320 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Here is how DAO handles its characters (and most Bioware and Obsidian games as well).

Meet and recruit character....

At base:

Wanna hear about my past.......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after a mission is done)

Wanna hear more about my past......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after next mission is done)

wanna hear about my past and do me a favor? Yep

(after favor is done)

thank you, your a pal (or my love)...(character develops slightly)

end game speech

----

The problem with DAO characters is all their interesting things are done in the past. Not only does this make DAO's characters even more one or two dimensional, it makes them just there. Unlike past Bioware games, they play no role in the plot outside of Morrigan (barely) and Alistair (unless you count Loghain). All we get is stories that we don't see or experience...with only Leliana being the exception (only if you buy her DLC).

DAII characters may not have as deep backstories as Origin characters, at least all their interesting things you get to experience...you get to experience their growth, their trials, and their struggles....almost every character plays a role in the plot as well, especially Varric, Aveline, Isabela, and Anders. Instead of chatting with a character at base camp, you go on personal quests with them, then at set points you learn more about them. Its much better than just hearing it throigh boring talks at base. Also, their depth comes out at appropriate times in the story...such as Fenris's past, Varric's relationship with his brother, or Aveline's father. Gifts also lead to them telling more about themselves. The system is way more organic, makes the characters more multidimensional, and allow for more powerful and distinct character development (along with the superior but imperfect friendship/rivalry system). Could the characters use more backstory and depth when or if the format is used again? Yes. But the same ol Bioware formulas used in games past, like DAO, is way more flawed, and must go away.

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:21 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places, or even worse - tells then shows the opposite.

Now structurally, I'm inclined to agree, but I think that many people who disliked how the companions worked in Dragon Age 2 just plain disliked the characterisation.

Add to that the lack of talking to companions whenever you wanted gave them the feeling of acting as quest dispensaries.

You could only talk to them about their quest(s).

I find that a good discussion and more areas where the player can initate discussion with characters to learn about them would've been much more appreciated. While to a degree this leads to exposition, player-initiated conversations need not lead to important exposition, rather, it could lead to areas where the player gets a better grasp of their companions to flesh out their personality.

Now, the problem with other games is that this encompasses both vital and non vital character aspects, meaning the dialog is required to gauge character growth. That's telling, not showing. Whereas the ideal ought to be showing, not telling but in a way that doesn't isolate the player character from the companions.

The gameplay showed that Hawke only bonded with his companions during quests and narrative plot points, whereas it is told that Hawke spent time with them out of screen. You're told, not shown. You then are shown (through banter) that the companions bond with each other. But since you're not shown the same level of interaction with companions through player-initated free dialog, you feel left out.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:39 .

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:28 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

We've been over this, and you didn't respond to me regarding important plot areas where Dragon Age 2 tells you through cinematics or dialog, then fails to show you (or shows you the opposite) in gameplay.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:35 .

[GodWood]

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

so the Templar fanatic trying to tranquil the innocent mage woman is not showing? Or the increasing number of tranquil in Act III, including maybe Fenryil...or show the effects that traquilization has on a being, like Ander's first quest.

Nevermind the rite of annulment....

[txgoldrush]

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

but if their companions, you would expreience their growth in their life as well.

[TEWR]

txgoldrush wrote...

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

but if their companions, you would expreience their growth in their life as well.

DA2 is superior in terms of character development because it combines getting to know their pasts as well as getting to know them in the present.

You can learn about how Isabela was sold to some man as his wife at the age of 12 and learn that she will put her friends' needs above her own when she returns.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

so the Templar fanatic trying to tranquil the innocent mage woman is not showing? Or the increasing number of tranquil in Act III, including maybe Fenryil...or show the effects that traquilization has on a being, like Ander's first quest.

Nevermind the rite of annulment....

Which is all destroyed by the fact that Templars don't react to Blood Magic in their face.

The game contradicts on itself in a major way, it shows in some cases, then shows the opposite in other cases.

Best case scenario, you accept Hawke has plot armor. Worst case scenario, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. There are also other cases of this, like when you can warn Cullen of Anders.

In both cases, it's a case of telling, but not showing.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:44 .

[whykikyouwhy]

You get a snippet of the companions' individual backstories in DA2 though, just not in the same manner. The revelations are more quest-oriented, or romance-oriented, although there are some nice chats that occur in their respective homes. I found DA2 to be more active in the telling, which may correlate with the "show" aspect. But unlike DA:O, I wasn't hanging around the campfire for long sessions of dialogue prompts.

I think a bit more of the random conversations would have been nice (akin to Awakening - for example, the odd "I need a ointment" chat with Oghren while passing by a sign in Amaranthine). DA:O probably represents one polar end of the spectrum, but that may be due in part to game dynamics. Without having a voiced PC, the conversations may have been lengthier. Not sure if there is really a correlation, but just my perspective on it.

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

so the Templar fanatic trying to tranquil the innocent mage woman is not showing? Or the increasing number of tranquil in Act III, including maybe Fenryil...or show the effects that traquilization has on a being, like Ander's first quest.

Nevermind the rite of annulment....

Which is all destroyed by the fact that Templars don't react to Blood Magic in their face.

The game contradicts on itself in a major way, it shows in some cases, then shows the opposite in other cases.

Best case scenario, you accept Hawke has plot armor. Worst case scenario, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. There are also other cases of this, like when you can warn Cullen of Anders.

In both cases, it's a case of telling, but not showing.

almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Very rare that you would use blood magic near a templar you don't kill by the way.

[GodWood]

txgoldrush wrote...

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

but if their companions, you would expreience their growth in their life as well.

Yes.
But if they're companions I'd also like to have an extensive knowledge of their past.

I'm not going to care about who they are now if I don't know about who they were before.

[Chromie]

txgoldrush wrote...
almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Why did Jews work for the Na zis as jewish police?  (wow Na zi is censored?!)

People are people. So I don't get your point. People forever have been selling each other out for benefits.

Modifié par Ringo12, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:54 .

[txgoldrush]

GodWood wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

but if their companions, you would expreience their growth in their life as well.

Yes.
But if they're companions I'd also like to have an extensive knowledge of their past.

I'm not going to care about who they are now if I don't know about who they were before.

but then again DAII does give you what they did before at strategically appropriate times...

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juillet 2011 - 04:56 .

[txgoldrush]

Ringo12 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Why did Jews work for the Na zis as jewish police?  (wow Na zi is censored?!)

People are people. So I don't get your point. People forever have been selling each other out for benefits.

but the Legion would not even think about letting a woman play a a major role with the Legion that the PC can do.

The inconsistancy is allowed so the female can have the same options the male does.

[GodWood]

txgoldrush wrote...

GodWood wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

but if their companions, you would expreience their growth in their life as well.

Yes.
But if they're companions I'd also like to have an extensive knowledge of their past.

I'm not going to care about who they are now if I don't know about who they were before.

but then again DAII does give you what they did before at strategically appropriate times...

And I don't want to have to strategically position myself at specific times in order to get a vague idea of a character's backstory.

I'd rather just ask.

[OdanUrr]

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

I'm thinking hard on how to address this...

I know how to start. Firstly, you're comparing two systems that, due to the nature of the story each game is trying to tell, they cannot possibly be the same. In DAO, the personal quests of each of your companions is more about putting the past behind them in order to focus on the task ahead (sounds like ME2, right?). In DA2, there is no task ahead. Because of this, we interpret these personal missions as instances of character development when the truth is that very few characters actually evolve at all.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Actually I kind of felt like Bioware's traditional approach (DA:O, BG, KotOR) helped the player define their own character with the decisions made and interactions with others, while the approach in DA 2 helped more to define or showcase the NPCs, using Hawke.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

txgoldrush wrote...

almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Very rare that you would use blood magic near a templar you don't kill by the way.

Actually, that's not a flaw in "showing, not telling", that's just poor writing on part of the Legion. New Vegas is far from perfect, especially when the Legion is involved. But as a female character, you can't fight in the Arena and various Legionaires do occassionally make disparaging remarks.

So even it shows, rather than tells.

But really, it comes down to this: You say that Dragon Age 2 shows, not tells. I point out occassions where that's simply not true, you reply that all games have it, so it doesn't matter.

My argument boils down to this - Showing, not telling comes through gameplay first and foremost. Cinematics can show, not tell, but it's always in gameplay first. For all the talk of Dragon Age 2 showing and not telling, it manages to do the opposite, or worse, tell something but show differently, when it comes to gameplay in vital areas.

To use an example, Isabela returning with the relic is an example of showing not telling. Why? Because her growth is shown through the gameplay. Cinematics where people "show emotions" rather than telling you them is simply visual narration. It's the same thing, just made more flashy.

OdanUrr also makes a good post on this.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 05:34 .

[FieryDove]

OdanUrr wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

Excellent post.

You win thread.

[TEWR]

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

Wait, are you saying that the only way for your companions to stay by your side is to make them your friends? Or that you have to compromise your choices to keep your companions?

Because you had to do the same thing in Origins. You had to compromise your choices to garner approval from people and keep them on your side. If you wanted to keep Leliana, you had to leave the Ashes as they are. If you wanted to keep Morrigan, you had to do the DR.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juillet 2011 - 05:37 .

[OdanUrr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

you think.... the only way for your companions to stay by your side is to make them your friends? Ok sure.....

Figure of speech.

[TEWR]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

you think.... the only way for your companions to stay by your side is to make them your friends? Ok sure.....

Figure of speech.

I edited my post because I think I jumped the gun a bit on your comment.

[Dormiglione]

FieryDove wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

Excellent post.

You win thread.

I second that. Great post.