neppakyo wrote...
Giggles_Manically wrote...
Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.
True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.
Not IMHO, the plot is by the numbers, ooh the Collectors are this big threat allied with the reapers but Shepard has to go jaunting round the galaxy solving the personal problems of his crew. It basically consisted of Cerberus recruit Shepard, Shepard recruits the crew, Shepard solves crews personal problems then the big finale. This then coupled with the one dimensional combat...neppakyo wrote...
Giggles_Manically wrote...
Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.
True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.
I am aware. I couldn't, though, because of the way DAO was structured. As I've said, I felt building a fully fleshed out character for a Warden is something of an external exercise because I don't think the game provides enough personal rigours and emotional context in order to fully establish the character of the Warden by itself. I mean, I could take the time to plot out the emotional nuances of the character, outside of the game, in the place of the questions Origins just never asks me, but I... don't. It just feels like I'm creating fanfiction at that point.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I see no reason why the player can't see an undefined character as being separate from himself with his own emotional motivations. In taht case, the player just needs to create those motivations - just as the writer did in a pre-defined character.
There's no difference. There's nothing stopping that playstyle you describe - viewing the character as independent and complete - from working with an undefined character.
That's how many of us manage to replay games like DAO over and over again; we create an entirely different PC each time.
It's interesting how people seem to take agency for granted. An excerpt from some other gangrenously bloated ****** I've written on this topic:Addai67 wrote...
Isn't the whole point of playing a video game that your actions have an influence on the outcome? You're part of the story? Otherwise I start to ask what the devs need me for, if all they want to do is tell a story and have it unfold the same way regardless of my input. It might as well have been a movie or a fait accompli we're told about after the fact in a codex or cutscene. After all, it's billed as a "rise to power," not a rise to powerlessness.
Contrary to the normal path of video games, Dragon Age makes agency the standard. Rather than giving us rare moments of player agency in order to make the player feel personally responsible for the event, we expect to have agency -- and when it isn't there, we notice. Because something had deviated from the standard, it makes us feel something that purely linear narratives couldn't; at no point do we ever expect to, say, decide whether Mario rescues the princess or joins up with Bowser at the end, and we don't feel frustrated or stripped of anything when we can't impact that decision. But with Dragon Age, we do, and through that denial, the game ilicits emotions in the player that mirrors Hawke's own powerlessness.Though all games are interactive, few games allow the player agency within the narrative. "Gameplay" and "story" are usually sharply divided; the player interacts with the game through mechanical sequences that may resemble combat, platforming, puzzle solving, etc. depending on the game in question, but these sequences rarely affect the story. The core narrative is typically told "on rails", allowing the player to get off and "play" at predetermined spots clearly delineated by the game. The player may act out the acquisition of a key plot item or the demise of a villain, ostensibly becoming a key participant in the important events that shape the story, but he ultimately remains at the whim of the narrative; he, in effect, is only able to do what the game tells him to do. Some games are extremely linear in this respect, while others allow a more meandering approach of variable chronology, but in practice, most games have a singular narrative.
Roleplaying games, Bioware games in particular, are quite different in that respect -- by making dialogue interaction part of the gameplay itself, the game allows the player to take an active role in the direction of the narrative. Instead of simply acting out certain sequences in the narrative, the game presents the player with several branching paths that each bring the story to a different place; though these paths are also limited in number, technically little different from games with singular narratives, the presence of choice gives the player the impression that he, the player (separate from, though often in alignment with, the fictional protagonist(s)), is a critical agent within the narrative itself. In reality, he is still only able to accomplish whatever the developers have laid out for him within the confines of the game, but this feeling of agency is incredibly critical to the genre. It is an additional layer of emotional engagement that is not available to most other mediums.
Morroian wrote...
neppakyo wrote...
True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.
Not IMHO, the plot is by the numbers, ooh the Collectors are this big threat allied with the reapers but Shepard has to go jaunting round the galaxy solving the personal problems of his crew. It basically consisted of Cerberus recruit Shepard, Shepard recruits the crew, Shepard solves crews personal problems then the big finale. This then coupled with the one dimensional combat...
I have to say having only just recently finished ME2 that I really fail to see how it can be regarded as a better rpg than DA2. The rpg elements are only slightly more prevalent than a game like Borderlands which actually had a skill tree 3-4 times bigger than ME2, the combat is boringly one dimensional, and Shepard, while making more decisions that impact the plot than Hawke, is as a character far flatter than Hawke.
neppakyo wrote...
Morroian wrote...
neppakyo wrote...
True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.
Not IMHO, the plot is by the numbers, ooh the Collectors are this big threat allied with the reapers but Shepard has to go jaunting round the galaxy solving the personal problems of his crew. It basically consisted of Cerberus recruit Shepard, Shepard recruits the crew, Shepard solves crews personal problems then the big finale. This then coupled with the one dimensional combat...
I have to say having only just recently finished ME2 that I really fail to see how it can be regarded as a better rpg than DA2. The rpg elements are only slightly more prevalent than a game like Borderlands which actually had a skill tree 3-4 times bigger than ME2, the combat is boringly one dimensional, and Shepard, while making more decisions that impact the plot than Hawke, is as a character far flatter than Hawke.
Never said RPG. Said it was a more enjoyable game, and better written than DA2. ME is a 3rd person shooter game with lite-RPG. And I disagree. Hawke is a poor mans Shepard. A knock-off.
ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 juin 2011 - 11:52 .
I would question who told the marketing people to say those things..... 1. it wasn't exactly 10 years, was it? 2. It didn't really change based on our decisions 3. Not sure I was ever revered or a champion....mrcrusty wrote...
Key Features:
- Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
- Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.
Modifié par shantisands, 05 juin 2011 - 11:55 .
Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 juin 2011 - 12:00 .
ximena wrote...
But if I had to choose, I'd choose the Warden over her (my canon Hawke is female) any day. And if Hawke died? I won't really feel something. :|
Morroian wrote...
I question why anyone takes marketing seriously especially with David Silverman in charge of it.
Modifié par Brockololly, 06 juin 2011 - 12:03 .
mrcrusty wrote...
ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
http://dragonage.bioware.com/
Key Features:
- Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
- Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.
I think it actually draws a lot of its impact from its role as a sequel to DAO: specifically, the awareness of sequel-pattern expectations. A lot of the dramatic tension is derived from setting you up to expect significant player agency (through the player's familiarity with DAO, and a series of "illusionary" choice options early in the game such as Meeran/Athenril), and then denying it to you (e.g. as with Leandra, the Chantry, etc.) in a way that links the protagonist's in-narrative sense of helplessness to the player's own metagame "frustrations", if you will. Unlike DAO, which consistently offers the player choices that heavily impact the narrative, or at least enforce an illusion thereof, DA2 forgoes the illusion entirely as the game progresses and rubs it directly in your face. By the end, the player is made to empathize with Hawke's powerlessness in a way a purely linear series would not have been able to accomplish.
[re: marketing]
Granted, Bioware doesn't have an sort of token Hideo Kojima figure so I'm not going to get that conspiratory about it. The advertisement was likely a matter of the disconnect between the development team and the marketing team, which is certainly not a phenomenon exclusive to Bioware by any means. Still, the game is structured in such a way that I don't think the marketing necessarily detracts from the purpose of this particular narrative, since it very heavily facilitates the expectations the narrative operates off (possibly to the benefit of creating those expectations for people who haven't played DAO).
There are lots of ways to do anything with a narrative. Why is this one off limits? Lots of other books, movies, TV shows, etc. are utterly unsatisfying in their conclusions and that's the point, and we still find value in the emotions they cause us or the messages they send or the thematic issues they explore; why are video games different?There are ways to enforce player failure to instill empathy without removing player agency.
I suppose they could. So the question then becomes why those of us who don't empathize with Hawke, don't in fact empathize with her failures.ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
Modifié par Addai67, 06 juin 2011 - 12:10 .
expect more than some people for some aspects and less than most in general. 
Modifié par shantisands, 06 juin 2011 - 12:14 .
[*] Well as far as 1, you start in Lothering, go to Kirkwall and then skip 1 year, play act 1 and then skip three years, play act 2 and skip what 3 more years. Play act 3 and skip another 1-2 years. So the game was actually 10 years I guess, but you only actually play through a year or so. The rest is left up to your imagination, or is summed up in the storyboards,shantisands wrote...
I would question who told the marketing people to say those things..... 1. it wasn't exactly 10 years, was it? 2. It didn't really change based on our decisions 3. Not sure I was ever revered or a champion....mrcrusty wrote...
Key Features:
- Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make.
- Determine your rise to power from a destitute refugee to the revered champion of the land.
I liked a couple of my Hawke's a great deal. Far more than I liked the advertising for the game anyway.
Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 juin 2011 - 12:17 .
mrcrusty wrote...
Storytelling in games is typically primitive compared to other mediums and will likely will remain so for a long time.
The attractiveness of narrative for video games is precisely because of the interactive element and player involvement.
If I wanted to watch a movie or read a book, I would do so.
I play games to play games, not watch interesting but poorly developed characters stumble through events with my interaction limited to how they deal with events that are thrown at you.
Morroian wrote...
I question why anyone takes marketing seriously especially with David Silverman in charge of it.
My husband is a creative forced to work with marketing. I won't tell you what he says about them, it would get me banned and it's not for polite company.
Exactly. Hawke's failure is in his inability to truly impact anything -- he wants to save [oh this is the no spoiler forum, you know who], and he wants to resolve the mage/templar dispute, but because of narrative forces outside his control, he cannot. The player wants the same things Hawke does, but because of game restrictions outside of his control, he also cannot impact those events. Hawke is made to feel powerless by the narrative, and the player is made to feel powerless by the game; it creates a symmetry.Addai67 wrote...
I suppose they could. So the question then becomes why those of us who don't empathize with Hawke, don't in fact empathize with her failures.ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
My initial answer is- the game's plot points aren't her failures, either. They are just things that happen around her, regardless of what she does. If she had made a choice and was made to face negative consequences for it, that would be something that would at least be interesting.
Modifié par ipgd, 06 juin 2011 - 12:25 .
ipgd wrote...
Exactly. Hawke's failure is in his inability to truly impact anything -- he wants to save Leandra, and he wants to resolve the mage/templar dispute, but because of narrative forces outside his control, he cannot. The player wants the same things Hawke does, but because of game restrictions outside of his control, he also cannot impact those events. Hawke is made to feel powerless by the narrative, and the player is made to feel powerless by the game; it creates a symmetry.Addai67 wrote...
I suppose they could. So the question then becomes why those of us who don't empathize with Hawke, don't in fact empathize with her failures.ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
My initial answer is- the game's plot points aren't her failures, either. They are just things that happen around her, regardless of what she does. If she had made a choice and was made to face negative consequences for it, that would be something that would at least be interesting.
This certainly isn't the direction they had to have gone, like, as I've said, in Arrival -- there, Shepard has agency and impact on the events, whereas the player does not. They could have made Hawke important and impactful and just railroad the player to victory and glory, but they purposefully chose to mirror his narrative arc to the player's lack of agency.
ipgd wrote...
Exactly. Hawke's failure is in his inability to truly impact anything -- he wants to save [oh this is the no spoiler forum, you know who], and he wants to resolve the mage/templar dispute, but because of narrative forces outside his control, he cannot. The player wants the same things Hawke does, but because of game restrictions outside of his control, he also cannot impact those events. Hawke is made to feel powerless by the narrative, and the player is made to feel powerless by the game; it creates a symmetry.Addai67 wrote...
I suppose they could. So the question then becomes why those of us who don't empathize with Hawke, don't in fact empathize with her failures.ipgd wrote...
It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?
My initial answer is- the game's plot points aren't her failures, either. They are just things that happen around her, regardless of what she does. If she had made a choice and was made to face negative consequences for it, that would be something that would at least be interesting.
This certainly isn't the direction they had to have gone, like, as I've said, in Arrival -- there, Shepard has agency and impact on the events, whereas the player does not. They could have made Hawke important and impactful and just railroad the player to victory and glory, but they purposefully chose to mirror his narrative arc to the player's lack of agency.
mrcrusty wrote...
You're saying this was intentional and not a result of rushed development time and a lack of vision?
That makes it worse, for me.
"Oh, I know! How about we make it so like, the player can't really do anything! That's what RPGs are about, never allowing the player to impact anything! Evolution!"
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juin 2011 - 12:32 .
mrcrusty wrote...
You're saying this was intentional and not a result of rushed development time and a lack of vision?
That makes it worse, for me.
"Oh, I know! How about we make it so like, the player can't really do anything! That's what RPGs are about, never allowing the player to impact anything! Evolution!"
They could have tried to make a straight off Origins clone without the resources to really work -- instead, they constructed a narrative that works with the constraints and almost operates because of them.
[...]
I'm not sure they set out to make DA2 the way it was from the beginning (they probably didn't), but I think the time/budget constraints imposed upon the dev team necessitated that they take the narrative in a different direction from DAO's. There is no way they would have been able to make the same kind of game as DAO in a year, and I get the feeling the release time wasn't negotiable.
[...]
I think the writing team was trying to accomplish something within the revenue-motivated constraints of the executives. In other words, they may have gone that direction because of the outside pressure of people themselves pressured by money, but I don't think the narrative itself was specifically concerned with it, if you get what I'm saying?
[...]
Yes, I'd certainly agree that they went in the direction they did because of time constraints, but I think they tried to make a story that worked with them. Either way, the time limit would have necessitated the same sort of general structure (i.e. much less choice than is necessary to make a strictly DAO-patterned game work), but I think they were self-aware of this, and made a decision to build a narrative that worked with that structure. They could have made the game like, say, the Arrival DLC, where Shepard has agency and impact where the player does not -- instead, they chose to make Hawke just as powerless as the player. It aims to keep player/narrative symmetry rather than simply attempting to satisfy expectations in a way they couldn't possibly given the time/budget constraints.
I have trouble believing this isn't intentional (at least on the writers' part), since pretty much every point in the story is driving home "there is no third option" and "there's nothing you can do" -- and by the end of the game, Hawke essentially even relinquishes his place as the main character.
Modifié par ipgd, 06 juin 2011 - 12:36 .
Retour en haut