71 réponses à ce sujet

[Shannara13]

In my opinion a lack of linearity in the main story line is a bad thing. The fact that I can complete any of the 4 main objectives in any order does nothing for me except remove the feeling of forward progression. I mean if you are on the 4th objective everyone in the game acts the same as if it was the first objective you completed. No one recognizes any of your acomplishments for having done the other 3 things. Right now it feels like the game progresses from the start to the completion of your first objective then it stops progressing until landsmeet when it starts progressing again.

[Periodiko]

because unless there are good reasons for it, it is.



sucks for you I guess.



also, thats not true, there's a lot of fairly relevant stuff that carries over from area to area, from NPC's, to just your character's equipment/stats, to small bits of plot that bleed over (your interactions with surface dwarves definitely change if you finish Orzammar early, for example).

[MBirkhofer]

Its not depending on the game.



One of key components of Mass Effect is the storyline is MUCH more streamlined then here in Dragonage, or Fallout.

This allows them to tell a much more focused and compelling storyline for that. While the meandering of DA, tells more localized ones, although there is still a centralized story.



Play Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 coming in January.

[Shannara13]

Periodiko wrote...

because unless there are good reasons for it, it is.

sucks for you I guess.

also, thats not true, there's a lot of fairly relevant stuff that carries over from area to area, from NPC's, to just your character's equipment/stats, to small bits of plot that bleed over (your interactions with surface dwarves definitely change if you finish Orzammar early, for example).

Except being able to complete the objectives doesn't really add anything to the game imo but if they had made you do them in a certain order they could have fleshed the story out alot more.

[Lacan2]

I love linear gameplay. It's more structured, like a novel, and therefore the storytelling elements work better.

I used to be a big fan of non-linear gameplay until they started designing non-linear games (like Oblivion), when I realized some linearity is necessary.

[Brentra]

I know some people are extremely fond of non-linearity but I have to say that I don't value it so much. For me, a well-executed game is like a book, and when I read a book I need the overall narrative to be engaging, not to have every chapter of it to be self-contained.

[Olmerto]

Agree with the OP. I prefer more linear gameplay where the story is more focused on what is happening. The story is fixed anyway (and I'm glad it is), might as well make the most of it. Otherwise you have a sandbox game and lose your sense of purpose and direction. I would agree that by the end of the fourth alliance quest, I had lost a lot of interest in the main plot and had trouble regaining interest in that story. If that story had been developing thoughout all the alliance areas there could've been more done to keep it compelling, I'd think.

[AiyanaLindari]

Linearity is not a bad thing in itself, but it can leave a feeling of just being dragged along the storyline with no real choice. Role playing is more effective if there is some freedom of choice so the player can choose what direction to go in. It also provides variety for replayability.

[Sinister_Saint]

fallout and oblivion are both fantastic games. even kotor was non-linear and its basically the same game as this one except set in the star wars universe instead of the universe created for this game. if you guys dont like those games, what are you doing playing anything that has any kind of rpg feel to it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I disagree entirely with the OP.

Linearity robs the player of control over what his character does. There's no choices about what he does anymore - only what he says or how he does it, which are much smaller considerations for me. Also, approaching problems in a different order changes how we view the problems, so replayability is dramatically enhanced, especially for people who roleplay their characters (which I would hope is everyone, given that it's a roleplaying game)

[Nathan Pinard]

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were badly designed non-linear games.



Baldur's Gate is probably the best by far (or BG2) Fallout 1 in some cases as well.

[Shannara13]

Sinister_Saint wrote...

fallout and oblivion are both fantastic games. even kotor was non-linear and its basically the same game as this one except set in the star wars universe instead of the universe created for this game. if you guys dont like those games, what are you doing playing anything that has any kind of rpg feel to it?

We are not saying we don't like the games just that we feel they could have been better. What is the point of being able to do C->A->B->D instead of just A->B->C->D? All it does is make it so that programmers have to treat each objective as self contained since they can't account for ever possible combination you might have done. Does the fact that you can do the Dalish then Mage Tower or Mage Tower then Dalish add that much to the game? Is it really worth the hit to storytelling that the game has to take as a result?

[hexaligned]

I prefer options in everything I do, liniarity comes across as feeling forced and restrictive to me. If I want a story where I have no choices I read a book.

[Rikaze]

Well, you don't HAVE to get all the alliances either. Sure, this probably makes the end of the game much more difficult, but it's optional. To progress, you only HAVE to do Redcliffe and track down the Urn of Sacred Ashes.

Personally, I like the non-linear game play. From a roleplay perspective, this is the best, since each Alliance plot you do is part and partial to the greater storyline, and each set of quests leads to my characters development. You may like games that feel like reading a novel, and so do I, but I could tell right from the start that this isn't that kind of game. It's more centered around the character, not the story itself. It's your characters story, not the games story. What you, as the player, decide to do, impacts the game much more than the story itself, and that's the point of this game.

Games like Mass Effect are fun, where you're constantly pushing forward, and you're just a character in the story rather than the character the story is made for, but I prefer games that revolve around my character. It's more immersed, and makes it feel like what you're doing actually matters, as opposed to it feeling like it's just what your character has to do as part of the plot. And Dragon Age does it better than any game I've played to date.

Edit:  Anyone who's read lots of Fantasy or creative literature in general knows, there's Story-Driven, and Character-Driven plot-lines.  This game relies on Character-driven plots.  It's not a lack of story-telling, you're expected to, in part, tell your own story here.  Story-driven is Mass Effect, and linear games, and they have their place, but not in this game.

Modifié par Rikaze, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:26 .

[Bullets McDeath]

Except I'd say DA:O makes a concerted effort (though not always a successful one) to allow you to progress through certain parts of the story in any order you choose while still having consequences and a variance of progression that carries over depending on what order you choose. Redcliffe and the Mage Tower affect one another, your actions in Ozramar affect the realm at large, etc.

I've yet to get to Landsmeet actually but I'm almost there and from what spoilers I've read I have to give this game a hand for it's balance of linear and non-linear elements. It feels like a very large story that I really have an impact on.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:27 .

[Periodiko]

Shannara13 wrote...

Sinister_Saint wrote...

fallout and oblivion are both fantastic games. even kotor was non-linear and its basically the same game as this one except set in the star wars universe instead of the universe created for this game. if you guys dont like those games, what are you doing playing anything that has any kind of rpg feel to it?

We are not saying we don't like the games just that we feel they could have been better. What is the point of being able to do C->A->B->D instead of just A->B->C->D? All it does is make it so that programmers have to treat each objective as self contained since they can't account for ever possible combination you might have done. Does the fact that you can do the Dalish then Mage Tower or Mage Tower then Dalish add that much to the game? Is it really worth the hit to storytelling that the game has to take as a result?

Because going from C->A means you will have the experiences, characters, and stuff you found in C to use in A, which may lead to different events in A then if you had started in A bumbling around with Alister and Morrigan, which leads to replayability and a sense that the events occuring are playing out in the way they are because of the choices you made, rather than just watching a script in which you ultimately have little to say.

Roleplaying.

At the end of the Ostagar sequence, your character has free reign to go wherever he wants, why shouldn't you have free reign as well? Who cares about "storytelling" when you can have storymaking - games are an interactive medium. Games should exploit that. There's a reason games like Baldur's Gate and Fallout are still played to this day. Also, free-roaming in cRPG's is a long-standing tradition, it's basically a standard feature of the genre. Also, you're ignoring that you have the choice not to do areas as well.

Modifié par Periodiko, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:36 .

[Trajan60]

DA:O could've been so much better as an open world. Even the outdoor areas felt like linear dungeons. It's a tragedy.

[Wolff Laarcen]

The obvious answer to this question is 'personal preference'.

Another thing to consider is replay value.  How often are you going to play through the same unchanging, static, sequence of events before it becomes boring?  You might be motivated to play a couple more times if you see that taking steps in a different order could have a different effect on the outcome - and i think devs believe the same thing.

outlaworacle wrote...
...DA:O makes a concerted effort (though not always a successful one) to allow you to progress through certain parts of the story in any order you choose while still having consequences and a variance of progression
that carries over depending on what order you choose.

You're right, and it doesn't do a bad job.

Rikaze wrote...
Games like Mass Effect are fun, where you're constantly pushing forward, and you're just a character in the story rather than the character the story is made for, but I prefer games that revolve around my character.

I actually like the feeling of the story being more central than my character's role in it.  Besides, Mass Effect just had such a wider scope than DAO... you cant really compare a game that takes place across a galaxy with a game that takes place in one small part of a country.

Modifié par Wolff Laarcen, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:44 .

[Dam Wookie]

Shannara13 wrote...

In my opinion a lack of linearity in the main story line is a bad thing. The fact that I can complete any of the 4 main objectives in any order does nothing for me except remove the feeling of forward progression. I mean if you are on the 4th objective everyone in the game acts the same as if it was the first objective you completed. No one recognizes any of your acomplishments for having done the other 3 things. Right now it feels like the game progresses from the start to the completion of your first objective then it stops progressing until landsmeet when it starts progressing again.

The lack of feeling of progression has nothing to do with linearity. It could be the same if you were forced to play each area in an order. Both options could have improvements implemented.

Your post makes no sense.

[Rikaze]

Lemonio wrote...

IT ISN'T.
lol
my favorite games were very linear
kotor was linear, witcher was linear, bioshock was linear, beyond good and evil was linear, dragon age origins is also pretty linear apart from the origins
on the other hand, games like oblivion which aren't linear have a crappy story

i want my choices to have consequences, however the most important thing is story and linear games generally have better story

If you really wanna split hairs, then it's fair to say that there's really no such thing as a non-linear game, since everything eventually culminates to a single story climax in which your choices may or may not matter.  Non-linear is referring to not being rail-roaded into doing the same thing every time.  Whether that's the order in which you do things, or not having to do them at all, or even having an all-together different plot-line, that is what non-linear is.

Dragon Age, in that regard, is non-linear, and if you look up the definition of a non-linear game versus a linear one, you will find that Dragon Age fits the definition of non-linear.

The Origins themselves serve to prove this point, as you mentioned, as well as all four of the Alliance quests, which you don't actually -have- to do.  A linear game would force you not just to do each one, but do it in a specific order.  The climax being more-or-less the same is a story-telling function, since you can't have the game end without certain plot-elements, (Trying very hard to avoid spoilers for those who haven't finished the game yet,) and even the ending is completely non-linear, since there are quite a few different ways in which you can end the game.

[Bryy_Miller]

Periodiko wrote...

Who cares about "storytelling" when you can have storymaking - games are an interactive medium. Games should exploit that. 

"Storymaking" makes no sense. If you don't enjoy linear plots in RPGs, just say so. Don't try to justify it with words that are meaningless.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:48 .

[Sinister_Saint]

those of you that say fallout 3 and oblivion were bad games are just insane as far as im concerned. dont get me wrong i like this game, but this game is not in the same league as them. fallout 3 is probably the best game ever made up to this point. as far as linear/non-linear i like alot of different types of games from sports to shooters to various types of rpg's, but why would you want to play a game where you personally have NO say in where things are going over a game where you can go anywhere and do anything you want?

[Bryy_Miller]

They didn't say they were bad games, just designed badly. There's a difference.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Periodiko wrote...

because unless there are good reasons for it, it is.

sucks for you I guess.

Ah, another genius debater joins us on the forums. Shouldn't you be in bed by now, kid?