281 réponses à ce sujet

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

I actually see and respect your point of view Sylvius but I disagree.  I think story should come first then setting and mechanics.  I think story drives gameplay not mechanics.  difference of priorities here, but I do agree about the importance of mechanics that you state.

If the story violates the mechanics, then the setting doesn't make any sense and I cease caring about the story.  If their world is nonsensical, why bother saving it?

i said difference of priorities.  They are all needed to make a good game but I feel that story drives the game much like an engine in a car.  The reverse can be true if the mechanics violate the story and it can also result in a world that is nonsensical.  A game about Robin Hood wouldnt make sense if he never used a bow in the game because the player chooses not to.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:47 .

[Mudzr]

I'm happy with the party membmers so far, but i'm hoping for a Qunari party member... maybe we'll get an equvilant to *spoilers* Loghain in DAO.

A dwarfen female romance would be nice but maybe we'll get one in DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HTTP 404 wrote...

haha, i said difference of priorities.  They are all needed to make a good game but I feel that story drives the game much like an engine in a car.  The reverse can be true if the mechanics violate the story and it can also result in a world that is nonsensical.  A game about Robin Hood wouldnt make sense if he never used a bow in the game because the player chooses not to.

And here I disagree with you.

I insist that the story doesn't exist until the player helps finish it.  His chices - his actions on behalf og the characters - is what fills in the narrative.  The authored narrative - the part written by BioWare - is only part of the story.

If Robin Hood doesn't use a bow, that makes him quite different from the central figure in the traditional Robin Hood story, but that doesn't prevent the events that transpire around him from being a story of their own.

I don't think it's possible for the mechanics to violate the story.

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

haha, i said difference of priorities.  They are all needed to make a good game but I feel that story drives the game much like an engine in a car.  The reverse can be true if the mechanics violate the story and it can also result in a world that is nonsensical.  A game about Robin Hood wouldnt make sense if he never used a bow in the game because the player chooses not to.

And here I disagree with you.

I insist that the story doesn't exist until the player helps finish it.  His chices - his actions on behalf og the characters - is what fills in the narrative.  The authored narrative - the part written by BioWare - is only part of the story.

If Robin Hood doesn't use a bow, that makes him quite different from the central figure in the traditional Robin Hood story, but that doesn't prevent the events that transpire around him from being a story of their own.

I don't think it's possible for the mechanics to violate the story.

I dont see how how mechanics cannot affect story but fair enough

[lv12medic]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All male -yes
All female -yes
All human -yes
All Warrior -no
All dual-wield -no
All 2-hander -no
All Archer -no
All Sword & Shield -no
All elf -no
All dwarf -no
All Rogue -yes
All Mage -no

How many of the above categories work in DA2?

This is all assuming you use a full 4 person party (Hawke + 3 others) and based off available companions so far introduced (including Sebastian).  Less than Origins obviously.  But you can have an all rogue party now!

Of course, some of those options in DA:O either required gimping a character (especially after auto-leveling) or re-specing them with a mod.  Specifically warrior weapon trees.  (Especially Oghren).

Of course this always boils down to the point, which you have argued rather consistently for more player control, of how much control does a player have vs. the developer in playing a game.  (I think I sit more on the developer side, primarily because if it doesn't get programmed in, it doesn't exist.)

[Bobbyj0]

YES!!! IM GETTIN MY PUPPY!!!!!

[Sylvius the Mad]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I dont see how how mechanics cannot affect story but fair enough

You didn't say affect.  You said violate.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:53 .

[John Epler]

Let me also point out that rules of civility apply to everyone, whether they believe in the direction we're taking with DA2 or not. If someone is bothering you, report them to a moderator - don't respond with insults and flames. I look upon these things rather seriously, as I believe in a friendly, welcoming forum environment. Not an echo chamber.

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

 

You didn't say affect.  You said violate.

oh I used violate because you used it originally in the post I responded to.  I wanted to try be on the same page as you.  but lets stick with violate.

"I dont see how how mechanics cannot violate story but fair enough"

[Sylvius the Mad]

lv12medic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All male -yes
All female -yes
All human -yes
All Warrior -no
All dual-wield -no
All 2-hander -no
All Archer -no
All Sword & Shield -no
All elf -no
All dwarf -no
All Rogue -yes
All Mage -no

How many of the above categories work in DA2?

This is all assuming you use a full 4 person party (Hawke + 3 others) and based off available companions so far introduced (including Sebastian).  Less than Origins obviously.  But you can have an all rogue party now!

So, of the 12 categories I listed, 8 wer possible in DAO, and only 4 are possible in DA2.

That's a quantifiable loss.

Of course, some of those options in DA:O either required gimping a character (especially after auto-leveling) or re-specing them with a mod.  Specifically warrior weapon trees.  (Especially Oghren).

Oghren wasn't bad.  If you did Orzammar first, you'd get him early enough to max out another weapon spec tree by the end of the game.

Though, I did also use the No Follower Auto-Level Mod so they'd all start the game with no points assigned at all.  That way they could be whatever I wanted right from the start.

[bsbcaer]

Dave of Canada wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

Bold: That would be pretty cool.  Is there a link to that thread? or can a dev confirm this?

I can't find it, though a preview said that Varric got a minor buff for everybody in the party when he was friends with Hawke but when he was a rival he got a bigger buff for himself only. It makes sense, as a friendly rival would try to outpeform me irl while a friend would try to help me.

If I remember correctly, the team buff is called "authorized biographer" while the rivalry buff is "unauthorized biographer"

As for the number of companions, 7 is about right.  I don't count DLC character because they are completely optional and no everyone gets them...I don't care if they would have 10X the amount of quests and dialogue, if they don't come with the disk(s), then they don't count...

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a quantifiable loss.

I see no value in those skill combinations being available or not.  But you probably guessed that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

HTTP 404 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

 

You didn't say affect.  You said violate.

oh I used violate because you used it originally in the post I responded to.  I wanted to try be on the same page as you.  but lets stick with violate.

"I dont see how how mechanics cannot violate story but fair enough"

The mechanics would just change the story from the one that would exist were the mechanics different.

The story isn't real until after the player has played teh game, so until the mechanical choices have been made there's no story to violate.  The story is guided in one direction or the other, so two players playing the game might experience significantly different stories, but neither one of those stories is "the right one".

[Meltemph]

The mechanics would just change the story from the one that would exist were the mechanics different.



The story isn't real until after the player has played teh game, so until the mechanical choices have been made there's no story to violate. The story is guided in one direction or the other, so two players playing the game might experience significantly different stories, but neither one of those stories is "the right one".

Inner monologue stories do not apply though. Besides, the fact that you can specify characters in anyway you want, combat wise, will automatically restrict writers ability to describe that character with more detail. The written dialog is more important then the inner monologue, in terms of making the best story for the most amount of people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a quantifiable loss.

I see no value in those skill combinations being available or not.

That doesn't change that they're there (or not), or that some people might want to use them.

If they're not available, then some people are deprived of something they would like.  The others are unaffected.

If they are available, then some people get added gameplay benefits, while the others are unaffected.

If an all archer party is available, no one is making you play one.  But if an all archer party is unavailable, those who would like to play are being forced not to.

At least until we mod the game to add back in those lost features.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Inner monologue stories do not apply though.

If that's the case, then no one is roleplaying.  Then you never know why your character does something unless the game tells you, and if the game tells you then you clearly didn't get to choose it.  So why are you even bothering to play the game?  Why would anyone?

Besides, the fact that you can specify characters in anyway you want, combat wise, will automatically restrict writers ability to describe that character with more detail.

The writers could leave that description to teh game mechanics, thus allowing those details to be expressed just as well, but visually.

The written dialog is more important then the inner monologue, in terms of making the best story for the most amount of people.

This is only true if the story is immutable, which, for reasons I just explained, is a huge problem.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If that's the case, then no one is roleplaying.  Then you never know why your character does something unless the game tells you, and if the game tells you then you clearly didn't get to choose it.  So why are you even bothering to play the game?  Why would anyone?

Haven't we talked about this before?  What I mean is, you should already know the answer to the questions you're posting here, even if it's not a position you personally share.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 janvier 2011 - 11:08 .

[Meltemph]

If that's the case, then no one is roleplaying.

That is blatantly false. I can roleplay the roles of "The Odd Couple" and still be roleplaying, it just is not as free form as yours.

[HTTP 404]

Sylvius, the game you are describing is just having Hawke and all the characters thrown into an area and just fight various creatures and bad guys for 80 hours with leveling with nothing happening in between because we just make up our own stories in our heads.



Its too black and white. There's much more to a game than just mechanics and settings.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If that's the case, then no one is roleplaying.  Then you never know why your character does something unless the game tells you, and if the game tells you then you clearly didn't get to choose it.  So why are you even bothering to play the game?  Why would anyone?

Haven't we talked about this before?  What I mean is, you should already know the answer to the questions you're posting here, even if it's not a position you personally share.

But I don't know the answer to the question.  Playing an RPG seems like a horribly inefficient way to be told a story.

[Meltemph]

Playing an RPG seems like a horribly inefficient way to be told a story.

I think they do a very good job at telling stories in video-games.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But I don't know the answer to the question.  Playing an RPG seems like a horribly inefficient way to be told a story.

And playing a cRPG is a horribly inefficient way to roleplay just to avoid interacting with other people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

That is blatantly false. I can roleplay the roles of "The Odd Couple" and still be roleplaying, it just is not as free form as yours.

If it's exactly the same as every other protrayal of The Odd Couple, then you're not roleplaying.  You're just acting.

There need to be some room from player input for it to be roleplaying.

HTTP 404 wrote...

Sylvius, the game you are describing is just having Hawke and all the characters thrown into an area and just fight various creatures and bad guys for 80 hours with leveling with nothing happening in between because we just make up our own stories in our heads.

Its too black and white. There's much more to a game than just mechanics and settings.

That's not what I'm calling for at all.  You're suggesting that the only options are to have the story completely written by the writers, or to have no story at all, and that's just not true.  There's loads of middle ground to explaore, and BioWare has done a terrific job of exploring it in their earlier games.

[HTTP 404]

to be fair the best role playing is paper and pen with friends...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Playing an RPG seems like a horribly inefficient way to be told a story.

I think they do a very good job at telling stories in video-games.

If you're just being told a story, what's the combat for?  Why are you in control of it?

Since inner monologues don't count (your words, not mine), then clearly that combat can't really be part of the story, since the decisions you make during that combat exist somehow outside the story.