226 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Bioware has been making "linear" games for a long time now. DAO isn't Fallout 3 where you can stumble across the Landsmeet and trigger the endgame simply by wandering around.

There is a path to be followed with some variation but the path is there and can only be ignored by not continuing the game.

This is very true.

Which is why I get so exasperated when people on this forum knock other games for being linear.

<_<

[MerinTB]

Ryzaki wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Bioware has been making "linear" games for a long time now. DAO isn't Fallout 3 where you can stumble across the Landsmeet and trigger the endgame simply by wandering around.

There is a path to be followed with some variation but the path is there and can only be ignored by not continuing the game.

This is very true.

Which is why I get so exasperated when people on this forum knock other games for being linear.

<_<

Agreed.
And agreed.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

Agreed.
And agreed.

But there are different degrees of linear. FFXIII is linear in a way that Alpha Protocol isn't, which is linear in a way New Vegas isn't.

It's the goldilocks issue. Some might think the amount of linearity is  too much, too little, or just right.

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:39 .

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...
But there are different degrees of linear. FFXIII is linear in a way that Alpha Protocol isn't, which is linear in a way New Vegas isn't.

It's the goldilocks issue. Some might think the amount of linearity is  too much, too little, or just right.

But very often they simply say "linear" and then list games with various degress of linearity. (Games that may or may not be more linear than the average BW game).

That is my main issue.

Though yes you are very right about the different degrees. I always found BW games to be on the more linear side compared to something like FO2 which just dumps you in the middle of nowhere.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:48 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Agreed.
And agreed.

But there are different degrees of linear. FFXIII is linear in a way that Alpha Protocol isn't, which is linear in a way New Vegas isn't.

It's the goldilocks issue. Some might think the amount of linearity is  too much, too little, or just right.

Also true -

there are games that have zero plot and just an open world, games that have a plot but an open world you can run around in regardless of the plot, games with a plot that emulate an open world by having a big area with stuff in it but nothing that really happens outside of the timeline, games that are linear but offer some choices in certain areas of which order events happen in, and strictly linear games that progress directly from point a to point z, hitting every point in between.  And small variances inbetween those game examples -

but it doesn't change the fact that BioWare games lean heavily on the "linear" side - which, IMO, is more a good thing than bad - and that fans of BioWare games who attack other games for being linear and not open world clearly are satisified with the not-at-all-open-world of BioWare games.  They just want some choice of direction in the story, which is fine that they want it, but that has nothing to do with linear.

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...
But very often they simply say "linear" and then list games with various degress of linearity. (Games that may or may not be more linear than the average BW game).

That is my main issue.

Right. I can appreciate that.

Though yes you are very right about the different degrees. I always found BW games to be on the more linear side compared to something like FO2 which just dumps you in the middle of nowhere.

I always found them to be open world, but aside from trying and immediately disliking NWN, KoTOR was the first non-JRPG I played. So to me the game seemed incredibly open. Becaue of that first impression, it is hard for me to consider Bioware a linear company, though they are more linear that most PC RPGs.

MerinTB wrote...

but it doesn't change the fact that
BioWare games lean heavily on the "linear" side - which, IMO, is more a
good thing than bad - and that fans of BioWare games who attack other
games for being linear and not open world clearly are satisified with
the not-at-all-open-world of BioWare games.  They just want some choice
of direction in the story, which is fine that they want it, but that has
nothing to do with linear.

Bioware handles non-linearity poorly, but then, most games do. The only good example I can think of right now of good non-linearity is Alpha Procotol, because the order in which you do things matters. That, to me, would make an open or non-linear world fun.

Whereas I would disagree that Bioware gives you choice in the direction of the story. They just give you a choice of the order in which you want to do things. 

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...


I always found them to be open world, but aside from trying and immediately disliking NWN, KoTOR was the first non-JRPG I played. So to me the game seemed incredibly open. Becaue of that first impression, it is hard for me to consider Bioware a linear company, though they are more linear that most PC RPGs.

LOL Jade Empire was the first non-JRPG I played. Then I later went on to KOTOR. I always felt the games (especially JE) were linear but that might just be preferences.

That said I don't mind linear games. Heck my favorite games are Persona 3 and 4 which are mostly linear except for the ending. (Which usually has 2 variations, Good and suck).

In BW games I always feel like I was being herded.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...
LOL Jade Empire was the first non-JRPG I played. Then I later went on to KOTOR. I always felt the games (especially JE) were linear but that might just be preferences.

I thought JE had the right kind of model for Bioware games. Linearity within the broader story: Start - Tien's Landing (choices) - Imperial City (choices) - Confrontation - Dirge/Endgame.

I thought the game was an example of the best kind of pacing Bioware actually has executed to date.

As opposed to Dragon Age or Mass Effect (particularly 2) where you know your goal and destination and the order is just an irrelevant ''mission order'' choice at best, a class dependent companion recruitment path at worst.

In BW games I always feel like I was being herded.

Any good story based game has to give you a purpose. If you feel herded, that might be a problem of the writers not giving you incentive to play along.

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...


I thought JE had the right kind of model for Bioware games. Linearity within the broader story: Start - Tien's Landing (choices) - Imperial City (choices) - Confrontation - Dirge/Endgame.

I thought the game was an example of the best kind of pacing Bioware actually has executed to date.

As opposed to Dragon Age or Mass Effect (particularly 2) where you know your goal and destination and the order is just an irrelevant ''mission order'' choice at best, a class dependent companion recruitment path at worst.

I vastly preferred DA and ME. Particularly on replays. JE just...bored me to be perfectly honest.

Any good story based game has to give you a purpose. If you feel herded, that might be a problem of the writers not giving you incentive to play along.

That may be it.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
but it doesn't change the fact that BioWare games lean heavily on the "linear" side - which, IMO, is more a
good thing than bad - and that fans of BioWare games who attack other games for being linear and not open world clearly are satisified with the not-at-all-open-world of BioWare games.  They just want some choice
of direction in the story, which is fine that they want it, but that has nothing to do with linear.

Bioware handles non-linearity poorly, but then, most games do. The only good example I can think of right now of good non-linearity is Alpha Procotol, because the order in which you do things matters. That, to me, would make an open or non-linear world fun.

Whereas I would disagree that Bioware gives you choice in the direction of the story. They just give you a choice of the order in which you want to do things. 

Alpha Protocol did do an amazing job with that, yep, but it isn't the ony game where the order of what you do things matter.

You aren't disagreeing with me about BioWare in this case, though - by direction of story I really only meant which planet you visit first in the Ebon Hawk or the Normandy.  Which path you take through the story, not what direction the story itself takes plotwise.  My apologies for the confusion.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Alpha Protocol did do an amazing job with that, yep, but it isn't the ony game where the order of what you do things matter.

If you can think of another game, I'd be up for a recomendation. I tried Blade Runner (assuming you were talking about the 97 PC game). I can see what you are thinking now in terms of an adventure game. While it was an interesting game (really liked the detective work, but it had an in-game timer, and I hate games that make me feel rushed), though I will say that I disagree with you re: the implementation of choice as common in a non-Bioware RPG if that was your example of it.

You aren't disagreeing with me about BioWare in this case, though - by direction of story I really only meant which planet you visit first in the Ebon Hawk or the Normandy.  Which path you take through the story, not what direction the story itself takes plotwise.  My apologies for the confusion.

Right, I see. I really think if a company is going to implement a non-linear plot, they ought to actually make the order matter. Otherwise it's nothing more than a fancy mission selection screen wrapped up in travel.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

That may be it.

I think it is.  Depending on how I played through different origin stories in DAO, I might have felt herded into becoming a Grey Warden (Human noble is particularly annoying to me for this reason) but in other cases the hook was more effective, with the Wardens coming off as something more of a release from unpleasant circumstances at worst and a generous reprieve at best.

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think it is.  Depending on how I played through different origin stories in DAO, I might have felt herded into becoming a Grey Warden (Human noble is particularly annoying to me for this reason) but in other cases the hook was more effective, with the Wardens coming off as something more of a release from unpleasant circumstances at worst and a generous reprieve at best.

Odd though. I always feel herded in BW games.

I guess I just don't feel as drawn into ther stories as I do with others.

Edit: Except laughably enough ME1. I didn't actually feel herded. But then came ME2 with it's Cerberus is your only ally nonsense. <_<

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think it is.  Depending on how I played through different origin stories in DAO, I might have felt herded into becoming a Grey Warden (Human noble is particularly annoying to me for this reason) but in other cases the hook was more effective, with the Wardens coming off as something more of a release from unpleasant circumstances at worst and a generous reprieve at best.

The problem for me, with DA:O, were the origins themselves. They sold me very well on the old life of the character, so I just never bit on the Grey Warden identity hook, with the exception of the common dwarf & city elf.

I didn't very much care for non-humans, though, so I was never attached enough to the protagonist to see the game through to the end.

[upsettingshorts]

I'm incredibly cynical about politics in real life, so the idea that the Systems Alliance and Citadel Council found Shepard and the Reapers too... difficult and inconvenient to deal with or even fathom was totally believable to me.

Don't get me wrong, ultimately I see a lot of ME2's story as simply an excuse to get you into a cooler ship (SR2 > SR1) and push a couple reset buttons - but the way they ended up doing it definitely didn't bother me as much as it did a lot of people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:21 .

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...
Edit: Except laughably enough ME1. I didn't actually feel herded. But then came ME2 with it's Cerberus is your only ally nonsense. <_<

I thought ME1 was really bad about this, with Shepard basically being a crazy lunatic whenever having to confront either the Council or Saren. I thought the Council was pretty reasonable about the entire thing, and the ''vision'' you got was just never coherent enough to sell me as a player on the plot. It was basically - wait, how the hell did you get a machine genocide from that bunch of incoherent noise?

Re: ME2, the only reset button I found silly was the 'Shepard dies' angle at the start.

Modifié par In Exile, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed. The thing is - it would have been more believable if the game simply forced you to acknowledge that the vision was so powerful and realistic that any Shepard, regardless of player roleplaying, would have held it as gospel. But it doesn't - before you even reach the Citadel you can have Shepard say, "What, and tell them I had a bad dream?"

In Exile wrote...

Re: ME2, the only reset button I found silly was the 'Shepard dies' angle at the start.

You also got rid of your companions for ME1, and fast-forwarded the plot a couple years.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:24 .

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...

I thought ME1 was really bad about this, with Shepard basically being a crazy lunatic whenever having to confront either the Council or Saren. I thought the Council was pretty reasonable about the entire thing, and the ''vision'' you got was just never coherent enough to sell me as a player on the plot. It was basically - wait, how the hell did you get a machine genocide from that bunch of incoherent noise?

See I didn't mind Shepard being a crazy lunatic (because by that point I'd given up on Shepard being *me* and saw it as an action adventure game) made it more dramatic.

And while the council was reasonable it made it more fun. It was a great hook for me. My favorite movies always have guys ranting about stuff no one else knows.

Though I always saw the images as some fleshy thing being turned into a machine so I saw that pretty clearly. Different strokes I suppose.

In ME2 between the superhero costumes, Cerberus rehaul (which honestly was my biggest issue) Shepard being dumber than normal (I didn't think it was possible! ) and being reduced to TIM's b****. I was done. Just...done.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:25 .

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed. The thing is - it would have been more believable if the game simply forced you to acknowledge that the vision was so powerful and realistic that any Shepard, regardless of player roleplaying, would have held it as gospel. But it doesn't - before you even reach the Citadel you can have Shepard say, "What, and tell them I had a bad dream?"

That's my position. The still imagine thing wasn't bad, but mostly to me it looked like Godzilla was attacking (it even roared at one point and had a mouth-like thing open).

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
I tried Blade Runner (assuming you were talking about the 97 PC game). I can see what you are thinking now in terms of an adventure game. While it was an interesting game (really liked the detective work, but it had an in-game timer, and I hate games that make me feel rushed), though I will say that I disagree with you re: the implementation of choice as common in a non-Bioware RPG if that was your example of it.

I'm curious as to what you meant by that last bit?

I played Blade Runner probably five times (somewhere between 4 and 6, I can't clearly remember) and noted that many times though you ended up going to the same places and meeting the same people, different things COULD happen and most of the time that was based on decision the player made.  Who you ended the game with, whom the bad guys were, if you were or weren't a replicant yourself...

that's far more choice / open than many other games.


EDIT - from the wiki on the game:

The game runs in non-linear "real-time", meaning that when McCoy investigates and gathers clues, the computer controlled AI characters do the same, completing their own objectives.[9] It is up to the player to decide how McCoy will react in different situations, such as interrogating or talking to characters, each reaction affecting the storyline differently.[9]
(...)
There are thirteen endings, with variations on three major themes, influenced by the player's actions throughout the game.[11]
The player can believe that the character, McCoy, is human, and hunt
down the replicants; be persuaded that he's a replicant himself, and
side with them against the other Blade Runners; or stay neutral, and
flee the city

It was near the height of "choice" and "story/plot shaped by player action" for adventure games at the time.

Modifié par MerinTB, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:31 .

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...
See I didn't mind Shepard being a crazy lunatic (because by that point I'd given up on Shepard being *me* and saw it as an action adventure game) made it more dramatic.

And while the council was reasonable it made it more fun. It was a great hook for me. My favorite movies always have guys ranting about stuff no one else knows.

If I saw the game as action-adventure, I would have probably put down the controller at that point. Crazy lunatic screaming protagonists provide about zero interest for me.

Though I always saw the images as some fleshy thing being turned into a machine so I saw that pretty clearly. Different strokes I suppose.

Those images made sense to you?

In ME2 between the superhero costumes, Cerberus rehaul (which honestly was my biggest issue) Shepard being dumber than normal (I didn't think it was possible! ) and being reduced to TIM's b****. I was done. Just...done.

The thing is, some people did think Cerberus was this massive secret organization after ME1 on the old forums. I wrote them of as irrelevant low-value sidequest because that's what they came off as, but some people did call it. Though I agree the whole thing could have been handled better.

The bigger problem is that ME2 just couldn't make up its mind about what Shepard's relationship to Cerberus was, or what Paragon/Renegade meant. I just got the feeling the writing team never got on the same page with the game.

There are even inconsistencies in terms of whether was dead or just in a coma.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
The bigger problem is that ME2 just couldn't make up its mind about what Shepard's relationship to Cerberus was, or what Paragon/Renegade meant. I just got the feeling the writing team never got on the same page with the game.

Especially the Paragon/Renegade thing.  That bothered me in ME2 as well, probably the only major complaint I have with the game.

Many "Paragon" actions resulted in scaring people, selling out on your fame for money, threatening physical violence on people - it didn't sit well at all with me.

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...


If I saw the game as action-adventure, I would have probably put down the controller at that point. Crazy lunatic screaming protagonists provide about zero interest for me.

Yeah. He wasn't a lunatic though. Just saw something no one else did.
Plus. I had a sexy Shep.

Those images made sense to you?

Oddly yes. I saw beings of flesh being torn into by something mechanical.

The thing is, some people did think Cerberus was this massive secret organization after ME1 on the old forums. I wrote them of as irrelevant low-value sidequest because that's what they came off as, but some people did call it. Though I agree the whole thing could have been handled better.

The bigger problem is that ME2 just couldn't make up its mind about what Shepard's relationship to Cerberus was, or what Paragon/Renegade meant. I just got the feeling the writing team never got on the same page with the game.

There are even inconsistencies in terms of whether was dead or just in a coma.

Meh. I saw them as complete idiots tha needed to be wipedof theface of the galaxy. Instead SS Shep is asked about Akuze and pretty much goes. "DUURRRR".

Al that ties to me with the whole Cerberus issue. The Paraogn/Renegade had been going on since the first game so I just go into the habit that blue meant alien loving boyscout and red ment human supermist douchebag. Yes it deviated once in a while but for the most part...

Ah yes. "I was technically undead.", "I was just sleeping." 

Shep can't even make up his mind.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote..
I'm curious as to what you meant by that last bit?

that's far more choice / open than many other games.

Plot variability is not the kind of choice I'm looking for, because Bioware actually has very little of it. You have an 'end scenario' choice that's there largely for flavour and very rarely does it have any kind of late-game consequence.

Rather, for me choice is choice in expressiveness. Essentially, it is what you look at as RP. But where we differ is that I think expression has to be in-game and scripted because I don't think any kind of computer interface can support any kind of player-created expression; it just gives you a fixed expression with low production value that places the PC off to the side as a setpiece instead of a driver in any scene.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Especially the Paragon/Renegade thing.  That bothered me in ME2 as well, probably the only major complaint I have with the game.

Many "Paragon" actions resulted in scaring people, selling out on your fame for money, threatening physical violence on people - it didn't sit well at all with me.

The problem is how the writing worked, which is my biggest concern for Hawke. Each world had its own writer, and that writer handled the plots and responses of Shepard. The party was written by one character as I recall, but not Shepard, so this gives you the Omega moments where Shepard always seems to be a thug, or the previous paragon/renegade take from ME1.

Ryzaki wrote...

Meh. I saw them as complete idiots tha
needed to be wipedof theface of the galaxy. Instead SS Shep is asked
about Akuze and pretty much goes. "DUURRRR". [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

ME2 doesn't make sense for an SS Shepard. But honestly, SS Shepard doesn't make sense as a Spectre to begin with, at least IMO.

Al
that ties to me with the whole Cerberus issue. The Paraogn/Renegade had
been going on since the first game so I just go into the habit that
blue meant alien loving boyscout and red ment human supermist douchebag.
Yes it deviated once in a while but for the most part...

The problem is that, again, Bioware wasn't 100% on what this meant in ME1 either. Most of the time it was pro-Alliance or pro-Council, which sometimes meant that nice bit of causal racism, but not always. Sometimes it was violent.

And that's the problem with the alignment bar. It doesn't work when no one can decide what it means.