249 réponses à ce sujet

[Nozybidaj]

mrcrusty wrote...
.....
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.

That was my point.  The writing, the narrative itself isn't really that different in quality, they mainly just have differences in presentation.  Which presentation you prefer will really determine which game you prefer.  BW offers more of a "watch a movie" presentation where Beth's is more of a "chose your own adventure" presentation.

The quality of the writing itself it similar enough I don't really think you can say one is objectively greater than the other.  I'd also argue whether the NPC and dialogue are really better in BW games, but that is neither here nor there.  Their cinematics are certainly better.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I would say that outside of the in-game lore, BioWare writing is superior to Bethesda writing.

It's weird but by far, Bethesda's best writing is not in the dialog(s), in the narrative(s), or in the quest(s). The writing in those are relatively simple. It's in the in-game novels.

[John Epler]

While there's some good discussion going on here about storytelling in an interactive medium, it's really not DA2 related, and would be better served in the Off-Topic forum.

Going to lock this. However, if you'd like me to just move it to Off-Topic, let me know via PM and I'd be more than happy to do so.

EDIT: And it's moved!

Modifié par JohnEpler, 11 juillet 2011 - 03:29 .

[John Epler]

And we seem to be experiencing some minor technical difficulties. Stand by

[infalible]

mrcrusty wrote...

I would say that outside of the in-game lore, BioWare writing is superior to Bethesda writing.

It's weird but by far, Bethesda's best writing is not in the dialog(s), in the narrative(s), or in the quest(s). The writing in those are relatively simple. It's in the in-game novels.

I actually think that Bethesda are far better at world building than Bioware have ever been, but framing that world in a compelling narratve is something Bioware are far more adept at than Bethesda. Bethesda focus on delivering a world, where the main quest line is merely a fragment in it, where as Bioware seem to focus more on delivering a world framed by a main quest line to gve it context. 

And I must say that, sadly for Bioware, I prefer the world building of Bethesda. I imagine if Bioware put some effort it a more open platform of play then they'd hammer Bethesda into the dust, but they don't.

[Il Divo]

telephasic wrote...

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. 

True enough, every game I listed had a great deal of lineraity, though the poster's question was which had 'great storytelling'. I'd argue that most of those games worked so well because they were mostly linear.

I also agree with your point regarding Bethesda. I love both Bioware and Bethesda for different reasons. The dichotomy I've always seen was do you prefer "focus or freedom"? Bioware games tend to focus on the former, while Bethesda has the latter.

Bioware games (especially since KotOR) offer less freedom, but this also provides the player with a dedicated main quest, which you are  intended to work through. One of Bethesda's selling points has always been that you can completely ignore the main quest and do "whatever you want, whenever you want", which comes with its own benefits and costs.  

[Rockworm503]

The day I open a book and see the world in 3D and can play a part in the story is the day I'll start comparing books to games.

Are games as well written as a book? Probably not but you got an author with a editor and thats it. A game needs to play good and look at least not ugly and have a good story. Games are a hell of a lot funner than books so anything the lack in storytelling they make up with there.

Could be worse though... Micheal Bay could be the director for Mass Effect 3.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

infalible wrote...

I actually think that Bethesda are far better at world building than Bioware have ever been, but framing that world in a compelling narratve is something Bioware are far more adept at than Bethesda. Bethesda focus on delivering a world, where the main quest line is merely a fragment in it, where as Bioware seem to focus more on delivering a world framed by a main quest line to gve it context. 

And I must say that, sadly for Bioware, I prefer the world building of Bethesda. I imagine if Bioware put some effort it a more open platform of play then they'd hammer Bethesda into the dust, but they don't.

I agree completely, but both approaches have merit depending on what you want to do and how it's executed.

[Geraldine]

Well, I recall from the very early days of gaming you had adventures like the Zork series. The "rendering engine" used in those games was the most powerful computer ever built, your imagination. In the early days story telling was paramount as the graphics capability of those old 8 bit machines was near non existant. But want to know something funny? I can still recall one of the best adventure games I ever played was called Williamsberg. It was just an ancient text adventure game but the story had me playing that for months on an old C16

[foogoo]

When it comes to the topic of storytelling and the term "Bioware" then I must say they are generally good in storytelling only because I have played most of the Bioware games. Don't know why people have to involve gameplay mechanics in this thread and derail the topic when the topic is storytelling not gameplay. Game play is a whole new thread.

[Geraldine]

In my view, it will always be the story you will remember from a game and Bioware have done some great ones in the past as my game collection will testify. As for today I am enjoying DAO. I feel safe if I see that Bioware label on the case that it will be good in the same way I used to feel safe if I saw "Westwood" on a RTS game or "ID" on a FPS. Also there is almost always really interesting characters to meet in a Bioware title. They have never let me down yet in that regard.

[DarthCaine]

They TELL the story very well and ultimately the presentation is what really matters. The actual plots are extremely generic and cliche (especially Dragon Age) and in the end, very mediocre (well except for KOTOR).

Avatar isn't the highest grossing movie of all time 'cos of it's story. It's because it had a great director that presented that story very well.

Modifié par DarthCaine, 11 juillet 2011 - 05:25 .

[In Exile]

infalible wrote...
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.

Evaluating the characters and evaluating the story is not the same thing. One wouldn't directly compare the richness of the environment as provided by the imagination in a book with the richness of the enviroment as shown in a movie. 

We can talk about the literary worth of a Bioware story with respect to storytelling conventions relatively easily, even if the content branches (because we can deal with each major plot branch independently) and then deal with the side quests as vignettes. 

The characters, as the player experiences them, are simply not introduced in the same way. Via the dialogue system, we have a direct social experience that's made to feel as if we were trying to carry out a conversation (at least on some level). That creates a different connection. 

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.

The experience of the companion is altered, and in fact the development is as well. There is a different burden in terms of how you can reveal the character to the player. Part of that requires cinematic convention, but part of it is an entirely new interactive framework.

As I said: it would be like comparing visual direction in a book with a novel. It's just not equivalent. 

[In Exile]

infalible wrote...
I actually think that Bethesda are far better at world building than Bioware have ever been, but framing that world in a compelling narratve is something Bioware are far more adept at than Bethesda. Bethesda focus on delivering a world, where the main quest line is merely a fragment in it, where as Bioware seem to focus more on delivering a world framed by a main quest line to gve it context. 

And I must say that, sadly for Bioware, I prefer the world building of Bethesda. I imagine if Bioware put some effort it a more open platform of play then they'd hammer Bethesda into the dust, but they don't.

I think that Bestheda is very poor at building a world. Their world is, essentially, dead. It has people, but they aren't real people - they're robots, who either relate some story to you (if you're lucky and they're quest NPCs) and otherwise act as if they are automatons (because they are). There's no richness to the lives of people as you essentially spy on them.

What Besthada does is write a lot of lore and creates detailed environments... but that's nothing more than the equivalent of an "info-dump" in writing. If an author dedicated pages of a novel to fictional history and geography, that would not be a good story by any stretch. It would not even be good development of the geography or history, because it is all tell and no show. 

Bestheda builds a sandbox, but they don't build a world. 

[AlanC9]

infalible wrote...
And I must say that, sadly for Bioware, I prefer the world building of Bethesda. I imagine if Bioware put some effort it a more open platform of play then they'd hammer Bethesda into the dust, but they don't.

Aren't we better off with Bio doing what Bio does and Bethesda doing what Bethesda does?

[TheMufflon]

Rockworm503 wrote...

The day I open a book and see the world in 3D and can play a part in the story is the day I'll start comparing books to games.

Well I'm sure someone has written a dioramic choose-your-own-adventure book...

[FlintlockJazz]

This is something I have wrote before but I'll write it again:

Bioware do well when writing when they take the approach of writing for a game. They do the settings and characterisations well, and when they approach their games the same way a GM or DM of a tabletop roleplay game then they do well, writing interesting side quests that feel as important as the main quest and having interesting locales to visit as opposed to the soulless locations of Oblivion.

What they don't do well is writing a 'cinematic experience', aka writing as if it's a film, which is what they have been trying to do with all their later games, and it suffers for it, partly because it doesn't work the gaming medium, but also because they, quite bluntly, suck at it. They should quit trying to make 'awesome cinematic experiences!' and go back to acting as the DM of the game if you catch my understanding: write up the setting and intriguing characters for us to interact with and stop forcing us sit back and watch as their favourite character blabbers on and does awesome button stuff.

Another thing I have to say: Bioware can't do gritty stuff. I'm sorry, but to me their attempts come off as teenage fanfic, and their morally ambiguous characters end up as Chaotic Stupid. Ironically when they try to do 'evil' characters they actually end up alot better (Irenicus, Sarevok). Either they need to try harder and grow up a little or they need to stick at what they do best, which is writing awesome adventure modules that we can adventure in.

EDIT:  Also forgot to mention, their re-use of the 'Chosen One' is also starting to get tiring.  How about a game where we are not the chosen one, not special, we just play a character that stumbles into something and then goes from there?

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 11 juillet 2011 - 06:14 .

[FlintlockJazz]

AlanC9 wrote...

infalible wrote...
And I must say that, sadly for Bioware, I prefer the world building of Bethesda. I imagine if Bioware put some effort it a more open platform of play then they'd hammer Bethesda into the dust, but they don't.

Aren't we better off with Bio doing what Bio does and Bethesda doing what Bethesda does?

Bioware used to straddle the fine line between the openness of Beth's games and the linear story intensity of JRPGs.  Unfortunately they seem to have drifted too far to the JRPG side and have started to take on many of the drawbacks of that side (including, it must be said, recycled plotlines, how many more times can we be 'The Chosen One'?).

[telephasic]

DarthCaine wrote...

They TELL the story very well and ultimately the presentation is what really matters. The actual plots are extremely generic and cliche (especially Dragon Age) and in the end, very mediocre (well except for KOTOR).

This x1000 (except for KOTOR - I honestly found it kinda meh in the story department - Jade Empire was probably the best Bioware story in terms of writing).

People keep confusing three things in this thread, and including them under "storytelling"

1.  Lore - This encompasses two related areas: the uniqueness of a setting, and the depth of information provided on a setting.  Bioware settings aren't remarkable in any way.  First, they had lore largely borrowed from established canon (D&D, Star Wars).  Then, they started constructing their own canon.  Jade Empire was a pretty generic Wuxia setting, but it was a new thing for many in the West, so it showed some uniqueness.  Mass Effect and Dragon Age are both pretty generic settings as well, although the amount of lore buried in the games deepened dramatically with all the infodumping happening in the background.  So essentially, Bioware shows deep lore but fairly unimaginative settings - unsurprising because most players probably prefer games which follow established tropes.  

2.  Plot -  Bioware plots, devoid of all embellishments, are exceedingly generic.  Sometimes you get a really big plot twist, as in Jade Empire or KOTOR, but overall, you know you're the hero, and you're going to beat the bad guy and save  the day (or ruin it in latter games if you are evily inclined).  Dragon Age: Origins, for all its plaudits, had one of the simplest stories on the surface level of any Bioware RPG.  But again, players generally want generic plots which follow established RPG tropes - they don't want to be pushed too far out of their comfort zones, and they don't want a plot which makes them think.  It's important to remember that despite Planescape Torment having the most effective and original plot for an RPG to this day, the game was a failure upon release, with very low sales. 

3.  Presentation - This is where Bioware shines.  To me, it says something that Bioware can make a game like DA:O, a game which so blatently rips off the Lord of the Rings in basic structure, and yet turn it into a convincing tale.  They've learned, through proper pacing, acting, and good characterization, how to move their plots forward and have you clamoring for more.  You don't notice the man behind the curtain, so to speak.

[telephasic]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
EDIT:  Also forgot to mention, their re-use of the 'Chosen One' is also starting to get tiring.  How about a game where we are not the chosen one, not special, we just play a character that stumbles into something and then goes from there?

They did this, it's called Dragon Age 2.  And, as I said, I think at least part of the reason people dislike it is because it's not about a character who's epic or heroic in any sense, considering the number of people who pine that they can't continue the story of the Warden.  

[FlintlockJazz]

telephasic wrote...

They did this, it's called Dragon Age 2.  And, as I said, I think at least part of the reason people dislike it is because it's not about a character who's epic or heroic in any sense, considering the number of people who pine that they can't continue the story of the Warden.  

Except that Hawk is still 'The Chosen One' and 'the most important person in Thedas', hence why whatsherface is after him.

[Il Divo]

telephasic wrote...


2.  Plot -  Bioware plots, devoid of all embellishments, are exceedingly generic.  Sometimes you get a really big plot twist, as in Jade Empire or KOTOR, but overall, you know you're the hero, and you're going to beat the bad guy and save  the day (or ruin it in latter games if you are evily inclined).  Dragon Age: Origins, for all its plaudits, had one of the simplest stories on the surface level of any Bioware RPG.  But again, players generally want generic plots which follow established RPG tropes - they don't want to be pushed too far out of their comfort zones, and they don't want a plot which makes them think.  It's important to remember that despite Planescape Torment having the most effective and original plot for an RPG to this day, the game was a failure upon release, with very low sales. 

While I agree that Bioware storylines, stripped down, are generic, I think we're underestimating the value of storylines which "don't make us think". There's nothing inherently wrong with a story which can be taken at face value, even if it doesn't reach the level of a game like Planescape or a graphic novel like Watchmen.
 
Even popular films such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings suffer from this problem. Great films, but there was little to contemplate beyond my own enjoyment.

[telephasic]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Except that Hawk is still 'The Chosen One' and 'the most important person in Thedas', hence why whatsherface is after him.

Yes, but half of that is marketing buzz, and half of that is merely the reputation he unfairly gained in the time between the game's end and the interrogation.  Varric explains pretty well he wasn't really "chosen" in any way.  Indeed, the whole framed narrative could in some ways be thought of as letting the air out of the tires of the story.  Which is part of why it fell so flat with people. 

[FlintlockJazz]

telephasic wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Except that Hawk is still 'The Chosen One' and 'the most important person in Thedas', hence why whatsherface is after him.

Yes, but half of that is marketing buzz, and half of that is merely the reputation he unfairly gained in the time between the game's end and the interrogation.  Varric explains pretty well he wasn't really "chosen" in any way.  Indeed, the whole framed narrative could in some ways be thought of as letting the air out of the tires of the story.  Which is part of why it fell so flat with people. 

It fell flat with me because I saw it was just the same story being retold yet again except this time with a fixed protagonist.  It's stated that he's important for Thedas and is destined to do stuff, hence why what'sherface wants him.  They tried to hide it behind "refugee!!!" origin but it plays out the same.

EDIT:  That's my opinion anyway.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 11 juillet 2011 - 06:52 .

[Il Divo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

It fell flat with me because I saw it was just the same story being retold yet again except this time with a fixed protagonist.  It's stated that he's important for Thedas and is destined to do stuff, hence why what'sherface wants him.  They tried to hide it behind "refugee!!!" origin but it plays out the same.

EDIT:  That's my opinion anyway.

But unlike Bioware narratives, there's not a clear "Save the world" storyline going on. Flemeth tells us Hawke is important and he does become involved in world events, but throughout DA2, the story is not focused on some ancient evil which Hawke must encounter and destroy.