249 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Il Divo wrote...
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.

But the story ends up being more or less dictated by "ancient evil" anyways. Idol / demons / thin veil.
So they didn't really change much in their overall design, except they made Hawke not really care that much about Kirkwall and what's going on.

[Il Divo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But the story ends up being more or less dictated by "ancient evil" anyways. Idol / demons / thin veil.
So they didn't really change much in their overall design, except they made Hawke not really care that much about Kirkwall and what's going on.

I personally would not consider the two equivalent scenarios. It's not simply the existence of the ancient evil, but how much it fuels the storyline. Most of Dragon Age 2 is preoccupied with the Mage-Templar conflict and the Qunari.

With KotOR, I'm out to kill Malak and save the galaxy.
With Jade Empire, I'm out to stop Death's Hand and restore order to the Empire.
With Mass Effect, I'm out to stop the Reapers' cycle of extinction.
With Dragon Age, I'm out to kill the Archdemon and save Ferelden.

These are all established pretty much from the start. Dragon Age 2 doesn't place Hawk in a "save the world" scenario. The idol itself is merely an element reintroduced for the finale. Does it follow the "ancient evil" cliche? Perhaps, but it doesn't occupy the entire storyline like other Bioware games.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 07:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Il Divo wrote...
I personally would not consider the two equivalent scenarios. It's not simply the existence of the ancient evil, but how much it fuels the storyline. Most of Dragon Age 2 is preoccupied with the Mage-Templar conflict and the Qunari.
 

The Mage-Templar conflict still features those ancient evil that influence it more than they should.
The Qunari is a different matter.

Yea, the role of the PC is more or less new, whether it's good or not is a different matter (though Cassandra acting like an imbecile at the end seems to show that Bioware wants to return to the same old story). But the overall writing philosophy isn't that different imo. Same basic bipolarity, little focus on the human aspects of it and ancient forces of evil being overblown.

[telephasic]

Il Divo wrote...
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.

It's interesting to note Baldur's Gate didn't fit this formula really.  Sure, you were facing evil antagonists, but for decidedly more personal reasons.  Yes, Sarevok hoped to start a war which would cause him to ascend to Godhood, but we find out later there are plenty of other Bhaalspawn and he probably would have been stopped eventually.  Besides, your reasons for opposing him are in large part personal.  Baldur's Gate II is all personal (save Imoen, and save your own soul), and Throne Of Bhaal is in large part personal too (even if you become a new Lord of Murder, it doesn't result in the end of the world - Gods come and go after all). 

Part of this, however, may have been Bioware was constrained by D&D canon, which is well-defined and really doesn't allow for too many cataclymic stories to be pasted in.  The stories had to be smaller, and more personal in scale in a certain manner, even if they do not feel so whilst playing them. 

[Il Divo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Mage-Templar conflict still features those ancient evil that influence it more than they should.
The Qunari is a different matter.

Yea, the role of the PC is more or less new, whether it's good or not is a different matter (though Cassandra acting like an imbecile at the end seems to show that Bioware wants to return to the same old story). But the overall writing philosophy isn't that different imo. Same basic bipolarity, little focus on the human aspects of it and ancient forces of evil being overblown.

But how was this "over blown"? You spend the majority of your time in Kirkwall dealing with Mages-Templars and the Qunari conflict, not being told that character X is the BBEG and you have to kill him to save the world. That's what all those examples had in common. The narratives are fueled by a clearly defined antagonist, with world wide repercussions. 
 
DA2's direction was fundamentally different from other Bioware games. The idol is not the source of Hawke's conflict. Although that doesn't mean it was a good thing.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 08:26 .

[naughty99]

infalible wrote...

So I'm one of those people who - for many years - have widely believed Bioware to be the "best storyteller in gaming". Of late however I've been considering the statement: what does it actually mean? Does it mean that Bioware deserve our respect as storytellers? Does it mean that they are standing on the shoulders of giants and telling tales that we will remember as great works of art? 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"?

Go to your bookcase and look at your books. I'd say that many of you have books like Harry Potter, Twilight, or books from the Discworld series. Some of you may even have classics like Moby Dick, or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, or The Count of Monte Cristo. A few may have books like The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, or The Gap Conflict. And then there are the modern classics like A Song of Ice and Fire, and The Wheel of Time. Can you say with confidence that the stories presented by Bioware even vaguely compare to those presented in the greatest (or even average) works of written fiction? I can't. I don't believe it when I say it. I find the notion to be a mockery of my sense. 

And let's look at the themes of Bioware's latest foray into mature story telling: Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were supposed to be mature games with mature stories, and yet they shied away from nudity, they presented sexuality behind a protective vale of montages, and the use of language was shallow and pointless (as in swearing was not used to create character, but just used for the sake of swearing). They handeled none of the mature elements of the tale with anything resembling the finese of a proven author, or screen writer. They hid away from a mature narrative and instead delivered a vale of stylised violence and infrequent crudeness and branded it "mature story telling" for the sake of the marketting gimmick. Compare the maturity of Dragon Age to the maturity of Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, or A Song of Ice and Fire, and you find Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 direly lacking. It's an insult to tasteful and compotent story telling to say that Dragon Age even vaguely manages to present a deep and meaningful tale, let alone a mature one.

And the same is true of all Bioware games.

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.

This is just an opinion, and I'd be interested to know what others thing: Are Bioware the story tellers of the gaming industry? Are they worthy of the mantle? Or is it - at this point at least - just a drawn out and laboured marketting ploy that is easily proven false when compared with actual story telling?

No trolls plox. Actual discussion is being prompted.

On some (perhaps very basic) level, as we play any decent RPG, we are already entering into a sort of virtual relationship with any NPC that inspires any kind of emotional reaction (even if that emotion is just sympathy or camaraderie) which is part of what makes any story great.

Even taking a step back from the interactive nature of games, if I watch a sad movie, for example, and actually shed a tear (damn you PIXAR!), or when I read a page in a GRRM novel that makes me want to throw the book across the room, on some level by virtue of engaging with the world and characters of those stories, I am engaging in some basic sort of relationship with those fictional characters.

In this way, greater complexity in the relationships between the PC and NPCs in a video game is simply following in the footsteps of basic storytelling. A good story desperately requires characters that the reader, or viewer, or gamer, etc., cares about on some level.

What is the point of saving a world you care nothing about?

Within the world of RPGs and Action RPGs, there have been some very well-done games by developers like Bioware that allow the player to experience an epic story that is fully fleshed out, where the PC has a predefined role to play with some choices that affect the final outcome.

And on the other hand, there are developers like Bethesda that immerse the player in a wide open sandbox narrative where you are at greater liberty to define the story's arc yourself, for example, who your character is, where he comes from, which NPCs he wants to befriend or flirt with, why he does what he does and which quests and organizations he wants to join.

Neither is necessarily better than the other from an empirical perspective, but on a subjective level, some RPG fans prefer one or the other, and some enjoy both types of games.

[Il Divo]

telephasic wrote...


It's interesting to note Baldur's Gate didn't fit this formula really.  Sure, you were facing evil antagonists, but for decidedly more personal reasons.  Yes, Sarevok hoped to start a war which would cause him to ascend to Godhood, but we find out later there are plenty of other Bhaalspawn and he probably would have been stopped eventually.  Besides, your reasons for opposing him are in large part personal.  Baldur's Gate II is all personal (save Imoen, and save your own soul), and Throne Of Bhaal is in large part personal too (even if you become a new Lord of Murder, it doesn't result in the end of the world - Gods come and go after all). 

For the most part, I thought Baldur's Gate still followed the formula. It was just more difficult to notice because the game did not present a focused narrative. In BG, there was a greater emphasis on exploration and the first half of the campaign is a scavenger hunt for missing notes. Your motivation may be personal (which is not unheard of), but we're still presented with a clear antagonist with a "save the world" style goal. Whether Sarevok would have been stopped by another is difficult to determine.

However, I do agree that Baldur's Gate II did not follow the "save the world" convention.

[Il Divo]

naughty99 wrote...

Even taking a step back from the interactive nature of games, if I watch a sad movie, for example, and actually shed a tear (damn you PIXAR!), or when I read a page in a GRRM novel that makes me want to throw the book across the room, on some level by virtue of engaging with the world and characters of those stories, I am engaging in some basic sort of relationship with those fictional characters.

Oberyn Martell. I'll never forgive him for that.

[FlintlockJazz]

Il Divo wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Mage-Templar conflict still features those ancient evil that influence it more than they should.
The Qunari is a different matter.

Yea, the role of the PC is more or less new, whether it's good or not is a different matter (though Cassandra acting like an imbecile at the end seems to show that Bioware wants to return to the same old story). But the overall writing philosophy isn't that different imo. Same basic bipolarity, little focus on the human aspects of it and ancient forces of evil being overblown.

But how was this "over blown"? You spend the majority of your time in Kirkwall dealing with Mages-Templars and the Qunari conflict, not being told that character X is the BBEG and you have to kill him to save the world. That's what all those examples had in common. The narratives are fueled by a clearly defined antagonist. 
 
DA2's direction was fundamentally different from other Bioware games. The idol is not the source of Hawke's conflict. Although that doesn't mean it was a good thing.

The point is that Hawk is a "Chosen One" or is being set up as one.  That is the defining feature of all Bioware protagonists:

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2:  Bhaalspawn, son of a god
KotOR:  Sith Lord who had his memory stripped because he's too important to kill
Jade Empire:  Never played this one to be honest, so can't comment here
Mass Effect:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent which confers him awesome legal powers
Mass Effect 2:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent and is now also a zombie-cyborg
DA:O :  Not only are you a Grey Warden, but Flemeth makes a big deal out of how destiny has chosen you bla bla bla the first time you meet
DA2:  Champion of Kirkwall and again Flemeth thinks you have been chosen by destiny bla bla bla

Though yes whether it stuck to the formula or not isn't the reason it lacked something in some people's eyes, but that it lacked coherency and needed more time in the oven.

[FlintlockJazz]

Il Divo wrote...
For the most part, I thought Baldur's Gate still followed the formula. It was just more difficult to notice because the game did not present a focused narrative. In BG, there was a greater emphasis on exploration and the first half of the campaign is a scavenger hunt for missing notes. Your motivation may be personal (which is not unheard of), but we're still presented with a clear antagonist with a "save the world" style goal. Whether Sarevok would have been stopped by another is difficult to determine.

However, I do agree that Baldur's Gate II did not follow the "save the world" convention.

I agree with this personally, though I'd argue BG2 still followed the formula due to being "The Chosen One" (Bhaalspawn).  However, I think they were still developing the formula then which is why it doesn't quite fit, it's with KotOR that we see the refine formula they have consequently stuck to since. 

Just thought: did Neverwinter Nights stick to this formula too?  Never did finish that game, so have no idea if any "Chosen Ones!!!" turn up at any point.

[Fishy]

Different kind of entertainment . Movie , videogame and book can all promote a stories but differently.

[Il Divo]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

The point is that Hawk is a "Chosen One" or is being set up as one.  That is the defining feature of all Bioware protagonists:

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2:  Bhaalspawn, son of a god
KotOR:  Sith Lord who had his memory stripped because he's too important to kill
Jade Empire:  Never played this one to be honest, so can't comment here
Mass Effect:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent which confers him awesome legal powers
Mass Effect 2:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent and is now also a zombie-cyborg
DA:O :  Not only are you a Grey Warden, but Flemeth makes a big deal out of how destiny has chosen you bla bla bla the first time you meet
DA2:  Champion of Kirkwall and again Flemeth thinks you have been chosen by destiny bla bla bla

Though yes whether it stuck to the formula or not isn't the reason it lacked something in some people's eyes, but that it lacked coherency and needed more time in the oven.

I don't disagree that Hawke is filling that role of the "Chosen One". He is the Champion of Kirkwall. I think the primary difference is that Hawke's 'rise to power' is built up differently. Hawke's status as the Champion of Kirkwall explains how he becomes involved in these dangerous events, but not necessarily what side he must take. Ex: Because I am a Grey Warden, I must stop the Blight.  In that sense, compare this to ME or DA:O where the protagonist becomes important early on. DA2 tries to spend a greater amount of time showing how Hawke became important.

Which is not to say that this was accomplished very well. DA2 definitely could have used another year or two of development (imo).

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 08:48 .

[Wolfborn Son]

I never really thought Bioware wrote good stories, but I do believe they write good characters.  This can turn an otherwise forgettable experience into a highly enjoyable one.   They also have a knack of writing good dialogue.

That being said, quality is somewhat subjective.  While a Song of Ice and Fire is considered a modern fantasy classic, its only because of the television series (which is vastly inferior, in my opinion) that its finally starting to gain mainstream credibility.  Before that, it was only popular in fantasy circles, even if it was critically praised.

Also, the enjoyment factor isn't necessarily related to the quality.  Charles Dickens will always be considered a better writer than Dan Abnett, rightfully so.  But when it comes to sitting down after a long day and unwinding with a book, I'd rather be reading Eisenhorn than Oliver Twist. When it comes to fiction, first and foremost I want to be entertained.

[telephasic]

Il Divo wrote...
For the most part, I thought Baldur's Gate still followed the formula. It was just more difficult to notice because the game did not present a focused narrative. In BG, there was a greater emphasis on exploration and the first half of the campaign is a scavenger hunt for missing notes. Your motivation may be personal (which is not unheard of), but we're still presented with a clear antagonist with a "save the world" style goal. Whether Sarevok would have been stopped by another is difficult to determine.

I think I'd disagree for two reasons.

1.  Through the first portion of the game, all you know about Sarevok is he killed your dad, and he's trying to kill you.  As time goes on you realize he is at the center of a vast conspiracy in the realm of Baldur's Gate, but you're mostly opposing his plans because he, well, screwed with you.  It's not until near the game's end you realize he wants to forment a war.  And even then, a war sucks, but it's not exactly the apocalypse, and Baldur's Gate and Amn aren't even the most powerful nations in Forgotten Realms.  

2.  You defeat him - in the sense of defeat his ability to instigate the war - as soon as you present the documents to the Grand Dukes.  Yet the game continues on until you axe him in his spider hole.  There is no real reason for this, as he's not much more threat at this point than the garden variety baddie.  You do it for justice, or vengeance, or whatever - not to save the day.

Modifié par telephasic, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:53 .

[telephasic]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Just thought: did Neverwinter Nights stick to this formula too?  Never did finish that game, so have no idea if any "Chosen Ones!!!" turn up at any point.

Not that I remember.  Yes, there was big evil behind the plot ultimately, but the scale of the game was much smaller.  As it should have been, because the game was essentially constructed merely to showcase the toolset and show players that anyone could make a campaign with it. 

As an aside, man, that game was terrible, I can't understand why anyone can say that DA2 is the first non-awesome game that Bioware has done. 

[Il Divo]

I'm strapped for time at the moment, but I'll be sure to respond to your above post when I get the chance.

In the mean time, I just thought that the following statement should be bolded, italicized, and underlined for yet more emphasis.

telephasic wrote...

As an aside, man, that game was terrible, I can't understand why anyone can say that DA2 is the first non-awesome game that Bioware has done. 

[Leinadi]

I don't think Bioware are particularly good at telling a story, but I also don't think that "telling a story" should be the goal for an interactive medium. Creating situations so that the player can tell his "own story" (of course there are limits to this) is the most important I think if you want a game heavy on the story. In this I think Bioware has done very varied work. Origins is probably the best of the lot if you ask me, I thought that was very well done in how it set up the framework for the story but allowed the player to customize it a lot within that framework. Pity it wasn't expanded upon more in the sequel.


I think in terms of story in games, the Obsidian folk are generally better though they're far from perfect. Just purely from a writing standpoint, some of their games (and some of the Black Isle stuff if we go back) tend to try and dive a bit deeper whereas most other games feel like "hollywood stories" to use a very generalizing term. Well told perhaps but not very interesting.

But again, story in games is tricky. One thing I really dislike though is the focus on more cinematic experiences because I think it's very easy for devs to fall into the trap of feeling too much like movie directors and not supplying the player with enough interesting choices to make him/her really apart of things.

[FlintlockJazz]

telephasic wrote...

Not that I remember.  Yes, there was big evil behind the plot ultimately, but the scale of the game was much smaller.  As it should have been, because the game was essentially constructed merely to showcase the toolset and show players that anyone could make a campaign with it. 

As an aside, man, that game was terrible, I can't understand why anyone can say that DA2 is the first non-awesome game that Bioware has done. 

True, like I said I never managed to finish that one, and for good reason, I just couldn't keep interested as the characters seemed so bland.  And I know it's loved by many but for some reason I just couldn't stand KotOR either, I know that's not a common opinion but usually I can at least see and appreciate what other people like even if I don't like it personally and I cannot see that in KotOR.  I know I'm weird.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I don't think they are "good" storytellers because every game seems to be the same story in my point of view. Many of the characters seem similar to where I can't tell them apart like Alistair and Carth. If they mixed up some of the storylines and really took risks, then I could see them evolving into the depth that Black Isle wrote their stories. As of right now, I highly doubt they could reach that intellectual depth since they are pandering to the "press a button and awesome happens" crowd.

As for a little rant, I heard Bioshock being counted as a "good" storyline. I truely thought that work was very overrated and very weak in storytelling. The only part that really drew some emotion from me was the surprise towards the end, but the rest was really weak in storyline. The atmosphere was somewhat unique, but the storyline just wasn't there.

[whykikyouwhy]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

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'?).

Dredging this snippet from the previous age to pose a question - are you looking for something in the vein of the Kurosawa film 'The Hidden Fortress?' The main characters are the least likely to be deemed chosen or heroic, and yet they play a pivotal part in making good in the long run.

I think that's a great idea, as is following an anti-hero, but the former may be problematic for some given the standard expectations of an RPG. An RPG allows for delusions of grandeur to be fulfilled in some way, which is a perfect foundation for the "Chosen One" mythos. Now, flawed "chosen" heroes would be something else entirely, and can be beautifully explored. Really, any character that is very human in his/her dreams and failings is a plus for a game, and helps lend to a more appealing story (written and executed well, of course).

[blothulfur]

I'm not saying that the prose of bioware games is any way underpar but it doesn't have to be on the same level as say the bard because this is a totally different and interactive medium where if we were just sat back to read all of the guff we learn on the Qun, the blights and so on it would probably bore our socks off.

To be honest the codex doesn't do it for me for this very reason, I like to learn the lore and riddle out secrets and myths but the whole information dead drop seems awfully divorced from the rest of the game and even more so in DA2 with its gameplay on acid awesome button style contrasting so vividly. I'd rather be introduced to that information through companions, npc's, item descriptions or simple books in the game world.

On the whole chosen one subject, I can see what the team were going for with a new kind of character who's just a survivor and gets lucky but the way it was implemented was absolutely atrocious and all the endless bouts of "awesome" filler combat that you endure result in the plot not changing one iota and any progress you've made come the end being thrown away when they tell you your character buggered off in the epilogue.

As a survivor character I prefer a more proactive approach such as Michael Thorton takes in Alpha Protocol where he takes the fight to his enemies and shapes events rather than some lucky idle schmuck like Hawke who reacts with yet more tedious slaughter after everything has gone down.

I mean there were good parts well written parts in DA2 but I just reached a point near the end where I stopped and asked myself why I was doing this as I had done in NWN some years earlier when some character in the last chapter told my hero that he was the only one who could stop Morag and I was just left asking why am I.

On the whole i'd say that it's not the writings fault, hell the fact that bioware has a dedicated writing team should be applauded but rather the integration and implementation of gameplay, plot and immersion that are lacking in DA2. Oh and there is seriously too much happy and frivolous cutesy stuff thrown in, seriously it's rotting my teeth give me some nice bitter grimdark to stain my gut and rape my eyes like the broodmother gone nihilistic.

Damn that's a lot of words for me, I suppose it's fitting in a thread about writing but i usually prefer to be succinct and to the point. Oh well.

[Homebound]

they can always be better.

[slimgrin]

makenzieshepard wrote...

That is pure awesome. 

Yes Bioware is good, but they have a mainstream approach that I would equate with Hollywood movies. My own tastes tend to venture far from that stuff. And I've said this too many times but I think they cater to a very broad audience when it comes to age, another strike against them in my book. In the end I think they're slightly overrated in this area.

Edit-I also agree with another post that pointed out Bioware is too character driven nowadays, rather than plot driven. It's starting to feel fanboyish/sims like.

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:36 .

[blothulfur]

Good point Slim, devs should stop chasing the interactive movie experience in my opinion and celebrate everything they do better. I enjoyed the two new batman movies but Arkham Asylum was a much deeper and longer experience and though I like a good fantasy film there's none that rank as high as the escapism, reactivity and interactivity I enjoy with the Witcher 2.

[ademska]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

The point is that Hawk is a "Chosen One" or is being set up as one.  That is the defining feature of all Bioware protagonists:

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2:  Bhaalspawn, son of a god
KotOR:  Sith Lord who had his memory stripped because he's too important to kill
Jade Empire:  Never played this one to be honest, so can't comment here
Mass Effect:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent which confers him awesome legal powers
Mass Effect 2:  Shepard is the first human Spectre agent and is now also a zombie-cyborg
DA:O :  Not only are you a Grey Warden, but Flemeth makes a big deal out of how destiny has chosen you bla bla bla the first time you meet
DA2:  Champion of Kirkwall and again Flemeth thinks you have been chosen by destiny bla bla bla

Though yes whether it stuck to the formula or not isn't the reason it lacked something in some people's eyes, but that it lacked coherency and needed more time in the oven.

someone already pointed it out, but i'm going to reiterate:

in every example except da2, you've got a player character who was conferred power and agency almost as soon as we met him, before he set out to change the world.

da2's entire plot is about cassandra making that assumption and varric correcting her. hawke has some destiny vibes to him, sure, but the difference is that the entire point of the game was how he got there. it's a completely different plot for bioware.

edit: and on-topic, OP, you still seem to be under the impression that characters are incidental or worse, not relevant at all to a story, when one of the best measures of good storytelling is the emotional investment it garners. a strong cast is absolutely vital to this.

Modifié par ademska, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:12 .