725 réponses à ce sujet

[Gunderic]

ipgd wrote...

xkg wrote...

Not relly. They already had the engine ready to use; the whole setting, lore, world and rules ready to use.
All they had to do was to modify the engine a little, write new story and make new environments/areas/maps.

What they did in that time is ... well, nothing spectacular.

You don't actually know very much about how much work goes into the development of a game, do you?

One year, four months?

[xkg]

ipgd wrote...

xkg wrote...

Not relly. They already had the engine ready to use; the whole setting, lore, world and rules ready to use.
All they had to do was to modify the engine a little, write new story and make new environments/areas/maps.

What they did in that time is ... well, nothing spectacular.

You don't actually know very much about how much work goes into the development of a game, do you?

Lol i actually know. I have finished Computer Science study (Programmer) at the University and i'am hobbyst game programmer.
So you may say i know something.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Incompetence of all players is not political. As in, it's not believable, deep or complex.

Incompetence?  In politics?!  It's totally believable.  In terms of deep or complex, I've yet to play or even hear of a game with a story that would qualify.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The best of both worlds, I think, would be pure DAO with some of DA2's plot structure.

But I doubt Ray and Greg agree with me.

Interesting. But what do you mean by DA2's plot structure? Can you give some exemples?

The whole of Act I is completely directionless.  Aside from the pointless metagame information provided by the quest categories in the journal, there's no way to know what quests have anything to do with advancing through the game.  They're all just quests, and some of them might be related, but even that isn't clear.

In Act I, Hawke is set loose in a city free to do pretty much whatever he wants.  That's good design.  That allows much freer expression of the PC's personality than having the main quest presented on a platter like DAO did it.

I have very few complaints with DAO - oversized weapons, restrictive camera - but the greatest of them was how obvious the main quest is.  There's an archdemon coming.  Go kill it.  Here's how: complete these four steps which we're describing to you right from the start.

But in DA2, Hawke has no idea what's going to happen, at least during Act I.  He has no reason to believe that any or all of the things he sees happening around him in Kirkwall will affect him at all.  That's terrific.  That allows the player to construct Hawke's opinion of those events entirely free of any foreknowledge of their relevance.

DAO didn't have enough of that.  DA2, thankfully, has much more.  BioWare hasn't offered us a plot at all like this since the original Baldur's Gate, and I'm very happy to see it return.

Ah, I see what you mean. One thing about roleplaying that I liked in DA II is that it was so easy to react to the changes in a personal level. I don't really know how to explain. I liked your idea, though

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

"Good" is not a prerequisite of the label "political". You can think it's a sweaty **** sandwich dribbled out of a dog's anus and it'd still be political.

So what's the point if it's political but on a very crappy level? 
DA:O was also political then, so what was the entire argument again?
Putting dog **** between bread is not a sandwich.

Furthermore, what I am saying is that it's so bad, that it's barely political. Not that it's not excellent, so it's not political.

[blothulfur]

My Aeducan warden dealing with the politics and power mongering of the nobles and his brother was a good political conflict which reacted to his decisions and not just in a manner he expected. Hawkes slaughter of everybody (which is the only skill he brings to the table) after everything had gone down allready was not political in my eyes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Incompetence of all players is not political. As in, it's not believable, deep or complex.

Incompetence?  In politics?!  It's totally believable.  In terms of deep or complex, I've yet to play or even hear of a game with a story that would qualify.

Complete incompetence is not believable. Hence why the writers had to resort to the stupid idol / thin veil excuse.

I have played an RPG that beats all Bioware games I've played in that regard, yes.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

blothulfur wrote...

My Aeducan warden dealing with the politics and power mongering of the nobles and his brother was a good political conflict which reacted to his decisions and not just in a manner he expected. Hawkes slaughter of everybody (which is the only skill he brings to the table) after everything had gone down allready was not political in my eyes.

This was my favorite part of DAO.  It was also only part of it. 

The Landsmeet was also fun.

The reason the Warden was there for any of it bored me to tears.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have played a game that beats all Bioware games I've played, in that regard, yes.

Unless it's so obscure that I couldn't have possibly have heard of it, I was dismissing it implicitly.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tirfan wrote...


I wish I could view it like that - but because Hawke is just another character, and not my character I didn't see anything in whole act1 that I could to try and make him have any personality at all, except, perhaps the fact that he seems to be rather sociopathic.

edit: aand forgot to quote Sylvius, I fail, perhaps I need to sleep.

Because DA2's dialogue system is terrible.  The player has almost no control over Hawke's behaviour in DA2, which is a huge problem.  This is why, when I listed the things I like in DA2, I stopped at "plot structure".  I still think the best of both worlds would feature a silent protagonist, DAO's dialogue system, DAO's companion structure, DAO's equipment, DAO's mechanics, DAO's level design, DAO's camera, DAO's tactical control, DAO's combat speed...  the list goes on and on.

All I think DA2 did better was offer a less obviously linear path.

The talent trees are a push.  The two games handled those equally well, I think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dhiro wrote...

Ah, I see what you mean. One thing about roleplaying that I liked in DA II is that it was so easy to react to the changes in a personal level. I don't really know how to explain. I liked your idea, though

I'm entirely unaware of what Hawke's personality is, so I can't ever do that.  She routinely says and does things I don't want her to do.  She notices things I don't think she should, and she fails to notice things I notice.  She's a complete mystery to me.

So, frankly, if she was reacting to things on a personal level, I don't think I could tell.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 juin 2011 - 09:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have played a game that beats all Bioware games I've played, in that regard, yes.

Unless it's so obscure that I couldn't have possibly have heard of it, I was dismissing it implicitly.

And you would be wrong. TW2 had a far more complex, deep and more realistic political plot.

And no, it's not a matter of opinion. Whether it interests you or not, whether the concepts intrigue you or not, is a matter of opinion.

[Realmzmaster]

Back to the topic. Most developers are going to try and spin a polarizing game in the best possible light. Most developers are going to defend their product and employees especially in the public eye. Now whether you like or dislike the way they do it is your choice.
So unless the developers think it is an epic fail (which they do not), they will defend their product. I am not surprised if they get defensive especially when gamers are calling them names, asking they be fired, demanding an apology, calling them liars, stating one product has destroyed the franchise and company or generally acting uncivil. Why would Bioware listen to us?

Luckily, most of the developers who come on the forum have thick skins and know we are passionate about their games. Because they could ignore us and let us vote next time with our wallets. (Not a good idea, but I would not blame them if they did).
I live by the phrase, Do not believe the hype! Marketing is there to sell a product.

I applaud John Epler, Stanley Woo and other who come here on their own time to converse with us and put up with some of uncivility displayed on this forum.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Ah, I see what you mean. One thing about roleplaying that I liked in DA II is that it was so easy to react to the changes in a personal level. I don't really know how to explain. I liked your idea, though

I'm entirely unaware of what Hawke's personality is, so I can't ever do that.  She routinely says and does things I don't want her to do.  She notices things I don't think she should, and she fails to notice things I notice.  She's a complete mystery to me.

So, frankly, if she was reacting to things on a personal level, I don't think I could tell.

Hmm, I suppose it's because the dialogue wheel don't bother as much as do to you. I do prefer the silenct protagonist of DA: O and KotOR (amazing game, by the way), but I can live with the wheel. I still have my share of problems with some of the lines, though.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So what's the point if it's political but on a very crappy level? 
DA:O was also political then, so what was the entire argument again?
Putting dog **** between bread is not a sandwich.

Furthermore, what I am saying is that it's so bad, that it's barely political. Not that it's not excellent, so it's not political.

As far as I am aware politics refers to things pertaining to government, social struggles, etc., especially opposed to supernatural conflicts and the like. "Deep and complex" don't really come into it. Those have more to do with those pesky subjective qualifiers like "good" or "bad".

[Tirfan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tirfan wrote...


I wish I could view it like that - but because Hawke is just another character, and not my character I didn't see anything in whole act1 that I could to try and make him have any personality at all, except, perhaps the fact that he seems to be rather sociopathic.

edit: aand forgot to quote Sylvius, I fail, perhaps I need to sleep.

Because DA2's dialogue system is terrible.  The player has almost no control over Hawke's behaviour in DA2, which is a huge problem.  This is why, when I listed the things I like in DA2, I stopped at "plot structure".  I still think the best of both worlds would feature a silent protagonist, DAO's dialogue system, DAO's companion structure, DAO's equipment, DAO's mechanics, DAO's level design, DAO's camera, DAO's tactical control, DAO's combat speed...  the list goes on and on.

All I think DA2 did better was offer a less obviously linear path.

The talent trees are a push.  The two games handled those equally well, I think.

Oh, yeah, now I understand, and well, this does kind of make sense, I just installed BG again and started it, the whole "your foster father is dead, you are a profiteering adventurer, GO!" thing made me laugh a bit because it was kind of ridiculous, but as I've progressed without remembering that much about the actual storyline, I really can see the strength of this "plot structure" While I didn't have much actual reason to go explore the Nashkel Mines problem, after that this games plot has really carried me away.

While the talent trees are quite completely off-topic I have to agree, a step in the right direction, but didn't fix the greatest problem in DA:O talent trees and added a new one.

[blothulfur]

It's easy to tell the personality of your Hawke he is either top right, middle right or bottom right.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And you would be wrong. TW2 had a far more complex, deep and more realistic political plot.

I wasn't arguing comparitives.  I simply said that I have a standard for what I would call complex and deep, and that no game I heard of qualified.  This includes The Witcher 2.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And no, it's not a matter of opinion. Whether it interests you or not, whether the concepts intrigue you or not, is a matter of opinion.

You do not have the authority to make that claim.

blothulfur wrote...

It's easy to tell the personality of your Hawke he is either top right, middle right or bottom right.

You're doing it wrong.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 09:25 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
As far as I am aware politics refers to things pertaining to government, social struggles, etc., especially opposed to supernatural conflicts and the like. "Deep and complex" don't really come into it. Those have more to do with those pesky subjective qualifiers like "good" or "bad".

No, politics is an objective thing. What constitutes a good political plot is objective, as in a political plot written to be as realistic as possible. What constitutes an interesting political plot is subjective.

And since it's the supernatural that moves and dominates DA2's plot, then it's barely political.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You do not have the authority to make that claim.

Yes I do.
It's my field of study.

By complex, I am not referring to "interesting". I am referring to intricate political dynamics at play, between several factions in a set political context that is well-written that involve something more than A vs B.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 09:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You do not have the authority to make that claim.

Yes I do.
It's my field of study.

I must have missed POL 340:  HOW TO DETERMINE WHAT IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH when I was majoring in political science.  

Not that such a course would give me such authority either. 

But please do continue to act as if I'm supposed to be swayed by your internet credentials.  I am not a member of your echo-chamber ego-stroking e-club fanbase.  They probably have the stamina and/or interest to endure your tiresome, intractable arguments.

I do not.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 09:34 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, politics is an objective thing. What constitutes a good political plot is objective, as in a political plot written to be as realistic as possible. What constitutes an interesting political plot is subjective.

And since it's the supernatural that moves and dominates DA2's plot, then it's barely political.

Good is always a subjective word. There's nothing conceptually wrong with a "fantastical" political plot, dislike them though you may.

[Dhiro]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You do not have the authority to make that claim.

Yes I do.
It's my field of study.

By complex, I am not referring to "interesting". I am referring to intricate political dynamics at play, between several factions in a set political context that is well-written that involve something more than A vs B.

You study The Witcher 2? There's even a name for that? Witchentologist?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I must have missed POL 340:  HOW TO DETERMINE WHAT IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH when I was majoring in political science.  

Not that such a course would give me such authority either. 

You then certainly missed courses on international relations, or domestic dynamics, if you honestly think that DA2 had a good political plot. And by good, I mean complex and realistic (as much as possible).

Not talking about objective truth. Talking about what objectively makes a plot, a good political plot.  Which can be determined objectively. Whether it's interesting or not, is up to you.

Ignoring the rest as it's utterly useless.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 09:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, politics is an objective thing. What constitutes a good political plot is objective, as in a political plot written to be as realistic as possible. What constitutes an interesting political plot is subjective.

And since it's the supernatural that moves and dominates DA2's plot, then it's barely political.

Good is always a subjective word. There's nothing conceptually wrong with a "fantastical" political plot, dislike them though you may.

No, it's not.  When I say "good politics", I mean complex and realistic. There is very little complex or realistic about what DA2 offered.

There is something wrong in a "fantastical political plot", that is dominated by the supernatural, and has a skeleton of a political plot in the bg, while claiming to be political. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 09:39 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, it's not.  When I say "good politics", I mean complex and realistic. There is very little complex or realistic about what DA2 offered.

There is something wrong in a "fantastical political plot", that is dominated by the supernatural, and has a skeleton of a political plot in the bg, while claiming to be political. 

What if I don't accept or agree with your definition of "good politics?"

Throw that degree at me, go ahead.  I might just believe you next time.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 30 juin 2011 - 09:42 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, it's not.  When I say "good politics", I mean complex and realistic. There is very little complex or realistic about what DA2 offered.

There is something wrong in a "fantastical political plot", that is dominated by the supernatural, and has a skeleton of a political plot in the bg, while claiming to be political. 

It is a political plot that you do not find to be complex or realistic, and complexity and realism are your personal rubrics by which you determine the quality of a political story. GLAD TO HAVE THESE SILLY SEMANTICS RESOLVED.