In Exile wrote...
Bioware's really bad at this. Most RPGs range from embarassingly bad to it's better not to think about this, so I suppose in that sense Bioware is good (by being less bad than almost everyone) but RPGs essentially just tell you to accept RPG conventions and run with it.
I get the feeling you're referring to the whole inventory/loot mechanic, whereas I'm not talking about holes in unrealistic mechanics, I'm talking about holes in the story.
Specifically, the gaps inbetween each Acts, where people have imagined that Hawke actually did anything rather than sit on his bum and do nothing.
If on the other hand, you're talking about power faction x recruiting you off the street, or how your character is
The Chosen One then I'd agree. What I'm criticising is less about the fact that it's there in the first place, but that people would invent in-character reasons to excuse it rather than seeing it as an actual flaw.
Now how big a flaw it is really depends on the context. I think in Dragon Age 2, it is a significant one if you stop to think about it. You spend, what, 90% of the game's timeline literally not doing anything? Things are implied, but not addressed. Or told, but not shown.
That causes serious problems for people who have a Hawke who is remotely proactive, politically adept or even plain cares about Kirkwall at all.
Origins is similar, though not the same when it comes to a Warden who doesn't want to be a Warden. It's a matter of motivations not being addressed by the game, but there's no need to invent things in-character out of thin air to try and get around it. The game just plain doesn't account for it, as the narrative would be unwoven should you decide to play a Warden who doesn't want to stop the Blight. A special game over cinematic would've been nice though. Fallout had one if you sided with The Master.
In Dragon Age 2, the narrative wouldn't have been unwoven in premise by showing a proactive Hawke. BioWare is really good at making small choices with consequences and changes without directly affecting the major plot. So, it's possible.
I mean, it would only take a handful of cutscenes and interactions during the interludes with various important characters which could enforce that Hawke does something (or nothing as the character warrants) during that time. If these interactions involve specific choices you've made during the course of the game, so much the better.
Could also extend this to companion interactions, but that's really a different issue.
In Exile wrote...
There has never been an RPG that doesn't require you to start with a game appropriate character concept and then fill in the gaps for the very restricted choices you're allowed.
Open-world RPGs are particularly bad at this. 
Which is why I said that all games have this to a degree.
In any case, a (good) open world game allows enough variety in choices in gameplay to make up for a lack of choice regarding personality in dialog. In essence, your actions are more important than your words. The way you handle problems being an extension of your character personality. Of course, great open world games do both, just not to the same level as a more linear game.
I think you're mistaking me though, I'm talking about specifically inventing things in-character to cover up a game's flaws, inconsistancies, or areas it doesn't address.
So for example, Hawke during the interludes, Mage Hawke and Templars, or Darkspawn and why no one gets tainted (except when the plot demands it - an issue in both games).
Obviously no game can completely cover all bases, but it's the sort of thing that tends to add weight to an overall negative opinion. If you like something, you ignore or accept the flaws. If you don't like something, each and every flaw becomes more noticeable.
Modifié par mrcrusty, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:27 .
Retour en haut
