Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[fgstratus]

I think the relatively linear story progression in DA2 helped make the story more compelling. 
The reason for this is that, due to time and manpower constraints, it is impracticable to make an interactive, evolving story that is still epic and non-linear.

If the developer knows that the player is going to do Quest X first,
then Quest Y next, and then Quest Z last, the developer can better
script Quest Y to take into account what happens in Quest X, and to
script Quest Z to better take into account what happened in Quests X+Y. 


On top of that, when designing the quests, the developer can
add in things to accomodate for the passage of time.  For example, if
the story was about Kirkwall holding out against a massive invasion of
zombie turtles, the developers can make it seem like the
zombie-turtle-invasion is merely looming while the player is doing Quest
X, and when the player gets to Quest Y, the developers can add in signs
of combat and fallen soldiers and zombie-turtles around the outer areas
of the city.  Then on Quest Z, you could see active fighting in the
inner areas of the city. 

While DA1 was both epic and non-linear, there was very little interactivity between the chapters that were non-linear (dwarves, arl, elves).  While your character runs back and forth across all of
Ferelden, the Blight doesn't seem to go anywhere (besides spreading on the minimap, but this had little effect on gameplay).  If you do
the elven missions last, along with all the intervening sidequests, you'd probably expect that months have gone by since Ostagar (unless your characters are REALLY good at speedwalking).  However, when you finally do get around to the Elven quests, the whole experience still feels as if Ostagar had just happened. 

I feel that DA2, in contrast, does a much better job presenting the passage of time and making it seem like your actions have a greater causal effect on future events.  To avoid giving away any spoilers, I'll just leave it at that.

Obviously, it would not be impossible to have both non-linearity and an interactive, evolving story.  However, the amount of work you'd have to do goes up exponentially with each non-linear major questline you create.  Imagine
if you have 3 quests that you have to do in order.  At this point, you'd only have to create one "version" of each of the quests.  If you want to let players go through each of those 3 quests in any order, then you would have to create 3 versions of each quest (one version for doing the quest first, another for doing it second, another for doing it last).  This amounts to 9 times the amount of work.  Of course, this is a very rough abstraction (I'm sure you can cut out a lot of redundancies, etc.), but the general principle still stands.