147 réponses à ce sujet

[Ksandor]

Torax wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Yes!!! They set the bar so high first... Then I see DA II... I was very disappointed with DA II. But I think they reinvented the whole industry, not only themselves and not with ME2 but with ME1. ME2 only improves on that. Let's hope ME3 won't chew on and consume that. But the revolution came with the first installment. These games play like a movie! Maybe in near future Hollywood will be no more and online interactive movie games will replace the American cinema.

Oh don't worry. Drew K is still the writer for ME. So you can probably go ahead and hate that story to since YOU could write a better one right?

ME has a good story. But I don't like the novels of the man. I read them only because I like ME so much. And I still think I write better novels than him. But why do you care? C'mon Torax stop being hostile. You don't like me OK. But picking on me... Not that I care but it is a waste of time. Or could you have a decent conversation only with people you like? Besides what about if I think I am better than Drew K when it comes to novels? You disagree ok but what is wrong with that? Why are you always shocked or appaled like I am desacrating a holly artifact? Do I have to like Drew K's novels or worship him just because he is popular? Maybe I will publish other novels in future and maybe they will be popular (though again, popularity does not mean quality which is why I say I don't like Drew K's novels). But I never said he did a bad job in ME games. In fact he never failed me when it comes to writing games, only novels. I mean I look at Robert Jordan and then Drew K... and... Well I think this way. Accept it, and move on. One last thing... you say I hate the man. No I don't know him personally to hate him. And I would not hate him for being a bad novel writer. I just dislike his novels when it comes to narrative. I find them too marketing like and simplistic. By bringing up this hate issue you are just fast talking.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[Torax]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Torax wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Yes!!! They set the bar so high first... Then I see DA II... I was very disappointed with DA II. But I think they reinvented the whole industry, not only themselves and not with ME2 but with ME1. ME2 only improves on that. Let's hope ME3 won't chew on and consume that. But the revolution came with the first installment. These games play like a movie! Maybe in near future Hollywood will be no more and online interactive movie games will replace the American cinema.

Oh don't worry. Drew K is still the writer for ME. So you can probably go ahead and hate that story to since YOU could write a better one right?

Isn't Mac Walters the lead writer for ME2 and ME3? Drew moved down to the Austin to work on TOR, IIRC. 

I coulda sworn. After a while I just get annoyed at attacking Writers with the blanket assumption you could do better every time. Then using every argument you can almost to go after said writers.

[brightblueink]

Ugh, I'm a little bothered by the idea that a story MUST have a clear goal from the beginning to be a good story--or even that there ISN'T a clear driving force behind the story.

We're told from the beginning what the story wants to tell: How Hawke rose from obscurity to become an important figure in a brewing war that's torn apart the main religion of Thedas. We follow Hawke from the start of his or her new life, through the events that changed both Hawke themselves and the city of Kirkwall. Yes, the story structure is episodic, but I don't think this is a BAD thing. There are many, many celebrated works that follow a person through the episodic events of their life.

As for what Hawke's goal is: that's part of the roleplaying. You fill that in. Heck, you're even given a few chances to tell the characters what your goal is. Does your Hawke want power? Do they just want to survive? Are they seeking a way to protect their family? Do they strongly support mage freedom, the templars, neither? Do they just want excitement? You have a chance to decide this for your character yourself.

In the end, the question that the story asks at the beginning is answered. We know how Hawke became an important figure in the city. We know what Hawke's involvement was in the upcoming war. We know why Hawke was important, and we also know why every single party member was important.

I thought the story of the game was GREAT. It experimented with and challenged the typical RPG formula. It tried out different story structures and different ways of telling the story. It had great characters that slowly grow and develop, many as a reaction to your choices. It focused on a personal story instead of rehashing the same hero-myth fantasy has been retelling for decades. (And that isn't to say that I don't like the hero's journey sort of fantasy story--I do. But I don't think that's the end-all, be-all of storytelling in any genre or medium, much less fantasy RPGs.)

I'm really, really frustrated by how poorly the community has been reacting to this story. It says to me not that Gaider and his writing team wrote the story poorly, but that the gaming community and Bioware fans are unable to accept storytelling that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how a video game should be structured--and that troubles me. If the writers of video games aren't allowed to experiment with how storys are told in gaming, I don't see how video games can evolve as a storytelling medium. They WILL be the shallow, uninspired stories meant to simply serve the gameplay the way the mainstream views them if writers are told that a video game story must have A, B, and C, in that order, without any D. I'll applaud any game that experiments with the way stories in video games are told, even if those experiments aren't always perfect.

[Foolsfolly]

Torax wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

I don't get the hate for Drew. Or any of the writers actually. The writers at BioWare write characters who happen to be in video games and not video game characters. You know?

What I think really would have helped the plot and at times gave us introductions for characters like Meredith and Orsino would be if we got those sort of side plot cinematics like Origins had. But since they are going with a basis that Varric is talking to Cassandra maybe that is why they wanted hawke to be in every scene. Since it's from the standpoint that even if Hawke didn't take Varric along for a part of the story. Hawke would have told him about it later. Meanwhile a private argument or conversation between the Viscount and Meredith or some other characters would not openly share their tales with a dwarf in the Hanged Man.

Even that's a simple fix. Have Hawke be a part of the issue earlier. Then Hawke can hear a conversation between the Grand Cleric and Meredith, or Orsino and the Grand Cleric, or the Grand Cleric and the Viscount (why didn't they meet?).

I think it was a mistake to either not have a focus on the plot or by having a plot per act (as some have said and it's likely that they're right).

[Ksandor]

Oh by all means... Let them experiment. In fact if they will come up with something I will like I will buy that game, make a positive review about it and I will enjoy that game. But experimenting for the sake of experimenting? If they blow up the laboratory don't expect me to congratulate them. I did not like this experimentation but if in my opinion they can tell a better story with a more enjoyable game in the 3rd installement with the SAME premise I will buy and play that game as a loyal fan.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[Foolsfolly]

Ugh, I'm a little bothered by the idea that a story MUST have a clear goal from the beginning to be a good story--or even that there ISN'T a clear driving force behind the story.

Why does that bother you? I mean unless you're reading a minimalistic short story there's always a central plot; even those dopey romance stories have the general plot summed up as "Get the girl/boy."

A central plot is key to storytelling. If you're story isn't about anything...then it's about nothing. Just people talking and doing things without purpose. That's life. Entertainment has plot.

[TheBlackBaron]

Foolsfolly wrote...
A central plot is key to storytelling. If you're story isn't about anything...then it's about nothing. Just people talking and doing things without purpose. That's life. Entertainment has plot.

Seinfeld disagrees, FF. 

[Ksandor]

That is why I don't like that show.

[Torax]

Who really needs a plot. Why can't a game be fun that is just about blowing up stuff with giant weapons. It's works marvelously. Just give me a large rocket launcher and turn on the 1812 Overture. I'll make it work!

[Foolsfolly]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
A central plot is key to storytelling. If you're story isn't about anything...then it's about nothing. Just people talking and doing things without purpose. That's life. Entertainment has plot.

Seinfeld disagrees, FF. 

No, they tried to be a show about nothing, but each episode was about something.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 15 avril 2011 - 11:26 .

[Ksandor]

Torax wrote...

Who really needs a plot. Why can't a game be fun that is just about blowing up stuff with giant weapons. It's works marvelously. Just give me a large rocket launcher and turn on the 1812 Overture. I'll make it work!

You are absolutely right. But then don't call it Role Playing Game. Or call it RPG as Rocket Propelled Grenade . I like Duke Nukem but if a company makes an action game and then calls it the best RPG ever made or even just a RPG I would disagree. I have no issues with ME. Why? Because they do not call it pure RPG. They call it action RPG and I accept it. 

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 11:29 .

[Foolsfolly]

Torax wrote...

Who really needs a plot. Why can't a game be fun that is just about blowing up stuff with giant weapons. It's works marvelously. Just give me a large rocket launcher and turn on the 1812 Overture. I'll make it work!

A game really does not need a plot. It needs to have gameplay, rules, and consquences for those rules.

And it needs to be fun. What you've said reminds me of those old MechWarrior games, which were fun. There's also Counter-Strike which was fun. There's Chess which is fun.

None of those games have plot. You can imagine one (I used to all the time for MechWarrior, imaging myself as a hero fighting a losing battle against my bitter enemies).

But Dragon Age 2 isn't a "throw you into this and imagine your way out" kind of game. It has events and missions that have to happen. It has characters who exist fully formed. It needs a plot. It's not Counter-Strike or Sims or anything of the like.

(Sims was only enjoyable when I imagined stories in my head....I play many video games)

[Ksandor]

RPG has a definition like any other concept. If you change that definition radically it is not a RPG anymore. It is something else. Some people may like that something else. I like RPG as is. The most "modified and improved version" I could stand about is ME2. That is the limit of my compromise for fun.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[The Baconer]

brightblueink wrote...
snip

Normally, I would agree that it's good they want to break out of the standard story-telling formula, but all of the places where the story could have shined in DA II suffered from plot-railroading or poor development. Hawke's companions interact with each other on a phenominal level, but at the same time their interaction with Hawke feels restricted, especially when you compare it to companions in past Bioware games. The biggest problem is that we only get to have an indepth discussion with them when the game decides to allow it. This is especially prominent with your love interest, after the climax (... No pun intended) of the romantic pursual, there's almost nothing left to talk about with them aside from brief comments during certain quests, and the finale.

During act 3 I honestly find it hard to care about the plights of Meredith and Orsino, but we're still forced to take part in an event that, IMO, there's not enough reason to feel invested in. Given how important Act 3's resolution is on the grand scale in Thedas, I believe that Meredith, Orsino, and the Circle Mages should have had more involvement in the preceeding acts, so by Act 3 it feels like we're dealing with more fleshed out characters.

[brightblueink]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Ugh, I'm a little bothered by the idea that a story MUST have a clear goal from the beginning to be a good story--or even that there ISN'T a clear driving force behind the story.

Why does that bother you? I mean unless you're reading a minimalistic short story there's always a central plot; even those dopey romance stories have the general plot summed up as "Get the girl/boy."

A central plot is key to storytelling. If you're story isn't about anything...then it's about nothing. Just people talking and doing things without purpose. That's life. Entertainment has plot.

I don't think that's true. There are many, many popular novels that DON'T have a clear goal like "destroy the One Ring" or "kill the dragon."  (Or "get the girl", etc.)

Take, for example, Gone With the Wind. I actually hate that book, but it's not because it's poorly written. The story follows Scarlett O'Hara and how she grows as a person throughout the Civil War. Scarlett's goal, similar to what Hawke's can be, is simply survival--mixed in with some "I want to steal Ashley away from his wife" But there's not exactly a clear focus--you don't start out the book knowing it's going to end with Scarlett's marriage to Rhett disolving. The goal is simply to follow her life--similar to how DA2 follows Hawke's life.

The film American Beauty is another example. The movie opens with the main character narrating "I don't know it yet, but within a few months, I'll be dead." It's a forgone conclusion that Leonard's actions will lead to his death--we just don't know how yet. The movie shows his life, and the decisions he made, and those of the people around him, and how it'll end with his death. Much like how DA2 opens with Cassandra asking Varric "How was Hawke involved with the approaching war?" We know that in the end, Hawke will be the center of events that will transform Thedas--the question the plot asks is "how?"

And again, I reject the idea that Dragon Age 2 *doesn't* have a clear goal in the first place because of this. Cassandra asks a question, the same question that the plot asks. The story answers it, piece by piece. It's episodic, but it's still clear throughout the story where this is going to go, and by the end we know why the events matter. Hawke, themselves, might not have a goal outside of what we choose--but again, this is a roleplaying choice Bioware has given us.

Modifié par brightblueink, 15 avril 2011 - 11:54 .

[88mphSlayer]

i didn't think the game was about the mage vs. templar war

it was about the champion, which is why an act 4 dealing with the idol (something brought about by the champion rather than the champion just being in the wrong place at the wrong time) should've happened

i mean act 1 was basically all about hawke proactively moving ahead in the world of kirkwall, acts 2 and 3 was basically hawke reacting to situations thrust upon them because of the status they gained from act 1... it should've come full circle with act 4 again being about hawke proactively doing something again (this time fixing a mistake they caused)

not every story needs an antagonist because sometimes the antagonist is ourselves

dragon age 3 will likely be about the mage vs. templar war, but da2 was not

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 15 avril 2011 - 11:59 .

[Ksandor]

brightblueink wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Ugh, I'm a little bothered by the idea that a story MUST have a clear goal from the beginning to be a good story--or even that there ISN'T a clear driving force behind the story.

Why does that bother you? I mean unless you're reading a minimalistic short story there's always a central plot; even those dopey romance stories have the general plot summed up as "Get the girl/boy."

A central plot is key to storytelling. If you're story isn't about anything...then it's about nothing. Just people talking and doing things without purpose. That's life. Entertainment has plot.

I don't think that's true. There are many, many popular novels that DON'T have a clear goal like "destroy the One Ring" or "kill the dragon."  (Or "get the girl", etc.)

Take, for example, Gone With the Wind. I actually hate that book, but it's not because it's poorly written. The story follows Scarlett O'Hara and how she grows as a person throughout the Civil War. Scarlett's goal, similar to what Hawke's can be, is simply survival--mixed in with some "I want to steal Ashley away from his wife" But there's not exactly a clear focus--you don't start out the book knowing it's going to end with Scarlett's marriage to Rhett disolving. The goal is simply to follow her life--similar to how DA2 follows Hawke's life.

The film American Beauty is another example. The movie opens with the main character narrating "I don't know it yet, but within a few weeks, I'll be dead." It's a forgone conclusion that Leonard's actions will lead to his death--we just don't know how yet. The movie shows his life, and the decisions he made, and those of the people around him, and how it'll end with his death. Much like how DA2 opens with Cassandra asking Varric "How was Hawke involved with the approaching war?" We know that in the end, Hawke will be the center of events that will transform Thedas--the question the plot asks is "how?"

And again, I reject the idea that Dragon Age 2 *doesn't* have a clear goal in the first place because of this. Cassandra asks a question, the same question that the plot asks. The story answers it, piece by piece. It's episodic, but it's still clear throughout the story where this is going to go, and by the end we know why the events matter. Hawke, themselves, might not have a goal outside of what we choose--but again, this is a roleplaying choice Bioware has given us.

But you focus on Scarlett's life and the side characters' lives. The plot is still focused. I don't like episodic games. Baldur's Gate chapters were great. You could decide when to move on the next chapter. But with DA II... Sorry but it is a mess. A confusing game...

[brightblueink]

The Baconer wrote...

During act 3 I honestly find it hard to care about the plights of Meredith and Orsino, but we're still forced to take part in an event that, IMO, there's not enough reason to feel invested in. Given how important Act 3's resolution is on the grand scale in Thedas, I believe that Meredith, Orsino, and the Circle Mages should have had more involvement in the preceeding acts, so by Act 3 it feels like we're dealing with more fleshed out characters.

This I'll agree on. We should've seen a bit more of Meredith and Orsino--particularly Orsino. They weren't as developed as well as they could've been, and since they're a major part of act III, they should've been. The Arishok gets some much better development in Act I, which is probably why people respond better to him as a character. We do learn a decent amount about Meredith in the first two acts, but it's mostly through characters telling us what she's like, which breaks the "show, don't tell" rule of writing.

I wouldn't say that's a symptom of the game "not having a plot" though, which I think is overstating the problem--it's just a fault of them not getting the character development they should've.

[brightblueink]

Ksandor wrote...

But you focus on Scarlett's life and the side characters' lives. The plot is still focused.

And I think DA2 is also focused. The focus is on Hawke's life, and the events in Kirkwall that lead to the civil war, and how Hawke was a part of it. It's pretty much spelled out for us in Varric's opening conversation with Cassandra.

I don't like episodic games. Baldur's Gate chapters were great. You could decide when to move on the next chapter. But with DA II... Sorry but it is a mess. A confusing game...

I didn't find it confusing at all, nor do I think the plot is a mess. (There are other parts of the game I'd consider a mess, like the reused environments and the large amounts of bugs, but the plot isn't one of them.) It might just come down to taste instead of bad or good writing.

Modifié par brightblueink, 16 avril 2011 - 12:05 .

[Foolsfolly]

The Baconer wrote...

brightblueink wrote...
snip

Normally, I would agree that it's good they want to break out of the standard story-telling formula, but all of the places where the story could have shined in DA II suffered from plot-railroading or poor development. Hawke's companions interact with each other on a phenominal level, but at the same time their interaction with Hawke feels restricted, especially when you compare it to companions in past Bioware games. The biggest problem is that we only get to have an indepth discussion with them when the game decides to allow it. This is especially prominent with your love interest, after the climax (... No pun intended) of the romantic pursual, there's almost nothing left to talk about with them aside from brief comments during certain quests, and the finale.

During act 3 I honestly find it hard to care about the plights of Meredith and Orsino, but we're still forced to take part in an event that, IMO, there's not enough reason to feel invested in. Given how important Act 3's resolution is on the grand scale in Thedas, I believe that Meredith, Orsino, and the Circle Mages should have had more involvement in the preceeding acts, so by Act 3 it feels like we're dealing with more fleshed out characters.

Exactly.

The events in the third act are so big and important and yet they're nothing to Hawke. Involvement with those characters and that plight in more than a lipservice kind of way would have lent weight to the finale.

@ brightblueink.

Never read Gone with the Wind but I have seen the movie a number of times. I'm not familiar enough with it to discuss it.

However, American Beauty is a great film. The movie's plot is about how a dead man (emotionally, mentally, physically, and career-wise) finds himself....ironically right before he dies. It's about self-discovery. Wonderful film. Nothing at all like DA2 since the game's not really about Hawke and Hawke's vague motivations. If it were more focused on Hawke and Hawke had character growth then there'd be a case here.

If the entire story was only about Cassandra, a character we know nothing about, and answering her question then why oh why is so much of the game about things Cassandra didn't ask about. She never asked how the Champion raised 50 gold, or how the Champion was proclaimed Champion. She asked about the Mage/Templar war.

[Ksandor]

brightblueink, I think preferences play an important role. But I believe that lack of focus and superficiality is a fact. I agree to disagree.

Modifié par Ksandor, 16 avril 2011 - 12:11 .

[Maria Caliban]

BioWare games tend to be about a super special individual who has to save the world/universe from a powerful, often ancient, evil. That's a very clear goal.

The plot itself is rarely focused, however. Most of Origins, Knights of the Old Republic, and Mass Effect was not about stopping the darkspawn, the Sith, or the Reapers. You spend far more time doing sidequests or stuff that only tangentially relates to the goal.

Dragon Age 2 is just as focused as every other BioWare game, which is to say it's hardly focused at all.

Attempting to keep peace with the qunari has nothing to do with attempting to help the mages just like clearing the Circle tower of abominations has nothing to do with making peace with the werewolves and Dalish.

'Plot focus' is not the same as 'clear goal' or 'prominent antagonist.' I'm not surprised that without any of these, BioWare made a game that flounders narratively. I'm not surprised that BioWare didn't anticipate the problem with the lack of focus because they've managed to put out plenty of well received but unfocused games.

[Foolsfolly]

But solving these other problems, like the Circle or Werewolves or collecting pieces of a Star Map, or an amulet or anything were all steps towards something. It was like stops on a story path.

When they decided to break away from their established path (and BioWare games really had a paint-by-numbers way of doing things) they kept the unfocused element of their previous games. And without that goal, stopping here to help people while gathering what you need for the plot, the game's lack of focus snaps into focus.

I would continue, but it's starting to storm badly here. I'll be back later.

[88mphSlayer]

Foolsfolly wrote...

But solving these other problems, like the Circle or Werewolves or collecting pieces of a Star Map, or an amulet or anything were all steps towards something. It was like stops on a story path.

When they decided to break away from their established path (and BioWare games really had a paint-by-numbers way of doing things) they kept the unfocused element of their previous games. And without that goal, stopping here to help people while gathering what you need for the plot, the game's lack of focus snaps into focus.

I would continue, but it's starting to storm badly here. I'll be back later.

Dragon Age 2 is basically a lot like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, you start out a lacky and your entire motivation is personal, by the end of the game you're dealing with gang warfare and territory

i guess the difference at the end of the day is audiences and expectations, rpg's commonly go the Tolkien route with some big epic unfolding drama to push everything along, games like gta are basically expected to be about rags & riches & revenge because that's what people associate with modern times - not magic and demons and the blight which is something we expect epicness from

[mesmerizedish]

Dragon Age II was kind of like a sandbox game without the sandbox, to be honest.