10 réponses à ce sujet

[iEthanol]

I would absolutely love it if DAII was a little more open with the choices. For example I would have really liked to join the Dark Wizard in the chantry, but there was no such choice to be found.

Considering the dialogue allows you to come of as a complete douche, I don't see why it  can't also lead to a darker path. Kind of like Fable, except for not sucking.

In short--- forget saving, lets conquer!

Modifié par iEthanol, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .

[Stanley Woo]

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.



BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.



You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.



Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

[Seb Hanlon]

iEthanol wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue.
.

The problem with that, Mr. Woo, is that it's a stale formula. Over and over we see the same thing--- parents die, town gets destroyed, and the young boy/girl goes on a journey to save the world. (I'm pretty sure I just named every RPG ever made.)

Well, DA2 is one for three, I guess. Town gets destroyed. Hawke isn't saving the world, and as some of the previews have pointed out, family plays a substantial role in the story.

You'll have to play the game, though, and see what you think of the story we've told.

[Seb Hanlon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Eli-da-Mage wrote...

I imagine Hawke might be able to do some pretty evil things, but s/he isn't going to become Kirkwalls Champion, get to a high place in society or whatever and then just BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND for lolz. It just doesn't make sense.

If I'm the savior of a town, I get known as their Champion to the public.
If I side with the conquerors and conquer the town, I'm also known as the Champion but to the conquerors instead of the public.
If I side with no-one, wipe them both out and take my place at the top by pretending I tried my best to save the town but failed before stopping the conquerors, I'm the Champion to whoever is left and I'm at the top of my game.

ect.

Now, I'm not a writer, and I can't speak for our writing team -- but one of my favourite writer-types, John Rogers (the guy behind Leverage and the abortive Global Frequency pilot), points out that

"You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world." (source)

Moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash evil-for-evil's-sake characters are fun for a while, but they don't really make sense -- it's rare, bordering on nonexistent, for someone to see themselves as the villain in their own story. Personally, for the PC to go about acting like a cartoon villain being eeeee-vuhl doesn't really make sense to me.

[Stanley Woo]

Any way we can bring this back and tie it in to Dragon Age II? It's a good discussion, I think, but we're going everywhere.

[David Gaider]

Mr. Man wrote...
However I still find DA2's idea of not saving the world but playing a part in the ever advancing history of Thedas to be interesting as well.

Thanks. I haven't read through the whole thread (God forbid) but it seems like people are talking a lot in hypotheticals rather than about DA2 specifically (unless one wishes to count a vague wish for DA2 to be "better" to be on topic). We've already said we're not having you save the world, here, and family plays an important part rather than being killed right off the bat. Beyond that you're still very much the heroic protaganist, as this is still dark heroic fantasy despite some people choosing to forget one or the other, and I can't say I'm particularly interested in satisfying the jaded aesthetes who are just so over everything they need something entirely different for it's own sake in order to pique their interest.

Not that there's anyone here like that, but it seems like we get that from time to time.

Call it a fault of mine, I guess. Meh.

[David Gaider]

Anathemic wrote...
Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

Such labels are really the best we can do to try and communicate our intentions-- they're not an attempt to classify our own story. The fact that people like to manufacture "controversy" on the forums on whether it's dark enough or heroic enough to suit them isn't of particular interest to me, and so long as most people can understand where we sit on the (large) fantasy spectrum I'm pretty happy with that.

[David Gaider]

Anathemic wrote...
But this term was used before, and quite frankly it sparked such controversy on it that continues even today. So by applying the same term on a sequel of the game that the term was used on which sparked such controversy isn't particularly wise don't you think?

The only controversy it causes is among the pedants who either feel the need to pigeonhole the game or prove that it wasn't what they wanted it to be. I'm sure those people would do that no matter what labels we chose to describe the game with.

Sure most of the populace here will generally understand what you are going for but the fact of the matter is that it is still controversial. It might not be a interest to you, but it is an interest to some and being this a time period before a the game's release then this adds more to already hype concerning the game, which subjectively can be taken either positive or negative, your pick.

If "most of the populace" understands what we're going for, I don't really see the problem.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
We can't even agree if DA2 is a 'true RPG' or a 'hack-n-slash.' I don't think it's BioWare's fault that fans like to debate semantics.

Correct. We couldn't stop you if we tried, so feel free to debate the semantics of "RPG", "hack and slash", "dark heroic fantasy" etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm not sure what anyone thinks we should do about it in particular. We've explained our interpretation as well as we can; anyone who wishes to take it further than that and use it as the gist for their particular argument can do so if it makes them happy.

Anathemic wrote...
The 'so what' part was that people want the
game like the see it and will argue to support their view. Mr. Gaider
here directly or indirectly supported it was my point because he
willingly used the term 'dark heroic fantasy' fully knowing that the
term was controversial and will be debatable.

Actually, I used it not caring that some people might consider it controversial or debateable. Manufactured controversy doesn't interest me much, as I said.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:29 .

[David Gaider]

Ziggeh wrote...
The dog that can almost talk, the disheveled permanantly intoxicated one, the upstanding blonde guy, the attractive redhead and the intelligent unconventional girl travel round the country disposing of monsters.

Oooo I like this analogy!

But what are the Scooby Snacks? Health poultices?

I'm trying to picture Thelma convincing Daphne that sleeping with Fred in some forbidden ritual is the only way to destroy the Ghost of the Lighthouse Keeper forever... and it's delicious.

[David Gaider]

Atakuma wrote...
That would be tricky considering Fred is a flaming asexual.

It'd take some powerful blood magic to unravel Fred's ascot, it's true, but that Thelma's a clever one.

"Rud ragic?!"

That's right, Scooby! Blood magic!