152 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMadCat]

Ziggeh wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

Poor word choice perhaps, but when you take shortcuts on a doable task in order to avoid a problem which is entierly avoidable by doing a bit more work, that's typically called being lazy. But yes, here we can call it a somwhat poor design choice. 

Depends on the choices. And the results, really. If we're seeing a culture evolve over the course of ten years, maybe we're talking buildings and such, things that would take that time.

That's paretly the biggest difference here between the Alpha Protocol, and if I were UpsettingShorts that's the route I would have taken to attack my arguments rather then attacking opinions with more opinions.

The proposed game length alone causes problems with the traditional apporach of allowing you to select the areas you'd like to go in any particular order and make the framed narrative a much more approachable, and perhaps neccesary choice.

You say staple, I say vestigal structure of Baldur's Gate 1 that has
been getting smaller and less significant in each subsequent game. 

Wait... what feature do you mean?

If you have no clue what I'm talking about why'd you comment on the feature getting smaller and less significant in each subsequent game?

It's not "a bit" more work, and every "bit" more work that anyone
wants done on a game usually involves HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. 
It's not laziness (no lazy person could ever manage to actually get a
video game to ship), it's the permanent and relentless burden of The
Budget.

Try $30m-$40m. They spend hundreds of thousands on breakfast and toilet paper.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:12 .

[MarginalBeast]

General Warfield wrote...

What I mean is in Redcliffe you could choose the choice with no consequences at all which imo is just stupid. Please keep the choices grey like the golem choice.

That would be pretty unrealistic, though. Not every major decision you make in real life has bad consequences. You do not always have to choose between a lesser of two evils. To limit your options like that in a video game would be a shame. DA2 isn't aiming for perfect realism, of course, but it is a dark heroic fantasy. There isn't anything heroic about feeling like crap all the time.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to have every decision be easy and free of consequence. There should definitely be several tough choices in DA2. But they need to be mixed in with some "third options" as well.

I do think that, in the case of Connor, the third option was silly because you could just leave him hanging around, go do the entire Circle of Magi quest, and then come back and miraculously Connor didn't burn everything to the ground while you were gone. That third option only should have been available to the player if he/she already completed the Circle of Magi section.

But still, one odd "third option" is not a good reason to completely remove them from future games.

Modifié par MarginalBeast, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

TheMadCat wrote...

The proposed game length alone causes problems with the traditional apporach of allowing you to select the areas you'd like to go in any particular order and make the framed narrative a much more approachable, and perhaps neccesary choice.

I brought up a different game, and the way in which those changes altered the narrative in a significant way.  Alpha Protocol changes lines here and there.  Dragon Age changes epilogue cards. That's not really "attacking an opinion with an opinion" unless we're going to go through decision by decision in both of those games and The Witcher until we've come up with some kind of consensus on which is "most" reactive.  Then we could get an idea of whether or not DA2 might be as well.

I'm skipping that part by going with the premise that The Witcher - with its framed narrative - is the most reactive of the three.  That premise hasn't really been challenged as of yet...

TheMadCat wrote...

If you have no clue what I'm talking about why'd you comment on the feature getting smaller and less significant in each subsequent game?

There's a feature I'm talking about: non-linear storytelling.  Something that was most apparent in Baldur's Gate.  I expect DA2 will retain some player freedom within Acts, but it will be reduced further to benefit the story.

But I have a feeling you might be talking about something else, and I wasn't sure.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:19 .

[lostspline]

I didn't mind the third option in Redcliffe but it would have been better if it had negative consequences. I would have preferred it if the choice was between saving Connor, saving Isolde, or saving both but losing everyone in the town. The last choice would be caused by attacks starting up again while your Warden is busy traveling to the mages.

[TheMadCat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I brought up a different game, and the way in which those changes altered the narrative in a significant way.  Alpha Protocol changes lines here and there.  Dragon Age changes epilogue cards. That's not really "attacking an opinion with an opinion" unless we're going to go through decision by decision in both that game and The Witcher until we've come up with some kind of consensus on which is "more" reactive.

Unfortunatly that felt like the direction we were heading, at least the direction I was more then likely going to go if I didn't slam the brakes. Apologies though, that comment came out pretty bad.

TheMadCat wrote...

There's a feature I'm talking about: non-linear storytelling.  Something that was most apparent in Baldur's Gate.  I expect DA2 will retain some player freedom within Acts, but it will be reduced further to benefit the story.

But I have a feeling you might be talking about something else, and I wasn't sure.

No, you had it right. And that's kind of been my point, do we need to sacrifice even more non-linear storytelling (Which in all honesty has become a gimick in BioWare games these days) in order to benefit the story when we can keep the non-linear storytelling while having the same story telling benefits of a linear game.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

TheMadCat wrote...
do we need to sacrifice even more non-linear storytelling in order to benefit the story when we can keep the non-linear storytelling while having the same story telling benefits of a linear game.

If you put it that way, no we don't need to.

But I really don't think the same story telling benefits are possible. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect nor advocate DA2 being a totally linear game - just endorsing the idea that separating the story into Acts can and likely will allow the story to be more reactive.  That's all, really.

[addiction21]

When has a BioWare game been non-linear? I cant think of one that did not set you on a path where you had to do a, b, and c before getting to a part where you could pick for yourself how to continue and then once you have moved thru them its back to a set path to finish the game.

[Ziggeh]

addiction21 wrote...

When has a BioWare game been non-linear? I cant think of one that did not set you on a path where you had to do a, b, and c before getting to a part where you could pick for yourself how to continue and then once you have moved thru them its back to a set path to finish the game.

All the ones I've played have followed the linear start, non linear middle, linear end system.

[TheMadCat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If you put it that way, no we don't need to.

But I really don't think the same story telling benefits are possible. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect nor advocate DA2 being a totally linear game - just endorsing the idea that separating the story into Acts can and likely will allow the story to be more reactive.  That's all, really.

We'll see how it plays out, as I said personally I think they can accomplish the exact same things they want in a non-linear story as they can in a linear story, with the biggest obstacle being the span of the game. The question obviously is time and resources and what have they decided to enhance in exchange for the sacrifice. I don't believe one method is inherently better then the other in terms of telling the story, though obviously the less linear the story is the more replayability it has to offer.

When has a BioWare game been non-linear? I cant think of one that did
not set you on a path where you had to do a, b, and c before getting to a
part where you could pick for yourself how to continue and then once
you have moved thru them its back to a set path to finish the game.

Their world spaces have always been linear but their stories haven't, you've always had the opportunity to select the way the story progresses. Ziggeh explained it nicely.

[upsettingshorts]

TheMadCat wrote...
 though obviously the less linear the story is the more replayability it has to offer.

Not necessarily.  It depends on the amount of variability that exists within the narrative.  Linearity simply demands the order in which the choices be made remain relatively consistent.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 07:01 .

[Ziggeh]

Even when games that let you do things out of order it's usually a bit rocky.

[TheMadCat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...
 though obviously the less linear the story is the more replayability it has to offer.

Not necessarily.  It depends on the amount of variability that exists within the narrative.  Linearity simply demands the order in which the choices be made remain relatively consistent.  

I'm having a hard time swallowing that one. I guess it's possible, but there's only so many plausible options one can create in a story with an essentially fixed ending and the less linear your story is the more you can play off it's lack of linearity, if that makes sense. Using a very broad and basic example from DA. If they fixed the story so that you went to Redcliff after the Mage's tower, you have your set options. In a non-linear story you choose where to go first, and if you just happened to have picked Redcliff first you now have another option.

[uuuhcantthinkofaname]

YoziMaiden wrote...

Come on don't tell me none of you killed that woman because she mean to little witle whiny alistair. If you say you haven't I know you're lying.

I killed her because at the time it seemed like the only effective solution.

I didn't much care for Alistairs company or feelings.

[Black-Xero]

YoziMaiden wrote...

Come on don't tell me none of you killed that woman because she mean to little witle whiny alistair. If you say you haven't I know you're lying.

I just killed the son.I never thought about killing her.

[Pedonecrophile]

Actually, the more of such choices DA2 will have - the better. Damn, I would be really happy if every choice would be connected with moral dilemma or choosing from hard situations!

[The Gentle Ben]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Oh keep the choice, but fix the order so the player can witness and interact with the consequences. Otherwise you're stuck with epilogue cards.

Leave the free roaming stuff for open world games.

I don't feel that I have a great deal to add (I'll try anyway), but this is my sentiment absolutely. In my admittedly subjective opinion (redundant I know, but perhaps necessarily so) Bioware's most significant miscalculation in recent years has been the broadening (and as a consequence, shortening) of their plots. I feel that ME1, ME2 and DA:O, while still being fantastic games, all suffered in this regard.

Bioware has many strengths, but storytelling is perhaps their finest. I believe they attempted a philosophical shift in the direction of player choice (simultaneously available co-requisite steps required for the advancement of the central plot) that ultimately diminished this asset. I can't help but feel that a longer, more linear central story would have improved all of these games. In particular, DA:O and ME2 emphasized the subplot over the main plot to the detriment of the primary tale (Although in ME2 this was perhaps a good thing as the Collectors plot felt rather manufactored (Still an awesome game)). The objective in DA:O was clear, to introduce the various races and political flashpoints of Thedas, and while the subplots of Elves and Dwarves, Templars and Mages, were admirably developed, the overarching story of Loghain and the Blight felt rather neglected in comparison. I think this was somewhat of a mistake, and in my respectful opinion ME1 managed a superior approach to conveying a *cough* more alien universe within the construct of its story.

I will note that I believe that the writers of DA:O (who I hold in high regard) had intended a more intensive plot than was ultimately realized. Loghain was jumping at less than shadows (The non-existent Orlesians), which I don't believe was the desired outcome. (Also, quick pet-peeve: Why did we go from Denerim to redcliffe and then back to Denerim? Something more significant must have been intended to fit between. Also, I maintain that Haven was designed to be far more interactive and convoluted, but I digress.)

I rather hesitate to make the comparison, but while Chapter 2 in BG2 was fantastic, it was ultimately Chapters 3-7 that provided the momentum that made the game the crowning achievement that I still hold it to be. Side-plots are an opportunity to explore interesting stories within the framework of the central tale (Although faceless Chanters' Boards made me sad (perhaps the stongest case against the cinematic approach)), but given too much importance (and gameplay hours) they begin to detract from what should be the priority (developing the central conflict and storyline).

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Let's just say that when Bioware folk say that DA2's
framed narrative and fixed protagonist will allow for a more personal
and reactive story, I've seen it done in other games well enough to
believe them.  But we'll see.

I may not have quoted the best example (and I have no real desire to be a semantic ******), but I think I've noticed you using two terms synonymously that I would recommend distinguishing between "framed narrative" and "linear storytelling", one is but one means of achieving the other (Just for my peace of mind. I realize you know the difference).

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 04 janvier 2011 - 07:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

That's a good observation, though I think I've been using them slightly differently. The framing is things like acts and chapters, the linearity is a fixed order or progression of the story. Correct?

[The Gentle Ben]

Yeah, that was largely the distinction I was making. I will add that I think the clear break of chapters (and possibility of transitions: Heyo narrator) allows for a better framing of circumstance and setting (a clear advantage in my eyes). I don't know that I would personally have used the narrative approach (first-person/third-person bastardization) that DA2 has implemented, but I've never attempted a story that has spanned a full year, much less a decade.

[FieryDove]

YoziMaiden wrote...

Come on don't tell me none of you killed that woman because she mean to little witle whiny alistair. If you say you haven't I know you're lying.

She wasn't a good women at all. Alistair's treatment aside. If you played a human female the comment Conner makes is spot on. She would do such a thing *if* she could get away with it.

Not to mention the fact all of redcliff troubles was her fault in the first place for hiding a mage child. I would have loved to rant at eamon later on about it but no...

I love hard choices, although in this case I'm glad there was another option. I mostly play good aligned characters and it would have been hard on them otherwise.

[Maria Caliban]

But I like kittens and want to save them all. Even if one happens to be a demon. Really, she'd been locked in there for so long, how could it be wrong to give her a few years in some fresh air?

Bryy_Miller wrote...

General Warfield wrote...

Im keeping it vague so I dont spoil it

Without context, nobody can respond effectively. 

Possibly.

[Ulicus]

Yeah... both BG and SoA had a fixed order of progression through the main narrative and they're almost universally loved by BioWare's fans. The "multiple main plot zones you can do in any order" structure is fine and all... but hardly a necessary formula and, as has been said, it does limit the amount of reactivity.

I actually think it's a shame BioWare didn't do what they're doing in DA2 with DA:O. Let's just imagine that instead of being able to leave Sten behind to die in Lothering, he always wound up joining the party, and the entire plot was framed as Sten giving his answer to the Arishok's question. Sten the Narrator would have been freakin' awesome. Okay, it would mean he couldn't be thrown out of the party for any reason -- so they probably wouldn't have gone with that, anyway -- but I still think it would have been cool if DA:O had began with "What is the Blight?"

And, insofar as the OP is concerned, I agree. The demon doing nothing while your characters trudged off to the circle tower and back was... weird. Pity it didn't require you to leave behind at least three party members, or something.

Modifié par Ulicus, 04 janvier 2011 - 08:22 .

[Adhin]

Yeah I'd like to point out for no good reason that BG1 and 2 where both more like DA2/Witcher in that you had a 'fixed' Chapter progression. They started the 'pick your chapter' with KotOR1 and haven't changed it till DA2. The Difference with DA2 (besides going back to a more traditional progression like BG1 and 2) is that its narrated, and it takes place over a specific time. A good chunk of time I might add. A whole lot can happen in 10 years, marriage, divorce, kids growing up, buildings getting put up. Its just a huge chunk of time.

And as to AP - I liked it but they gutted out 'everything' that makes a bioware game a bioware game. The ability to explore and move around on your own, chat with people and so forth. It was basically a Third Person Shooter running off awkward RPG mechanics with conversations and choices. I loved the game mind you, played through it multiple times and all that. But Ultimately you where just picking what 'dungeon crawl' you where going through next. If you could actually explore, to some extent, the city or section of the cities you where stationed in and did stuff around that would of probably had more of that feel to it. But I also really like the spy hideouts and all that. Just wish there was more non-mission mission stuff I guess. And more email replies, wasn't enough of that.

Anyways with all that said I believe more or less what Mr. Shorts does, DA2 is lining up to be a more reactive story overall due to the way its being setup. And I'm damn well looking forward to it.

[upsettingshorts]

Adhin wrote...
 Just wish there was more non-mission mission stuff I guess..

OT: Sending that 4-day time cube theory reference to Heck was hilarious.

Michael Thornton = through the looking glass.

[Ulicus]

Adhin wrote...

Yeah I'd like to point out for no good reason that BG1 and 2 where both more like DA2/Witcher in that you had a 'fixed' Chapter progression. They started the 'pick your chapter' with KotOR1 and haven't changed it till DA2.

They started experimenting with that in NWN, really -- though then it was "pick your subchapter".  Saying they haven't changed since KotOR seems to omit Jade Empire, though, which didn't follow the KotOR/ME structure.

And it was perfect, and everything. IGN gave it a 9.9.

[Felfenix]

Does the "non-linearity" of Dragon Age really enhance it? Would it make any difference whatsoever if the game sent you to recruit the factions in a circle order, instead of at your whim? It's not like the order you personally chose had an effect on anything at all. It didn't do anything. The idea that it was "non linear" gameplay is a fallacy in place to trick fools.