort of linearity is necessary (arguably) to tell a good story - DA:O was actually fairly linear in other aspects, and (IMO) told a better story because of that.  I'm not sure when or how linearity became synonymous as a design flaw - it seems that some these things must balanced according the what the overall game is trying to accomplish.

My take is that I will just have to trust the BW game designers have done another good job

[Onyx Jaguar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

It was an extremely bad middle that had nothing to do with the main story.  The actual main story was linear anyway.

Using the treaties to recruit allies to fight the Blight while dealing with Loghain's interventions has nothing to do with the main story? >.>

Ultimately it was just stuff to do

The main narrative was barely advanced.  What they did do was put in events that would happen after you had done them, but they were always in the same order. 

I mean there is no difference between Bhelen and Harrowmount enthusiasts in the final battle, the Werewolves and the Elves, the Mages and the Templars in the main narrative.

The Urn of Sacred Ashes however ties directly into the main plot.

[Dave of Canada]

Anarya wrote...

Why would they need to talk about the other feats during whatever one you're currently playing, though?

Go to the Dalish, you'll see the werewolves and such then do another mission instead and you'll come back to see the Dalish to still be completely in the same scenario even though months passed. With 3-4 years instead, it would be a lot weirder. >.<

[addiction21]

Anarya wrote...


Okay but compare the main storyline of Oblivion to DAO. Incredibly weak and boring in comparison despite sharing many similarities. That's what you lose when you devote way more resources to an open world format. Not that open world games are bad, and if the DA team had extra manpower and money to throw at it they might turn out the greatest game ever (open world game that's as compelling as a Bioware game? Yes please.), however let's be real here, they don't have extra unused resources and the other elements would suffer.

Simple enough. All we need to do is force a partnership between Bethesda and BioWare. Bethesda creates the world and fills it. BioWare foces on the story and charcters. Maybe even throwing in Obsidian to do many side quests. That does not mean BioWare and Bethesda could not create their own side quests.
It could even use a pre existing engine with tools and a contest could be run "best quests developed by the great modders in the world" that would be included in the game and the modders get credit for them.



I just made a mess I need to go clean myself up...

P.S.
I am a bit concerned about the new story telling technique (well its not new but new for BioWare) will play out but they have always provided flexibility to how the story plays out and I doubt they will ignore that aspect.

[Anarya]

addiction21 wrote...

Anarya wrote...


Okay but compare the main storyline of Oblivion to DAO. Incredibly weak and boring in comparison despite sharing many similarities. That's what you lose when you devote way more resources to an open world format. Not that open world games are bad, and if the DA team had extra manpower and money to throw at it they might turn out the greatest game ever (open world game that's as compelling as a Bioware game? Yes please.), however let's be real here, they don't have extra unused resources and the other elements would suffer.

Simple enough. All we need to do is force a partnership between Bethesda and BioWare. Bethesda creates the world and fills it. BioWare foces on the story and charcters. Maybe even throwing in Obsidian to do many side quests. That does not mean BioWare and Bethesda could not create their own side quests.
It could even use a pre existing engine with tools and a contest could be run "best quests developed by the great modders in the world" that would be included in the game and the modders get credit for them.



I just made a mess I need to go clean myself up...

P.S.
I am a bit concerned about the new story telling technique (well its not new but new for BioWare) will play out but they have always provided flexibility to how the story plays out and I doubt they will ignore that aspect.

Is this like fantasy football with game developers? I feel like I reached new heights (depths?) of nerdery here.

[Hollingdale]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Just about every RPG is linear; some just do a better job covering up the linearity than others. Dragon Age? You become a Warden, do X Y and Z tasks, and defeat the Blight. Baldur's Gate? You defeat your psycho bro, your psycho stalker, and the psycho lady who was high priestess for your psycho dad. BioWare's pretty good about covering up the linearity; Square-Enix, not so much.

Well I think linearity has a couple of components. One, does the main quest have multiple paths/multiple orders in which you can go from beginning to end, and can the ending itself differ from playthrough to playthrough? Two, aside from the main quest, how much else is there to be done in the world?

I think a game like DAO is moderately nonlinear in both aspects. There are multiple orders you can take on the main quest, and while the ending is basically the same regardless, there are nuances. And the game has a significant amount of sidequests as well (although admittedly a lot of them are filler and boring).

A game like Morrowind (never played Oblivion) is maxed out on #2, but the main quest itself is actually pretty linear, from what I remember.

See, for me, things like side quests and different orders of objectives don't so much make the game nonlinear as they just cover up the linearity.  It's more of a word choice preference, I guess: what you call "moderately nonlinear" I call "hidden linearity."  At the end of the day, no matter what, you still become a Warden, deal with four major plot points in one to three different ways each, call the Landsmeet, and defeat the Blight.

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with that.  Nothing wrong with linearity, as long as it's either expected or in an RPG, well-hidden.  No one expects Call of Duty or Uncharted to be nonlinear.  And they're still fun games.  But in RPGs, we generally expect the rails to be a bit better hidden.  So long as the game FEELS freer than it is and looks bigger than its boundaries, I'm fine.

The mark of a good RPG is my inability to sense the railroading and invisible walls until I've finished the game, either because the game has done a good job pulling me into the primary plot, or offered me enough wiggle room to roleplay that I don't feel the need to go off the rails.

Hollingdale wrote...

If Bioware intend on having some amount of free roaming in Dragon Age 2 I bloody hope they do it Baldurs Gate 2 or 1 style or come up with something new.

The Baldur's Gate series was still split into very distinct chapters.  Not 4 arch, but each chapter had a very distinct objective.  Not terribly different from DA, KOTOR, etc. in my opinion.

You miss my point, chapters come in a chronological order hence the story can progress in a logical fashion whereas in the case of the 4 archs, because they may be done in any order, the story they contain must make sense regardless of which order it is done in and because of this their only connection to the main story is some kind of item which you need to obtain. The rest of their story typically consists of pleasing the local sovereign or populace by doing mundane frustrating tasks for them knowing full and well that the world faces impending doom and you are wasting your time doing mundane tasks.

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Why would they need to talk about the other feats during whatever one you're currently playing, though?

Go to the Dalish, you'll see the werewolves and such then do another mission instead and you'll come back to see the Dalish to still be completely in the same scenario even though months passed. With 3-4 years instead, it would be a lot weirder. >.<

I feel like things like this are only a problem if you call attention to it through writing or mechanics though. You just need to find artful workarounds or methods of concealment. All I'm saying is, the fact of the frame narrative doesn't need to be scary or constricting. It's how you handle that narrative that matters.

[addiction21]

Anarya wrote...

Is this like fantasy football with game developers? I feel like I reached new heights (depths?) of nerdery here.

Not really fantasy football but more like a RPG lovers wet dream. I know it will never come to pass but one can always dream.