71 réponses à ce sujet

[Rikaze]

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.

Yes you can.  It's the exact same tenor, as a matter of fact.  Either you stop the Blight, or not just Ferelden, but the whole world, gets pwned.  Either you stop the...  Well crap...  It's been so long since I played Mass Effect I can't...  Reapers?  Whatever, either you stop the Antagonists, or the whole Galaxy goes kablooey.

It's literally the same type of story, just fitted to a different genre.  If scope is all that matters, then the battles in Dragon Age should make Mass Effect seem like childs play.

As far as liking the story being the central motivator to a game...  That's entirely your preference.  BioWare does a good enough job at that kind of game to where it doesn't feel like your character is just a pawn in something much larger than him/herself, and so that type of game has merits all it's own.  I really enjoyed Mass Effect myself.  Like I said, I just tend to prefer Character-driven games better.  Dragon Age is one of those games...  Either way, though, I love BioWare's work.

[FFLB]

I prefer playing linear games because I have a higher chance of actually completing the game. A good story and gameplay also help to improve that. Games with a weak story or story elements that are all over the place just leave me disinterested and I end up dropping the game eventually. I have yet to finish Oblivion or Fallout 3. I would actually like to finish FO3, but whenever I do play it, it's only to shoot up a few raiders and then I get bored of trekking through the wasteland and decide to stop playing.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Nathan Pinard wrote...

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.

Except, of course, that Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 were linear as hell.

Case in point: Athkatla -> Thieves Guild/Bodhi -> Asylum -> (Underwater City) -> Underdark -> Suldanesselar -> Hell

Yes, you also had a bunch of sidequests like Kill Firkraag and The Planar Sphere, but really, the game was railroad as hell when it came to the core storyline.

[Rikaze]

Sinister_Saint wrote...

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?

Oblivion, horrible, Fallout 3, awesome.

Dragon Age, Better than both put together.

Why?  Because it's my opinion, and for you to trounce others preferences and opinions is silly and arrogant.  Have fun getting flamed, I'm gonna go play the Game of the Decade now. 

[Sinister_Saint]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

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

well if something is designed badly it obviously can't turn out to be a good product in the end.  so they may not have specified that they thought it was a bad game but it was definately implied.

[wanderon]

To me it works this way -



if you are only going to play a game once then linearity doesn't really matter - you just let the game tell it's story and follow along the path in front of you from start to finish - then put it away becuase you have now completed it and the next run through is going to take you through the same steps in exactly the same order.



If you like to play a game multiple times with multiple characters in multiple different ways then every opportunity to do something different (BACD vs ABCD vs BAC vs CADB vs DAC vs ACDB vs AC vs DB vs....) is a boon to making the game feel and play differently for you and to give you a different experience.



I have not progressed far enough in DA:O to discover which sort of game it is but I suspect it's going to be the latter style and thats exactly what I'm looking for.

[Greye]

I like the sense of adventure and immersion that comes from non-linearity. But like the OP, I also definitely lose my way and lose my interest and quit playing the game in some cases where I have too many choices, like in KotOR. I *love* the Baldur's Gate-style map DA has going on. But agree that four alliance quest hubs here in this situation was one too many for me. Also, the capital in DA fails at feeling like a city at all, so far, comparing the two games.

[Sinister_Saint]

[quote]Rikaze wrote...

[quote]Sinister_Saint wrote...

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?[/quote]

Oblivion, horrible, Fallout 3, awesome.

Dragon Age, Better than both put together.

Why?  Because it's my opinion, and for you to trounce others preferences and opinions is silly and arrogant.  Have fun getting flamed, I'm gonna go play the Game of the Decade now. 

damn is it that time already?  time for you to play the "he's infringing on my rights by stating he thinks im wrong, but its ok for me to call him arrogant because i like to work with a double standard" card already huh?  lol

[Rikaze]

@ WanderOn:



And on top of that, non-linearity and replayability are great marketing gimmicks. Railroaded RPG's are a rare things these days, because the 'More Discerning' consumer wants a game that will keep them entertained for weeks, if not months to come, so non-linearity is a great way to market to those people. The last really linear RPG I saw was The Witcher, and before that.... Hell, I can't even be bothered to remember that far back...

[Littledingo]

I personally adore linear games, being involved in a well written and interesting story and get attached to the characters in a way you don't always in non-linear games is highly enjoyable. The downside of this is when your character does retarded things and you can't stop them (See Cecil in FFIV. I wanted to smack him a couple of times).



Though in more open world games, it's fun to explore and see whats tucked away in the nooks and crannies. Theres a far greater sense of exploration which is enjoyable. The down side of these games is that the main plot is weak, even open world games need *something* to drive them. I wont say Oblivion is a bad game, its not and I loved it, but the plot was the weakest of the weak and I never bothered with it but it had some of the best side quests I've done.



Its all pros and cons.



While you do get to chose to do the Dalish before the Mages or visa versa, I see DA as a pretty linear game. Its heavily story driven and its not like you can explore where ever you want. It could probably do with being a bit more open world, maybe a little more like Baldurs gate.



Regardless, I'm loving the game♥

[Periodiko]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

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.

I don't think the difference between telling a story and making a story is really that confusing.

I mean, if we're going to talk about fuzzy words, "storytelling" as being used just as ambiguously.

[Rikaze]

[quote]Sinister_Saint wrote...

[quote]Rikaze wrote...

[quote]Sinister_Saint wrote...

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?[/quote]

Oblivion, horrible, Fallout 3, awesome.

Dragon Age, Better than both put together.

Why?  Because it's my opinion, and for you to trounce others preferences and opinions is silly and arrogant.  Have fun getting flamed, I'm gonna go play the Game of the Decade now.  [/quote]

[quote][quote]damn is it that time already?  time for you to play the "he's infringing on my rights by stating he thinks im wrong, but its ok for me to call him arrogant because i like to work with a double standard" card already huh?  lol[/quote][/quote]

In case it wasn't obvious, the double standard was entirely intended, from beginning to end in that post.
Opinions generally always operate on a double-standard.  But no, it's not a double-standard to call you arrogant, because you called everyone who doesn't like those games insane.  You began by operating on the double-standard, I had hoped to show you that, but you apparently missed it.  *Shrug*

Modifié par Rikaze, 15 novembre 2009 - 09:02 .

[FFLB]

wanderon wrote...

To me it works this way -

if you are only going to play a game once then linearity doesn't really matter - you just let the game tell it's story and follow along the path in front of you from start to finish - then put it away becuase you have now completed it and the next run through is going to take you through the same steps in exactly the same order.

If you like to play a game multiple times with multiple characters in multiple different ways then every opportunity to do something different (BACD vs ABCD vs BAC vs CADB vs DAC vs ACDB vs AC vs DB vs....) is a boon to making the game feel and play differently for you and to give you a different experience.

I have not progressed far enough in DA:O to discover which sort of game it is but I suspect it's going to be the latter style and thats exactly what I'm looking for.

I feel the same way. While I'm tempted to create new characters for playthroughs of non-linear games, I realize that it's going to be a lot of trekking through the same areas that I've explored before, along with the same characters and quests. The only thing that might be diffierent is combat, due to class-like differences.

In games like DA:O, and BG2, the plot decisions that you make can totally take you on a different path that still leads to an enjoyable story.

[MrGOH]

I like narrative linearity - the narrative should follow a cause and effect sequence. I dislike non-responsive narratives - being stuck completing a game in only one way (on rails, in the parlance of our times).



I like branching, responsive narratives in which the progression through the narrative makes sense based on cause and effect. I think DA:O is actually less on rails, at least for the main quest, than putatively non linear games such as those made by Bethesda.

[Magic Zarim]

Well.. I signed up here to figure out what to do next - where to go next. After completing Ostegar and Lothering I decided, well, let's go find the Arl of Redcliffe. Only to find out my party was not capable of surviving the night in Redcliffe. That's about the only thing that suggested I didn't have business there yet so I went to other places to find things more matched to my party.



I completed the Elves first, then the Mages and from one thing to another I completed the Urn. Most likely monster/NPC difficulty somewhat guides the lineairity but so far I have been able to finish areas where I went with Redcliffe being the exception. My thought was, let's complete other areas first to grow stronger my characters. In my belief Redcliffe appeared to be one of the areas that 'should' be completed as one of the first areas.



Well, guess I couldn't have been more wrong. After still having quite the difficulty beating the night-stand (used tons of mana potions) I realized that nothing in Redcliffe related to the Urn took into account I already completed it. That was a bit of a shame in my experience. And that's just the thing the OP talks about here. If it was supposed to be this non-lineair, Redcliffe would have known I completed the Urn. But it didn't. There's still some lineairity imposed. However, due to my determination and might I say, skillfull play, I was able to complete quests/areas completely out of order, an order not taken account for.



It wasn't untill this thread that I realized Redcliffe is actually the lead to the endgame rather than a minor 'early adventure' hub.



For the sake of at least maintaining a bit of lineairity I'm going to let Redcliffe for what it is and finish other areas I have yet to do. Well, there's not much left though. The Dwarves are the only area of signifficance to complete.



Interesting, is all I can say.

[Sinister_Saint]

lol Rikaze i could waste all day arguing with you about how you're a @%#$ but im in a good mood today so ill pas on the opportunity and leave this forum for posts on what it is for ... oh and on a last note my statement did end in "as far as im concerned" so yes it was an opinion and you are incorrect... now now its ok, dont cry. these things happen and i wont go tell your friends and family about so you can just pretend it never happened

[FalloutBoy]

IMO this game strikes the perfect balance between linear and non-linear.

[macayle]

the basic reason some of us prefer non linear games is replayability if we alwasy had to go down the exact same path the game would be pretty boring. Even though this game is not as non linear as BG I it is stil better than a strictly linear game

[marshalleck]

Some players like or need to be lead around by the nose. Others don't. In games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, the narrative depends heavily on the player to shape it and advance it. You have to take control of it and play it actively. If you just sit back and expect the plot to unfold on its own, you'll be disappointed. Sandbox games such as those two certainly allow for more emergent gameplay.



On the other hand you have a linear game. It's true that yes the narrative can be much more structured and focused when options are taken away from the player, but it also impacts replayability. Most shooters are linear. You go to levels 1, 2, 3 etc. in that order. DAO is kind of in the middle. It has more structure than the typical Bethesda style sandbox game but it still presents players with a great degree of freedom over which order to pursue goals and how to go about them. The difference is that it never really deviates entirely from the main story. Sandbox games make that entirely possible, for good or ill.



So unsurprisingly it comes down to personal preference and what a players expects from a game. I personally like both styles. DAO has a stronger story overall, but Oblivion and especially Fallout 3 have much more convincing worlds.

[addiction21]

Different things for different people. Its the typical Bioware plot line. Starts out linear where you get your premise for the story, then it opens up wide with you making the choice to go where and do what to complete whatever the big goal is, then ends up linear again and shows you what the consequences of the choices you made thru out have led to.

Sometimes linear is a good thing. Like theres only one way to make good waffles. Sure you can put the batter in your mouth first then stick your head in the waffle iron to cook it, but thats just silly.

[CraigCWB]

In my opinion it's not linearity that is a problem, it's the lack of "free will" on the part of the player. When I used to play PnP D&D some of the most fun I ever had was when the party decided to go "off script" and the DM had to just kinda wing it. A good DM can do that. A computer game can't. But even so, I prefer games that let you go off and do your own thing even if they don't do a good job of providing any form of meaningful content when you do. Makes games seem less like an interactive movie, to me.



That's the one gripe I have with the Bioware game recipe.

[CraigCWB]

"...then ends up linear again and shows you what the consequences of the choices you made thru out have led to. "



Sorry, addiction21, but those kinds of "choices" don't amount to a hill of beans since you are merely picking one of several canned plot branchings that have no real bearing on anything other than the story itself.



Example of a real choice: Doing City State of the Mad Overlord many years ago when we (the party) first arrived an orphan beggar approached us with an outstretched palm begging for handouts. My barbarian character decided to tear his arm off at the shoulder and throw him in the river. We then spent the rest of our time in the city as fugitives.



Where's the freedom to make that kind of choice in Bioware games? I understand Bioware wants to concentrate on story telling and therefore doesn't allow players to do anything that doesn't advance the story along pre-defined paths in one way or another, but lets not pretend that's good game design because it isn't. It's just good narrative design.

[marshalleck]

Well CRPGs can never live up to PNP with a group of friends. That's not what the thread is about though.

[Kamitto]

CraigCWB wrote...

Example of a real choice: Doing City State of the Mad Overlord many years ago when we (the party) first arrived an orphan beggar approached us with an outstretched palm begging for handouts. My barbarian character decided to tear his arm off at the shoulder and throw him in the river. We then spent the rest of our time in the city as fugitives.

This is ridiculous.  A video game will never be able to do this until actual AI, or until the story is facilitated by an actual DM somewhere online.  Every game, no matter how much freedom you have, is confined to the possibilities programmed into it.

In a fighting game you may be able to do moves that the programmers didn't intend - different combinations of basic moves - but when it comes to narrative, which has to be written by human beings, there is always going to be a finite set of possibilities.

Expecting otherwise is stupid.  Keep playing tabletop if that's what you need.

[ThisGameIsbugged]

IMO, the story could have used a little more linearity. The story needed some kind of climax point near the middle. Perhaps they could have made Loathering into a castle and after after completing 2 of the 4 main questlines have a massive darkspawn battle there, instead of just having it appear as a skull and crossbones on your map all of a sudden. This would help make the darkspawn seem like more of a threat, as you never really see them organized except at the very beginning and the very end of the game.

Modifié par ThisGameIsbugged, 15 novembre 2009 - 10:37 .