249 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

BioWare's strength has been in it's in-depth characters and other peripheral elements to stories and storytelling. Specifically, cinematic techniques/animations, integration of characters into plot and voice acting. Not necessarily the actual narratives or the writing (though the writing is usually pretty good for the medium).

Another company extremely adept at this is Valve, though the ways in which they go about it are different.

Whether that gives you a positive or negative opinion of BioWare really depends on what you're looking for from a (BioWare) game.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[oblivionenss]

Bioware was good in the past, but after DA 2,I really hope the will go back to their roots, and that DA 2 was a fluke from their side, but since they are owned by EA now a days I have no big hopes.

[infalible]

mrcrusty wrote...

BioWare's strength has been in it's in-depth characters and other peripheral elements to stories and storytelling. Specifically, cinematic techniques/animations, integration of characters into plot and voice acting. Not necessarily the actual narratives or the writing (though the writing is usually pretty good for the medium).

Another company extremely adept at this is Valve, though the ways in which they go about it are different.

Whether that gives you a positive or negative opinion of BioWare really depends on what you're looking for from a (BioWare) game.

You see now I don't actually think that Bioware's companions are THAT amazing. You see, there's a formulaic way to create "companion" characters in stories and that is as follows: each companion represents a particular set of morals, also particular traits and thoughts, of the main character. They are designed to personify these elements, presenting the moral dillemas, conflicts and observations that the main character is supposed to be making. If you look at Bioware's companion characters there aren't any complexities to them and they are oft cut and dry in the way they are presented, aside from some fluff to pan them out a little. I'm not saying that Bioware don't do companion characters well, but I wouldn't say - like everyone else seems to - that it is the companion characters that keep me coming back as they merely use the same mechanics of story telling as every other companion character ever created in any story.

And I'd argue that prior to Jade Empire Bioware was a compotent story teller all round, and their merits lay not in their ability to do particular things but in their focus on story over gameplay. Their focus as a team prior to Jade Empire wasn't on things like game mechanics as they largely used pre-existing systems (such as DnD 3 and SW D20). Since they've embarked on creating their own in-house rulesets their story telling and overall "charm" has suffered. Compare Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins, or Neverwinter Nights: Horder of the Underdark with Dragon Age 2; I personallly think their is a vast disparity between those games and the new games.

[infalible]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
A good tale is something you happened to really enjoy, regardless of how well written it is. You could hear a piece of music that is amazingly incredibly complex which must have taken a MASSIVE amount of skill to perform, yet not really care for the tune. Yet a simpler song might stay with you forever, but never be what one may call a breakthrough in the art or even a classic.

I never said nudity and swearing is required for a classic fantasy. I began by comparing Bioware stories to classic literature, and then progressed to addressing the "perceived" maturty of Bioware's recent games.

As for the above quote: that's purely a philosophical difference, and whilst you're more than welcome to prompt such a debate, it's inadvisable because it just boils down to an, "I think this and you think that," measure. Even if I were to give my definition in detail you would merely retort with "well I don't agree" and that would be an effectual end of the conversation. Seeing as I'm attempting to stimulate meaningful discussion of the topic it would be counterproductive of me to engage you ;D

[infalible]

Slayer_22 wrote...

infalible wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

First, this should be in the Off-Topic section since it's only tangently, at best, related to DA2.

Second, it's pointless to compare "game stories" to "book stories." If we were to start nitpicking away at game stories, it's laughable that you fight as many enemies as you do when, for instance, no single character actually fights or kills that many enemies in the entire LOTR saga. I'll repeat: you can't compare book, game, or even movie stories against one another. They're shaped differently, they're marketed differently, they appeal to our senses differently. You can only compare game stories against other game stories in the same genre. Maybe you can even compare against other titles of the same developer to consider storyline evolution.

I don't buy into the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument at all. People say the same about movies, that you can't compare a film to a book, and then you point out great movies that have presented brilliant stories and they have no idea what to say back to you. If they do, it's generally "I haven't seen that movie" in response.

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

All forms of story telling use the same devices to get their points across, to create drama, to make you love a character or hate a character etc etc. And whilst there are of course difference in the mediums, I think it's snobbery to try to claim that those difference totally remove any kind for comparison. I don't think that's true at all. Shakespeare wrote plays and yet his work has had a direct influence on the way novels have been written (outside of the language of course). In school you compare Shakespeare to modern literature as part of your education. By your logic, that's wrong because Shakespeare wrote plays and plays aren't books... so they can't be compared. And yet they are. And they are because story telling, at a fundamental level, is no different depending on the medium. The presentation may be different, the freedom of choice may be different, the way in which a story evolved in a book is clearly different to the way it evolves in a game, but at base when all things are considered the mechanics in use to tell that story outside of the unique elements of the platform are, in all forms of story telling, the same. And you CAN compare that across mediums with great ease.

Okay, So you're saying Video Game storytelling is the same as a book's, right? Do books have any sort of interactivity, not CYOAs, but actual books. Any sort of gameplay they have to live up to. Has there ever been a gameplay that could live up to Moby Dick? Would anyone try to make a game like it? What would be the gameplay?

You have either msunderstood my point completely, or you've purposely twisted my words, so for the sake of understanding:

infalible wrote...

All forms of story telling use the same devices to get their points across, to create drama, to make you love a character or hate a character etc etc. And whilst there are of course difference in the mediums, I think it's snobbery to try to claim that those difference totally remove any kind for comparison.

infalible wrote...

The presentation may be different, the freedom of choice may be different, the way in which a story evolved in a book is clearly different to the way it evolves in a game, but at base when all things are considered the mechanics in use to tell that story outside of the unique elements of the platform are, in all forms of story telling, the same.

I clearly express the differences in the medium, whilst drawing attention to the oft forgotten or disgarded common fundamentals. 

[infalible]

Seriously. This is my last chain post. I JUST WOKE UP *1.15pm)

nerdage wrote...

I suspect, OP, that you simply prefer books as a way of telling stories to games. Compare Bioware to other games developers for a more objective comparison.

See previous posts I've made. I clarify my point and position, which has little to do with gaming vs books and more story vs story. I spend far more time playing games than reading, tbh. At least of late anyway.

ImoenBaby wrote...

Alright, name your best videogame storytelling. 

I'll assume Planescape:Torment is near the top. 

P.S. Bioware can tell a good story. A recent example: Loghain's story in Origins - how a man can utterly fall while striving to do the best he can.

See I don't actually think Loghain was done very well. He was portrayed as quite a bad man in his mannerisms and attitude, and then a curve ball was thrown in where he was merely trying to protect what he loved. I think what Bioware were attempting to do was create a character where you would question his actions but not his motives, and  I don't think they achieved that. I think I was supposed to empathise with him on one level or another, at least that's what I got from it, and I just didn't. At all. I think that the needed subtelty for that sort of character development was totally absent to the point where it just got lost in a, "he is the bad guy," mind set. 

And most of the critics and feedback I've read says pretty much the same thing. Yes, it's all subjective bla bla bla

[Tirfan]

I'll have to agree with Loghain being done somewhat badly, making him a bit more subtle and not have that "I'm EVIL"-thing going on in the meeting discussing strategy..

Really, Saren succeeded in doing this to me, at first, I got the idea that he was the bad guy, then some light into his motives and as the story progressed, I thought that he isn't exactly evil, just a sociopathic SOB on a permanent powertrip, trying to actually do the right thing, no matter the cost. But he wasn't evil, or completely insane, but perhaps somewhat blinded by his prejudices, then this view was enforced and I felt rather sad about Saren, he would never be exactly one of the good guys, but he had fallen and fallen badly.

But then again, I think Saren is one of the best Bioware antagonists ever.

[In Exile]

infalible wrote...
You see now I don't actually think that Bioware's companions are THAT amazing. You see, there's a formulaic way to create "companion" characters in stories and that is as follows: each companion represents a particular set of morals, also particular traits and thoughts, of the main character. They are designed to personify these elements, presenting the moral dillemas, conflicts and observations that the main character is supposed to be making. If you look at Bioware's companion characters there aren't any complexities to them and they are oft cut and dry in the way they are presented, aside from some fluff to pan them out a little.

You're looking at this really wrong. There's the medium itself to consider. 

Bioware makes NPCs very interactive, and they make them interactive on a personal level. If you look at what Chris Avellone does well, it's actually writing. But how you experience the characters is not as personal as a Bioware game. They gone too far in this direction in ME2 and DA2 (IMO), but what made Bioware's characters appealing is how much they related to the player on a personal level.

Morrigan just talks about herself to you - that's most of her content. The other is her friendship or romantic relationship. Same with Alistair, Leliana, Zevran and Alistair. 

I'm not saying that Bioware don't do companion characters well, but I wouldn't say - like everyone else seems to - that it is the companion characters that keep me coming back as they merely use the same mechanics of story telling as every other companion character ever created in any story. 

And I'd argue that prior to Jade Empire Bioware was a compotent story teller all round, and their merits lay not in their ability to do particular things but in their focus on story over gameplay. 

The companion interactivity is what Bioware does best. More than any other gaming company, it feels as if you are dealing with people. What game does it for you is different because the kind of UI each person likes is different, but that's Bioware's selling point in a nutshell. 

They also (unlike Obsidian and until DA2) don't screw up the gameplay or environmental design or story (i.e. they are competent to good at all of them) and so that allows for a very enjoyable experience. 

[In Exile]

Tirfan wrote...
Really, Saren succeeded in doing this to me, at first, I got the idea that he was the bad guy, then some light into his motives and as the story progressed, I thought that he isn't exactly evil, just a sociopathic SOB on a permanent powertrip, trying to actually do the right thing, no matter the cost. But he wasn't evil, or completely insane, but perhaps somewhat blinded by his prejudices, then this view was enforced and I felt rather sad about Saren, he would never be exactly one of the good guys, but he had fallen and fallen badly.

But then again, I think Saren is one of the best Bioware antagonists ever.

Unless you read the book written by the ME Lead writer featuring Saren (I borrowed it from a friend - I was curious how a video-game booked read and I really liked the ME IP) where it turns out he's just looking for Sovereign because he's a racist. 

Remember that bit where Anderson says that Saren hates humans? Yeah, that's about right on the money. It sounds a bit like Anderson has a grudge if you don't read the books, but it turns out that he's pretty much 100% on the money. 

[Tirfan]

.. So they basically ruin his character in the book? This is just great - but at least its a reason not to buy the books. How hard is it to keep the characters actually well written and somewhat believable and not make them seem just monomanical and explain their actions by "just because.. Idol, Racism, Possession" It is becoming a more and more recurring theme apparently.

[Nivilant]

I do wish Loghain had been better represented in-game. I mean, I can understand the choice to make it a bit last minute, but I really found him to be one of the most interesting characters. Along with -and given how unpopular Awakening seems to be I'll likely be shot for saying this- the Architect. Morally grey or well intentioned extremists. Now, granted, not every character could be like that because you need your moral absolutes to define your own opinion by. Having said that, you also don't need to have characters that have one aspect of personality. Like Morrigan, who will always disapprove if for no other reason than you aren't being utterly heartless for no good reason.

I also like Sten, who really made you think about what you said. With Alistair it was 'pick the nice option to be my friend'. Sten made me double-take a few times because what I thought he would take well ended up getting me mocked. I don't like predictable companions or predictable story. Then again, I also like the relentlessly snarky characters like Sand from NWN2.

[Huntress]

I like DA alot, companions to me seems alive and have their own mind, it doesn't matter what main character thinks of any them, they'll keep their believe even if you do not agree with them, leliane was one, even if you told her maker was a fool, she still believe in it, same with Dwarf oghren, didn't matter if you married him, he still likes war, so on and so forth.

Only weak character in DAO that i really like is Alistair, even hardened still a bit foolish.
Da2 characters got a bit better but one..Sebastian.. he is hardened enough and still blind to everything also going on, I suppose he is doing Morrigan/ leliane/Alistair roles.. all in one pack!.. Fail lol

[Nozybidaj]

infalible wrote...

...Or does it mean that in an industry swathed in the mediocrity of the masses Bioware is just managing to present enough of a narrative for us to not dispare at the lack of creativity in a market dominated by "graphics and gameplay"?....

.......So now I find myself considering this notion: Bioware ARE NOT compotent story tellers. They are the Stephenie Meyer of the gaming world. Their writers are either not very good at all or barred from actually writing with passion due to corporate interests. Bioware stories are shallow, but intelligence is used in the presentation; a well placed comic character, a drawn out relationship with another character, an infrequent flair that avoids controversy. It avoids the requirement to actually tell a compotent story, and instead cons you into thinking that these fables are worth their weight in gold.....

While I think the first part is true enough the second part seems a bit overly harsh.  No, they aren't producing literary classics here, but they usually make something pretty good for video games.  I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "the best" story tellers in video games, but probably top 5.

[Il Divo]

infalible wrote...

And I'd argue that prior to Jade Empire Bioware was a compotent story teller all round, and their merits lay not in their ability to do particular things but in their focus on story over gameplay. Their focus as a team prior to Jade Empire wasn't on things like game mechanics as they largely used pre-existing systems (such as DnD 3 and SW D20). Since they've embarked on creating their own in-house rulesets their story telling and overall "charm" has suffered. Compare Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins, or Neverwinter Nights: Horder of the Underdark with Dragon Age 2; I personallly think their is a vast disparity between those games and the new games.

How exactly did storytelling drop with Jade Empire, particularly in comparison to Baldur's Gate 1, KotOR, or the Neverwinter Nights OC? The gameplay system itself was extremely simple, but it presents one of Bioware's most focused narratives.

I can understand preferring BG2 overall. But prior to JE, Bioware has still demonstrated more than a few instances of weak storytelling.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 01:40 .

[jds1bio]

infalible wrote...

And I'd argue that prior to Jade Empire Bioware was a compotent story teller all round, and their merits lay not in their ability to do particular things but in their focus on story over gameplay. Their focus as a team prior to Jade Empire wasn't on things like game mechanics as they largely used pre-existing systems (such as DnD 3 and SW D20). Since they've embarked on creating their own in-house rulesets their story telling and overall "charm" has suffered. Compare Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins, or Neverwinter Nights: Horder of the Underdark with Dragon Age 2; I personallly think their is a vast disparity between those games and the new games.

This is an interesting observation.  I think they had to focus technically on game mechanics enough to make them "work", but the distinguishing factors for BioWare had to be in story, writing, and audio-visual presentation.  Now that they are creating story AND rulesets, I think the designers and writers have more of a responsibility to each other to continually ensure a cohesive whole while maximizing the effectiveness of both.   

For instance, I thought your choice of class in DA2 determining which sibling accompanies you during the game, and the choices you make with using them during the game, were great gameplay ideas.  But some people thought that the other sibling's elimination via "cheap death" didn't involve them emotionally enough.  What if they had not been slain, and ended up in a different scenario in Kirkwall (for example, you choose to work with Athenril and they end up working for Meeran).  If that sibling was unavailable to Hawke as a party member, perhaps then that sibling's unavailability could have made for a game-long side-quest as to the reason why the sibling was unavailable.

[In Exile]

Tirfan wrote...

.. So they basically ruin his character in the book? This is just great - but at least its a reason not to buy the books. How hard is it to keep the characters actually well written and somewhat believable and not make them seem just monomanical and explain their actions by "just because.. Idol, Racism, Possession" It is becoming a more and more recurring theme apparently.

I don't read Bioware books for exactly that reason, yes. And technically, Saren's rationale in game is pretty much possession. About the only villains Bioware have done that aren't "excuse my evil" were the Sun Li in JE and Irenicus (but Irenicus got close to mustache twirling, IMO). 

[freche]

For me BioWare has dropped their storytelling somewhat, DAO don't even come close to BG or Kotor storytelling.
However I think what have really dropped the quality of their games is how they handle gameplay. When they started their new titles DA and ME, they did some good first games with good variety of adventure/story & action. However the combat part many thought lacked something and instead of only improving combat they made both DA2 & ME2 to action hack-n-slash games.

[infalible]

Tirfan wrote...

I'll have to agree with Loghain being done somewhat badly, making him a bit more subtle and not have that "I'm EVIL"-thing going on in the meeting discussing strategy..

Really, Saren succeeded in doing this to me, at first, I got the idea that he was the bad guy, then some light into his motives and as the story progressed, I thought that he isn't exactly evil, just a sociopathic SOB on a permanent powertrip, trying to actually do the right thing, no matter the cost. But he wasn't evil, or completely insane, but perhaps somewhat blinded by his prejudices, then this view was enforced and I felt rather sad about Saren, he would never be exactly one of the good guys, but he had fallen and fallen badly.

But then again, I think Saren is one of the best Bioware antagonists ever.

I'd agree with you actually but for different reasons. Saren socipathy was a product of the influence of Sovreign, and as the game progressed and moved forward you were introduced to various characters that highlighted this fact, namely Liara's mother. Saren was a progressive character at all times, and what you think of him at the start is very different to what you think of him at the end. With Loghain there was little of that persistent progression, and his development as a character happened in a very rushed fashion towards the end of the game; revelations were quickly presented to flesh out his motives but due to the haste with which he was put in context, the intent was totally lost. Add that to the fact that for the rest of the game he'd been built up as a total bastard and it's safe to say that Loghain as a character failed.

[infalible]

In Exile wrote...

You're looking at this really wrong. There's the medium itself to consider. 

I'd argue that you're looking at it really wrong, not me. I think you're placing far too much importance on the medium. Yes, it has an effect on those characters but - and as I have pointed out before - it does not defy the fundamental rules of story telling. The interactivity doesn't change the way a character is developed, just how that developed character is presented to the audience. 

[telephasic]

Il Divo wrote...

Barring Planescape, this is in no particular order.

1. Planescape: Torment.

2. Bioshock.

3. Legacy of Kain series (Blood Omen 2 excluded)

4. Shadow of the Colossus

5. Jade Empire

6. Assassin's Creed 1

Edit: I also forgot Heavy Rain.

I've never played any of those except PS;T and Jade Empire (I've never even heard of most of them, which is funny, considering I've been playing RPGs since Ultima VI in the early 1990s), but it's imporant to note that both PS:T and Jade Empire were incredibly linear games.  There's something of a tradeoff between a focused narrative and open-endedness.  You can make a good world (see Arcanum, Fallout) with excellent lore, but the storyline will end up being less gripping in some respects if the game is left more open.  Bethedsda games are the far end of this - I find their storylines generally completely unimpressive because there is nothing making them stand out from the overall game mechanics. 

Modifié par telephasic, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:00 .

[Nozybidaj]

telephasic wrote...
Bethedsda games are the far end of this - I find their storylines generally completely unimpressive because there is nothing making them stand out from the overall game mechanics. 

Really?  If you play through the main quest or any of the guild quests in a TES game, I don't find a huge difference between them and a BW game in quality of the narritive.  Presentation is quite a bit different, and there are multiple stories in a Beth game compared to just the one in a BW game.  But as far as impressiveness of the story telling I don't find there to be a huge difference.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

telephasic wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Barring Planescape, this is in no particular order.

1. Planescape: Torment.

2. Bioshock.

3. Legacy of Kain series (Blood Omen 2 excluded)

4. Shadow of the Colossus

5. Jade Empire

6. Assassin's Creed 1

Edit: I also forgot Heavy Rain.

I've never played any of those except PS;T and Jade Empire (I've never even heard of most of them, which is funny, considering I've been playing RPGs since the mid 1990s), but it's imporant to note that both PS:T and Jade Empire were incredibly linear games.  There's something of a tradeoff between a focused narrative and open-endedness.  You can make a good world (see Arcanum, Fallout) with excellent lore, but the storyline will end up being less gripping in some respects if the game is left more open.  Bethedsda games are the far end of this - I find their storylines generally completely unimpressive because there is nothing making them stand out from the overall game mechanics. 

PS:T and JE were the only RPGs in that list. Most of them are Action Adventures (with the exception of BioShock), with LoK and SotC coming from Japan.

Your point on linearity is also apt, since all of those games are linear.

Nozybidaj wrote...

Really?  If you play through the main quest or any of the guild quests in a TES game, I don't find a huge difference between them and a BW game in quality of the narritive.  Presentation is quite a bit different, and there are multiple stories in a Beth game compared to just the one in a BW game.  But as far as impressiveness of the story telling I don't find there to be a huge difference.

Depends on the game. But usually, BioWare has better writing, much more developed characters and a more engaging narrative (side effect of the sandbox). I think there are times when Bethesda's storytelling (whether large or small) exceed that of BioWare's, especially in the side questlines or matters of lore but as far as the main narratives go, BioWare's storytelling is usually better.

Now, in terms of the actual narrative, I think BioWare is overrated and Bethesda underrated in this regard. Yes, Bethesda does have it's moments of story related derp and BioWare has it's moments of brilliance, but the plot of say, Origins, is not really any more "deep", "impressive" or "complex" than the plot of Oblivion. What BioWare does, is craft the game around that story but also make that story engaging through a host of storytelling techniques and elements which Bethesda is simply unable to match, whether that be through more developed NPCs, better writing and dialog, cinematics, etc. Same level of quality in the plot, but a much better story/narrative/experience.

That said, they are totally different types of games though and should not be judged in their entirety against each other.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:16 .

[In Exile]

infalible wrote...
I'd argue that you're looking at it really wrong, not me. I think you're placing far too much importance on the medium. Yes, it has an effect on those characters but - and as I have pointed out before - it does not defy the fundamental rules of story telling. The interactivity doesn't change the way a character is developed, just how that developed character is presented to the audience. 

Again: you're talking about literary worth. But that's not what people mean when they say good characters. When I say you're ignoring the medium, I mean you're ignoring what it means to the people that are evaluating Bioware.

Asking: what is the quality of the writing in a Bioware game, if we look at the composition of the characters, their motives, and their content? 

Is not the same as asking: what is the subjective feeling of the player when interacting with these characters, and how is the game designed to simulate real conversation, particularly the extent to which we can make the dialogue mimic real dialogue betwee friends or loved ones?

[infalible]

Nozybidaj wrote...

telephasic wrote...
Bethedsda games are the far end of this - I find their storylines generally completely unimpressive because there is nothing making them stand out from the overall game mechanics. 

Really?  If you play through the main quest or any of the guild quests in a TES game, I don't find a huge difference between them and a BW game in quality of the narritive.  Presentation is quite a bit different, and there are multiple stories in a Beth game compared to just the one in a BW game.  But as far as impressiveness of the story telling I don't find there to be a huge difference.

I would agree that there is a vast dfference between Bethesda and Bioware in the story department. Bethesda stories are unengaging at the best of times. The best of their stories was The Shivering Isles, and even then it was pretty drab in places.

[infalible]

In Exile wrote...

infalible wrote...
I'd argue that you're looking at it really wrong, not me. I think you're placing far too much importance on the medium. Yes, it has an effect on those characters but - and as I have pointed out before - it does not defy the fundamental rules of story telling. The interactivity doesn't change the way a character is developed, just how that developed character is presented to the audience. 

Again: you're talking about literary worth. But that's not what people mean when they say good characters. When I say you're ignoring the medium, I mean you're ignoring what it means to the people that are evaluating Bioware.

Asking: what is the quality of the writing in a Bioware game, if we look at the composition of the characters, their motives, and their content? 

Is not the same as asking: what is the subjective feeling of the player when interacting with these characters, and how is the game designed to simulate real conversation, particularly the extent to which we can make the dialogue mimic real dialogue betwee friends or loved ones?

But that's not what I'm discussing in this thread. What I'm discussing is Bioware's ability to tell stories based on the fundamental rules of story telling, and the common factors that all stories share regardless of the medium. Furthermore the dialogue between player and companion does not fall outside of my initial comment on companions and the roles they play. As I said the development of a companion character is not altered by the medium and they still fill the same role as they would in any other format.