583 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Monica83 wrote...

Do you want choice that matter?

Dragon age origins or The witcher 2 end of line

Why comment if you have nothing to add to the debate?

Its pretty clear by now that there are clear differences of opinion on what constitutes choices that matter.

[FieryDove]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I will say, though, that if the Warden wins Shale's friendship and respect, Shale can decide to seek out a way to become squishy again.  That is a bigger impact on a companion character than anything I have seen (or heard described) in DA2, imho.

I agree with this on Shale. I miss her.

Only Merrill comes close to anything *real change* wise. And only on rival or maybe romance as well? (Breaks something she thought was the most important thing/life-saving and gives up BM if romanced?). I haven't romanced her but have seen people say she gives it up, so if that's wrong - strike it.

txgoldrush wrote...

Do choices affect DAII's plot in the grand scope of things? No, except for the ending choice.

Criticizing the lack of choice and consquence in the main plot in DAII because it fails to match some RPG like The Witcher 2, that does have plot altering decisions, or to rise above the common Bioware stock is a valid criticism. But saying that DAII has less choice and consquence than most WRPGs is unknowledgable and hypocritical.

Bioware is far better with choices than with consquences..its always been like this. Hopefully Mass Effect 3 changes that.

I don't think the ending mattered myself. As far as comparing other games why are you upset people do this when you are doing it as well? If you want to talk about DA2 talk about IT.

Through the entire game I felt like any minute Varric was going to say then Hawke wakes up. (It was all that unreliable narrator PR before hand).

I was a spectator in the most important plot or a passanger on a freight train with no brakes. I didn't change it, I didn't stop it, either way a bunch of people died, either way the other circles got word and did their thing.

And I disappeared...again, viscount or not. Ah well.

Mass effect 3 will change choices/consequences in what? DA2? DA3?

ME3 will have MP and 10 mandatory mini-games designed by Pop-cap since they just got....popped.

Modifié par FieryDove, 13 juillet 2011 - 02:29 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Morroian wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Do you want choice that matter?

Dragon age origins or The witcher 2 end of line

Why comment if you have nothing to add to the debate?

Its pretty clear by now that there are clear differences of opinion on what constitutes choices that matter.

Ignore Monica, she just wants to fight.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Morroian wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Do you want choice that matter?

Dragon age origins or The witcher 2 end of line

Why comment if you have nothing to add to the debate?

Its pretty clear by now that there are clear differences of opinion on what constitutes choices that matter.

Well, she's right. Changing about half the games story with choices > making fake choices. One rewards multiple playthroughs, the other punishes them.

[Uzzy]

Given the general plot, the distinct lack of a 'Big villain to fight' and taglines like 'Rise to power by any means necessary', I was hoping for a lot more choices in how my Hawke rose to power. Didn't even get one.

Which, given that DA2 was the perfect opportunity for a more sandboxy style game, was rather disappointing. I imagine a game where your goal was 'Rise to Power', and you spent the game working towards that by dealing with the various political forces within Kirkwall. That'd have been nice. So I suppose it's a case of expectations not meeting the reality of it.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Uzzy wrote...

Given the general plot, the distinct lack of a 'Big villain to fight' and taglines like 'Rise to power by any means necessary', I was hoping for a lot more choices in how my Hawke rose to power. Didn't even get one.

Which, given that DA2 was the perfect opportunity for a more sandboxy style game, was rather disappointing. I imagine a game where your goal was 'Rise to Power', and you spent the game working towards that by dealing with the various political forces within Kirkwall. That'd have been nice. So I suppose it's a case of expectations not meeting the reality of it.

Now that would be something that would be fun to play. I'm imagining it as sort of like a 4X-by-way-of-WRPG.

[In Exile]

phaonica wrote...
For me DAO would not have been nearly as good if not for the presence of Morrigan, Alistair, Loghain, etc. The "gather ALL THE THINGS then fight the boss" plot is pretty formulaic. But at least in DAO, I felt like my characters were making a difference in the world. In DA2, I felt like there weren't many meaningful consequences to my actions (outside of party dialog).

DA:O made me feel like a stooge. From being told by Duncan, Flemeth and Alistair how I should fight the Blight to being made an errand boy and suck-up to get the army needed to fight the blight, I felt more like a shoe salesman than a hero. The Warden never instigated anything, and very rarely got to have an idea someone else didn't have first.

DA2 made me feel powerless, and DA:O made me feel like an errand boy. I can only wait for a game to actually make me feel like an agent of change. 

phaonica wrote...
And while that perhaps is the whole point of the story, that Hawke was there when the conflict occured, but he didn't actually do any of the epic things he was known for, while I give props to the writers for being edgy like that, maybe his stumbling into influence should have been only part of the story while the other part was Hawke actually *using* that influence for something.

So the real issue is this:

Cassandra thinks Hawke rose to power by any means necceasary, that Hawke was at the centre of it all and engineered the whole thing, and that Hawke was this mythic figure that made the whole conflict happen. DA2 is really about how none of that is true.

The most honest thing about the DA2 marketing is "Who is Hawke?" because that's what the game is really about. It's just that the game never points out that what you're really playing is a hero who's losing out to the circumstances; instead the marketing and the game make it sound like you're playing a hero who is the catalyst. 

[ademska]

In Exile wrote...

So the real issue is this:

Cassandra thinks Hawke rose to power by any means necceasary, that Hawke was at the centre of it all and engineered the whole thing, and that Hawke was this mythic figure that made the whole conflict happen. DA2 is really about how none of that is true.

The most honest thing about the DA2 marketing is "Who is Hawke?" because that's what the game is really about. 

YES YES EXACTLY

some people hate this. i thought it was amazing and brilliant and compelling and all-around marvelous.

It's just that the game never points out that what you're really playing is a hero who's losing out to the circumstances; instead the marketing and the game make it sound like you're playing a hero who is the catalyst.

as i played it, once i finished and sat there watching the credits roll, the deconstruction lingered at my mind. on replay, when i made different choices, saw lots of other different stuff, and hawke still failed, it was incredibly obvious to me.

granted, i didn't pay attention to any of the marketing at all, but whatever. i appreciate that bioware made a videogame the plot and cast of which i can sit an analyze on more than the most superficial levels. it's put da2 on a very, very short list.

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

Well, she's right. Changing about half the games story with choices > making fake choices. One rewards
multiple playthroughs, the other punishes them.

no, she's not right. she's picking a fight and adding nothing to what's so far been an excellent debate. neither of you has presented a real argument, including anything to back up that blanket statement -- though if you want to elaborate, i'm interested in hearing it.

Modifié par ademska, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:15 .

[Brockololly]

Uzzy wrote...

Given the general plot, the distinct lack of a 'Big villain to fight' and taglines like 'Rise to power by any means necessary', I was hoping for a lot more choices in how my Hawke rose to power. Didn't even get one.

Which, given that DA2 was the perfect opportunity for a more sandboxy style game, was rather disappointing. I imagine a game where your goal was 'Rise to Power', and you spent the game working towards that by dealing with the various political forces within Kirkwall. That'd have been nice. So I suppose it's a case of expectations not meeting the reality of it.

Bingo.

I very much recall pre-release how everyone was freaking out at the drip feed of info on how DA2 would be but a fraction of the content DAO was (like with the tiny install size) or with how the notion was put forward that the framed narrative would suck the tension from the narrative since we knew the end at the beginning. And that one was often put to rest with the notion that "the epilogue slides would be in the middle of the game" and we'd have a varying middle section that met back up at the end.


As to the OP, yes, BioWare games in general have never been very good at offering meaningful consequences for choices. They often do a good job of offering up plenty of seemingly meaningful big choices but its exceedingly rare we ever see meaningful consequences to those choices in game, outside of an epilogue slide.

Where I think DA2 especially falters however is how it doesn't even do a good job in offering up the illusion of meaningful choice to the player. While in DAO you have the seemingly big choices that can shape not only which characters can live or die or become drunks or kings, but then you have the life/death of your PC or the choice to create the Old God Baby- those are choices which in the framework of the game give the player a sense of empowerment simply by being offered the choice.

Yet the problem there and with most games is that a seemingly huge choice like the Dark Ritual and Old God Baby will likely never amount to much more than a codex entry or it will be Plot Hammered and railroaded into some common plot thread, if its dealt with at all in the future. Thats the problem since at the time of the choice it seems important, which is good, but BioWare consistently fails in giving even remotely satisfying in game, varying consequences to those big choices.



Back to DA2, its a matter of not even offering up big important choices to the PC and when they are offered up, they're terribly transparent in how they're all leading to one point no matter what. Most of the variance in DA2 in terms of choices is via the companions and the personal quests with barely any divergence in the main plot threads, especially when we were supposedly going to be able to determine Hawke's "Rise to Power." You don't. Hawke becomes Champion the same way, no matter what. Its not even like the game reacts on a main plot level to Hawke killing the Arishok versus letting him go.  Thats the difference between even something like DAO and DA2. Sure, in DAO you kill the Archdemon no matter what, but you have a lot more choices on that path to the endpoint. Choices which seem important when you're making them.

Its a problem with the industry at large though. Devs seem so infatuated with simply offering up flashy presentation and fluff that things like meaningful choice and consequence get forgotten or can't be done justice due to the cost it would take to implement them meaningfully. But that's why The Witcher 2 earns my respect 10 times over- because it truly offers you not only a big choice but that big choice turns into even bigger consequences. Such that past the first third of the game or so, its entirely different from there on out based on one choice. You see entirely different areas, entirely different quests and meet entirely different characters. It makes the game feel far more reactive to the player and not like a second rate interactive movie.

Modifié par Brockololly, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:23 .

[In Exile]

OdanUrr wrote...
Incomparables pop more often than not when we talk customization, so let's talk customization. Consider "Section 8: Prejudice." In this game, as in many other FPS, you're restricted to the number of weapons you can carry, if memory serves, you can carry between two to three weapons out of an arsenal of six or more. Which one do you take? The pistol? The assault rifle? The sniper rifle? All have different perks, for instance the SR has greater accuracy and damage output but the AR also deals considerable damage in close quarters. If the game's done properly, you can approach it using different weapon combos, and we haven't even entered the realm of selecting different ammunition or mods, like in ME. Some ammo is better suited for synthetics, other for organics. Some mods give you greater stability, others dissipate heat more effectively. See? Choices.

I don't think Bioware's ever really done a game where choices matter. And the real problem with this is that, essentially, you've risk hitting either the irrelevant approach build (ME, where you had lots of options but one of them really meant anything) or the rock-paper-scissors approach (where you pretty much just have to guess the immunity and win).

The video mentioned WoW as a perfect example of this, and even Mike Laidlaw (was it him?) at some point complained that players in DAO ended up using the same armor for all their companions. Why? Probably because that particular armor was better than any other in the game. When you can turn an item into a set of numbers, it's easy to decide which one you'll end up using. This isn't a choice, it's a calculation, a decision based solely on reason that has a clear correct answer, remember?

It's certainly a problem with the design of the game... but I think the real answer is to just make sure you have multiple equally viable numbers, so to speak.

Let's bring it closer to home: DA2. I'm sure people out there are already fine-tuning the perfect class-combos.

I can give you a list, if you want.

Hey, maybe this is true of DAO as well.

DA:O was even easier. As long as you wanted to use mages, anyway.

On the other hand, when certain abilities are restricted to a specific class, your options are reduced, and the task of turning abilities into numbers becomes so much easier. For instance, whenever I play a mage, I find myself going for pretty much the same abilities: heal, fireball, lightning bolt. It's just what the video said, you look to maximize your damage output while boosting your defense/health values. You might veer off the path a little for variety's sake, but when push comes to shove, you go for the same abilities every time.

Are you talking about DA:O or DA2? DA:O was a game you could solo by mages alone. With the way cross-class combos work, in DA2 you can't rely on more than 2 of one party member (and I'd honestly say archer+dual wield rogue should be the pair). I think DA2 in a sense gives you  more variance in party variability, at the cost of character variability.

None of this is related to story, though.

By this point, you're probably thinking, "How does this relate to Hawke and his companions?" I'm thinking it too. But remember, choice is overcoming conflict. There is no conflict when you can safely say that A is the correct answer. There is no right answer when talking to your companions about their thoughts, opinions, and ideals, as opposed to your own. Conflict may very well arise from discussing the issue of slavery, the validity of using blood magic, or the fine line between justice and vengeance.

Actually, I think the real problem DA2 had (and it influenced the whole design) is that most players did have an easy answer to the mage-tempalr problem, and then DA2 had a lot of elements designed to tip the scales and it just ended up creating a giant, incoherent mess.

The more fulfilling aspect of choice, however, comes not from discussing these topics but from facing them. Would you resort to blood magic to save someone you loved? Would you free a slave if it meant jeopardizing your own mission? These choices go to the core of who you are, of who you want to be. Some of them arise from the points described above, others from carefully considering your own ethics and morals. Satisfaction comes from putting who you are as a person to the test and, sometimes, the test is enough in and of itself, without the player looking for a reward. Of course, it's always welcome.

Here is the problem: Bioware retained the worst aspect of RPG design: in-character rewards being the reward for a choice instead of "player" rewards.

Let me clarify by looking at DA:O, precisely the origins. How much does an origin change in DA:O, in terms of content? Very little. The origin is just something the player is that gets very quickly overwritten by the secret warrior order the player is a part of and the fact the game is set outside the societies where this type of racial background would really matter. DA:O from the start created a situation where player choice is nothing more than flavour.

What this means, essentially, is that Bioware isn't doing anything to challenge the player. They create a social and ethical sandbox (of sort) and expect you to create these conflicts yourself in it.

Bioware doesn't think you should be free to do anything; they give you lines and fixed attachments (in DA2 it was to the Hawke family and later to Kirkwall & your friends and in DA:O it was to Ferelden and the Wardens) and think you will create your character out of that.

Perhaps this is why it wasn't very difficult for me to side with the mages rather than the templars at the end of Act III. Yes, we're shown throughout the game that most mages in Kirkwall are deranged, borderline psychotic. We're also shown that templars can act like zealots, fanatics with an insatiable bloodlust. Both feed off each other and perpetuate this circle. But this isn't what sparks the conflict at the end of Act III, this is merely the backdrop, something that's already been going on for a long time. What sparks the conflict is an event, one that is just as unfair to pin on the mages as it would be to pin another one on the templars or the Chantry as a whole.

That's because of how it resonates for you, the player. But Bioware designed this to resonate for your character, i.e. who you want Hawke to be. But what Bioware thought players did to RP and what players do is not the same thing. And that was a big part of their failure.

And we're coming to the crux of the matter. The reason why it's so easy for me to choose, and, yes, it's still a choice, is that the question comes down to a very simple (for me) ethical dilemma: do you hold an entire group responsible for the actions of one of its members? Well, the member isn't quite a member but you get the point. It would be more difficult for me if, say, siding with the templars would provide a quicker resolution to the conflict, or maybe more lives would be spared.

And here you emphasize my point: for you it came down to this. But Bioware never wanted it to come down to that. It should be "for Hawke" and that rationale should be unique to the Hawke you create.

But, yes, it's a choice, one that comes down to your ethics sure, but that doesn't diminish its value. Choices based on ethics can be an immensely rich field to explore, but the problem is DA2 doesn't really take advantage of that. Do other Bioware titles successfully explot this? I don't know, and this post has already gone on long enough. So, you might want to explore how many of your decisions in DA2 are really reactions and calculations, and how many are choices and what kind of choices. Just saying. Have fun!

I don't think Bioware ever wanted it to come down to that. 

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed, roleplaying a character and playing a self-insert protagonist are fundamentally different things.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Where I think DA2 especially falters however is how it doesn't even do a good job in offering up the illusion of meaningful choice to the player. While in DAO you have the seemingly big choices that can shape not only which characters can live or die or become drunks or kings, but then you have the life/death of your PC or the choice to create the Old God Baby- those are choices which in the framework of the game give the player a sense of empowerment simply by being offered the choice.

I will go to my grave arguing against DA:O presenting any illusion of choice. What DA:O did was sell you a particular narrative, that if you bought into it, seemed to have the illusion of choice.

What you really have in DA:O is the ability to pick between two people who give you orders, and where the content in the game is identical. The game feels like it has an illusion if you think about some hypothetical end result (that as you're playing the game, you're making up for yourself, because you don't know there are epilogue sliders), but as you're playing the game almost nothing is different.

Even the DR or not gives you the exact same ending sequence. Nothing ever changes in-game. 

Yet the problem there and with most games is that a seemingly huge choice like the Dark Ritual and Old God Baby will likely never amount to much more than a codex entry or it will be Plot Hammered and railroaded into some common plot thread, if its dealt with at all in the future. Thats the problem since at the time of the choice it seems important, which is good, but BioWare consistently fails in giving even remotely satisfying in game, varying consequences to those big choices.

Because as I said in my other post, for Bioware the meaning of the choice is the in-character decision you made, not the actual consequence of it. And it will continue to be so unless DA2 has made them realize a huge paradigm shift.

But a big part of what created this problem is the very praise you gave for DA:O. If people happened to call DA:O out on how the entire game is the same except for the smoke and mirrors and epilogue sliders at the end, maybe Bioware would have never made DA2 as fixed as it was. But as it stands. people praised DA:O's design. And what Bioware took out of that was that their model was justified, not that players expected essentially two separate games if they made opposite choices.

Back to DA2, its a matter of not even offering up big important choices to the PC and when they are offered up, they're terribly transparent in how they're all leading to one point no matter what. Most of the variance in DA2 in terms of choices is via the companions and the personal quests with barely any divergence in the main plot threads, especially when we were supposedly going to be able to determine Hawke's "Rise to Power." You don't. Hawke becomes Champion the same way, no matter what. Its not even like the game reacts on a main plot level to Hawke killing the Arishok versus letting him go.  Thats the difference between even something like DAO and DA2. Sure, in DAO you kill the Archdemon no matter what, but you have a lot more choices on that path to the endpoint. Choices which seem important when you're making them.

That's just wrong. in DA:O you don't just kill the archdemon no matter what. You collect 5 armies no matter what. You go through the exact same areas no matter what. You fight boss fights in the exact same spots no matter what. Look at it:

Orzammar is identical until you pick between Bhelen/Harrowmont.
Brecilian Forest is identical until you pick betweenWolves/Keeper/Savior
Tower is identical from start to finish.
Redcliffe lets you handle the quest in 2 ways by skipping some of the town content. 
Haven is identical from start to finish until you pick between the Cultists/Guardian.

What you say in bold DA2 did wrong, DA:O did just as much. Furtehr down in your post, you said:

Its a problem with the industry at large though. Devs seem so infatuated with simply offering up flashy presentation and fluff that things like meaningful choice and consequence get forgotten or can't be done justice due to the cost it would take to implement them meaningfully.

This is exactly what DA:O is. It's just flashy presentation and fluff.

Here's how I can write the same fan fiction about "major" choices in DA2 like people do about DA:O (warning, spoilers):










If you chose Bhelen in DA:O, you can save Harrowmont's heir in DA2. If you do, he gets to Kal Sharok. Suddenly any opposition to Bhelen has a legitimate claimant. The man Bhelen "cheated' (his enemies will say). Hawke may well have chosen whether or not Bhelen will be able to hold Orzammar by allowing the most dangerous of his political foes to live. 

Whether or not you make Feynriel an abomination can unleash something as dangerous as the blight onto Ferelden - a horror that's powerful beyond imagination according to Marethari. Hawle may have either doomened Thedas to what Pride Abomination Uldred would have done to Ferelden or saved it by freeing/making tranquil Feynriel. 

If you remake the Eluvian, then suddenly this grand mystery of "beyond the Fade" is open to Merril - who knows what might be lurking there, and how one more working mirror might turn the tide in the war in the shadows between Flemeth and Morrigain. 

If you kill the Dalish tribe, maybe that has incredible echoes in the Dalish community, with the loss another of their own. They may blame humans, and relations may worsen. If you say what the Warden did in DA:O matters with the Dalish, this has to be on a similar level (minus creating werewolves). 

That's just off the top of my head, and it's all pure fan-fiction. And it's exactly the kind of thing that people did with DA:O. It's all you know in-game until you hit these magic epilogue slides that are just (like you said) flash and fluff to make your choices seem important even if the content is identical. 

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

The most honest thing about the DA2 marketing is "Who is Hawke?" because that's what the game is really about. It's just that the game never points out that what you're really playing is a hero who's losing out to the circumstances; instead the marketing and the game make it sound like you're playing a hero who is the catalyst. 

IMHO Hawke is the catalyst not by the choices he/she makes but more by circumstance.

Brockololly wrote...

Where I think DA2 especially falters however is how it doesn't even do a good job in offering up the illusion of meaningful choice to the player.

Thats because its not trying to at least not on the level most players are used to. If anything it deiberately strips away the illusion of choice in terms of the narrative.

Modifié par Morroian, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:48 .

[ademska]

In Exile wrote...

But, yes, it's a choice, one that comes down to your ethics sure, but that doesn't diminish its value.

I don't think Bioware ever wanted it to come down to that.

how can you say that? it was the entire point of every major decision in origins and the entire game of da2.

edit: or, at the very least, it comes down to the role-played character's ethics.

Modifié par ademska, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:49 .

[OdanUrr]

In Exile wrote...

It's certainly a problem with the design of the game... but I think the real answer is to just make sure you have multiple equally viable numbers, so to speak.

Agreed.

I can give you a list, if you want.

By all means, send me a PM.

Let me clarify by looking at DA:O, precisely the origins. How much does an origin change in DA:O, in terms of content? Very little. The origin is just something the player is that gets very quickly overwritten by the secret warrior order the player is a part of and the fact the game is set outside the societies where this type of racial background would really matter. DA:O from the start created a situation where player choice is nothing more than flavour.

It's customization much like you could choose your character in NWN2 or even Arcanum. What does it add to the story? Surprisingly little, true, a few dialogue lines here and there, a few different cutscenes. DA2, because it had less "origins," had even more potential to explore them further. I've posted somewhere else how Ostagar could have been used to advance character development for a warrior/rogue and how the mage's potential was successfully squandered.

What this means, essentially, is that Bioware isn't doing anything to challenge the player. They create a social and ethical sandbox (of sort) and expect you to create these conflicts yourself in it.

A very fertile sandbox which, to my mind, begged for more intricate dilemmas.

That's because of how it resonates for you, the player. But Bioware designed this to resonate for your character, i.e. who you want Hawke to be. But what Bioware thought players did to RP and what players do is not the same thing. And that was a big part of their failure.

And here you emphasize my point: for you it came down to this. But Bioware never wanted it to come down to that. It should be "for Hawke" and that rationale should be unique to the Hawke you create.

I don't think Bioware ever wanted it to come down to that. 

This is very interesting. I always see the character as my own (my precious...) and the choices he makes as the choices I would make if faced with the same issues. I've always viewed RP as a chance to explore the resolution of conflicts with no clear good/bad outcome, and how the choices you make resonate on the world around you. Do you mean to say Bioware intended for us to choose a version of Hawke (paragon/sarcastic/renegade) and stick to it throughout the game?

Modifié par OdanUrr, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:54 .

[MeAndMySandvich]

ademska wrote...

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

Well, she's right. Changing about
half the games story with choices > making fake choices. One rewards
multiple playthroughs, the other punishes them.

no, she's not right. she's picking a fight and adding nothing to what's so far been an excellent debate. neither of you has presented anything of value, including anything to back up that blanket statement -- though if you want to elaborate, i'm interested in hearing it.

Essentially, games like Witcher 2 and Devil Survivor reward multiple playthroughs by making a good chunk of the content dependent on what choices you make. From a storytelling perspective, it's a step towards the (impossible) story described in Jorge Luis Borges' The Garden of Forking Paths, (Salman Rushdie also compared games to that story) which I think, as a type of storytelling uniquely suited to games, is one the medium should explore. Multiple playthroughs inscribe events from previous playthroughs into a larger context, and you re-examine what you thought was true the last time you played the game in light of new information.

On the other hand, if you take the route most notorious for being the one a lot of JRPGs take, where multiple choices invariably lead to the same outcome, there's nothing about the story that lends itself particularly well to being a game, the same way a book consisting entirely of dialouge and stage directions would make a better play.

[Morroian]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

On the other hand, if you take the route most notorious for being the one a lot of JRPGs take, where multiple choices invariably lead to the same outcome, there's nothing about the story that lends itself particularly well to being a game, the same way a book consisting entirely of dialouge and stage directions would make a better play.

There are other reasons for multiple play throughs. Role playing totally different characters for one thing. I've got just as many play throughs for DA2 as I have for DAO.

[In Exile]

OdanUrr wrote...
By all means, send me a PM. 

Done. Check your inbox in like.. 5 minutes after you read this post. 

It's customization much like you could choose your character in NWN2 or even Arcanum. What does it add to the story? Surprisingly little, true, a few dialogue lines here and there, a few different cutscenes. DA2, because it had less "origins," had even more potential to explore them further. I've posted somewhere else how Ostagar could have been used to advance character development for a warrior/rogue and how the mage's potential was successfully squandered.

Well, I don't think costumization that's all in the player's head is really customization, because you can really just go back and say something like the Master Chief in Halo is really very customizable because he could look like anything and his past (as you see it in-game, could very well have included almost anything).

A very fertile sandbox which, to my mind, begged for more intricate dilemmas.

I don't think Bioware's ever wanted to do a truly complex character plot. I think part of it is, in the end, a conscious choice to produce blockbusters instead of critically acclaimed films (to reference the cinematic style Bioware's coming to be known for now).

This is very interesting. I always see the character as my own (my precious...) and the choices he makes as the choices I would make if faced with the same issues. I've always viewed RP as a chance to explore the resolution of conflicts with no clear good/bad outcome, and how the choices you make resonate on the world around you.

That's how I RP (in terms of philosophy) as well. But speaking to posters here on this forum (Sylvius the Mad in particular) I came to realize this is not what the RPG tradition was like, and since Bioware's writers come from not, not (IMO) how they write.

do you mean to say Bioware intended for us to choose a version of Hawke (paragon/sarcastic/renegade) and stick to it throughout the game?

Not at all. The tone indicators were just there to make what the intention (and so the potential expected consequence) behind each line was. The dominant personality was just a way for the player to see who Hawke was becoming, and to feel like the way Hawke spoke (some of the time) reflected how the player was navigating the dialogue.

The "tones" were supposed to be reactive to the player, not the other way around.

What Bioware wanted you to do was create a concept. Here are two examples:

Sally Hawke is aggresive, direct and to the point. She will always speak her mind, always challenge people's beliefs if she thinks they are wrong, and will never hesitate to turn to violence. She's not a moral person; the personal benefi is what she cares about, and that's what the bottom line really is for her.

Molly Hawke is concerned with her family first. All she wants to do is protect them. She will balk at nothing to do it. But she's a diplomatic and moral person. She will help, unless it jeopardizes her family. 

It's based on these concepts that you choose dialogue, choose quests, choose outcomes. The reward for you is the experience of that choice, the mental exercise in picking B over C over A (as dialogue or outcomes). Whether or not the consequences are the same is irrelevant, because the character is experiencing them differently. 

But players (like me) don't care about the mental experience as much as reactivity. 

[In Exile]

ademska wrote...
how can you say that? it was the entire point of every major decision in origins and the entire game of da2.

edit: or, at the very least, it comes down to the role-played character's ethics.

The role-played character's ethics and yourethics aren't the same thing (unless you want them to be). That's my point. I may well be wrong, but based on what David Gaidner was talking about when he compared how much more you can define Hawke vs. Shepard, I think there was a conscious choice to leave Hawke very undefined for players to RP in the classic sense and fill gaps. I think that's really poor design, but what Bioware ended up going with. 

[OdanUrr]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

On the other hand, if you take the route most notorious for being the one a lot of JRPGs take, where multiple choices invariably lead to the same outcome, there's nothing about the story that lends itself particularly well to being a game, the same way a book consisting entirely of dialouge and stage directions would make a better play.

I think this is probably the gist of it. This is what happens in a novel, the characters make choices in the novel that will lead to a certain outcome. If you read the book again, you may come to understand why they made those choices, you may agree or disagree with them, but the choice will remain the same no matter how many times you read the novel. Hawke's story is told in this manner, Varric is living proof. This puts a considerable restriction in your freedom to roleplay.

We can argue this is also true of a lot of RPG games that do not have this "framed narrative." We can even take it further and say, "all choices will invariably lead to the end," and this is true as well for every RPG out there. But the problem here, which I mentioned a long time ago, has to do with the lack of an overarching or long-term objective. Without it, we have no sense of purpose, no direction. If I'd known from the get-go that Hawke's purpose was little more than that of a tool to advance someone else's story, namely the mage-templar conflict, perhaps I wouldn't even have bothered in the first place. And here I refer you to my first (?) post.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 13 juillet 2011 - 04:14 .

[ademska]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

Essentially, games like Witcher 2 and Devil Survivor reward multiple playthroughs by making a good chunk of the content dependent on what choices you make. From a storytelling perspective, it's a step towards the (impossible) story described in Jorge Luis Borges' The Garden of Forking Paths, (Salman Rushdie also compared games to that story) which I think, as a type of storytelling uniquely suited to games, is one the medium should explore. Multiple playthroughs inscribe events from previous playthroughs into a larger context, and you re-examine what you thought was true the last time you played the game in light of new information.

On the other hand, if you take the route most notorious for being the one a lot of JRPGs take, where multiple choices invariably lead to the same outcome, there's nothing about the story that lends itself particularly well to being a game, the same way a book consisting entirely of dialouge and stage directions would make a better play.

beyond what @Morroian just said, i've written giant walls of text over the last few pages making what i considered pretty strong points about the change hawke actuates in his companions. character writing is generally considered one of bioware's strongest point -- we've got a whole thread somewhere around here full of people complaining that their characters are such a focus that they sacrifice plot.  the replay value comes from exploring the nuances of the cast in a way that books inherently can't touch.

the only difference is that you're talking about a plot-driven narrative and i'm talking about a character-driven one.

[In Exile]

OdanUrr wrote...
If I'd known from the get-go that Hawke's purpose was little more than that of a tool to advance someone else's story, namely the mage-templar conflict, perhaps I wouldn't even have bothered in the first place. And here I refer you to my first (?) post.

Certainly lots of people were okay with the Warden being an errand runner, Revan being an errand runner, the Spirit Monk (for those who played JE) being an errand runner, and the Bhaalspawn being an errand runner, so I'd bet being an errand runner who saves the world by running the bestest errands for the biggest scope would be well received. 

[ademska]

In Exile wrote...

The role-played character's ethics and yourethics aren't the same thing (unless you want them to be). That's my point. I may well be wrong, but based on what David Gaidner was talking about when he compared how much more you can define Hawke vs. Shepard, I think there was a conscious choice to leave Hawke very undefined for players to RP in the classic sense and fill gaps. I think that's really poor design, but what Bioware ended up going with.

yeah, i reread your post and immediately realized i'd misunderstood your point.

we're in agreement on this (and a lot ) of issues, i think. well, at least insofar as recognition of bioware's aims and methods, if not our personal opinions of them.

[OdanUrr]

In Exile wrote...

But players (like me) don't care about the mental experience as much as reactivity. 

What exactly do you mean by that? The only reactivity I can think of is related to psychology.

[ademska]

OdanUrr wrote...

What exactly do you mean by that? The only reactivity I can think of is related to psychology.

i assume @exile means reactive within the game itself, rather than in a meta analysis. dao's epilogue cards and the vague hints from da2's endgame dialogue allow us to speculate outside of the game as to the consequences of our actions. @exile would prefer the consequences be immediate and within the game.

gonna say again that i totally dig that da2 actually had in-game, pervasive changes in companions themselves :happy: