5 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm really hoping DA2 keeps these to a minimum.  I've never understood why the game goes out of its way to give me metagame information like that.

The Warden doesn't know Loghain is hiring assassins.  So why is there a cutscene revealing this to the player?  All it does is taint our first encounter with that assassin.

I would very much like it if DA2's narrative was limited to events Hawke actually witnesses or is told about.  Things the villain is doing in some far away location of which the PC can have no knowledge--we shouldn't ever see those in cutscenes.

[David Gaider]

Well, let's see. We'd have to get rid of the framing narrative, for one. Hawke sure isn't present for the conversations between Varric and Cassandra.



And then there's the ones that are needed to communicate things to the player, as oppose to Hawke. Who are different people, you know.



Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[David Gaider]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
I think I agree with Sylvius on this.

Agree all you like. If you wish to write a story completely from a first-person perspective, be my guest.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:39 .

[John Epler]

MerinTB wrote...

I understand the point Sylvius is making. And done right, limited POV for a story (novel, movie, game) can be very effective.

I don't think you necessarily need things one way or the other, though. There are pro's and con's to either method.

That said - framed narrative doesn't work unless you stick to ONLY what the narrator witnessed / was told / makes up... and then it could completely work, actually.

Have to disagree with David. The POV could be stuck to only what Varric knows - unless at some point in the game we switch narrators?

I think you could feasibly suggest that anything Varric isn't present for is being told by him with the implicit knowledge that it's something he heard after the fact. Even if he wasn't present for it, he could've asked other people who were, in fact, involved.

As an addendum, though - limited POV is definitely something that can work in some cases. Just as it can be set aside when it becomes too restrictive for the people trying to tell the story. Like all tools, it has its uses, but that doesn't mean it's a universal necessity.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:46 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but how does that even work?  Those things told to the player can't impact the PC's behaviour if the player is making any effort to roleplay, so why bother?

Because we're telling a story? One that is being communicated to the player as much as to your PC? Your PC isn't expected to react to what's being relayed there-- the player is.

I don't doubt we could do a story just fine without cut-away scenes. We had to make do in the NWN OC, for instance, because the cutscene capability was extremely limited. This just isn't one of those stories, and it's not going to be.

And how does the player know what's directed at him?  Is it just information that isn't available to Hawke?

Seriously? 

Are cut-aways that complicated a notion?

Sorry, this is one element of your pedantic nature I'm going to have to take a pass on, Sylvius. What seems good in theory doesn't always make for a good implementation in practice.

[David Gaider]

SirShreK wrote...

And? A first-person game tells a first-person story.

I didn't say such a story was impossible, I said be my guest if you'd like to write one-- or play one. Complaining that an apple isn't an orange is great fun, I'm sure, but don't expect us to give you one.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:08 .