267 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Uzzy wrote...

DA:O's story, while using typical cliches and the heroes journey, was executed wonderfully.
DA2's story, while having original ideas in the way it was going to be told and what the story would be about, was executed horribly.

I look at it this way. I'd rather have a chef use a damn good recipe book and quality ingredients to make slight variations on my favourite dinner time after time then have that chef serve me up a turd on a plate and declare it 'Original, therefore better'

It wasn't executed wonderfully, it was so cliched its distracting, the mid game lacks all sorts of focus when the side plots overpower the main plot, characters barely develop as they come in to the game mostly developed and require PC for any development, and it had no theme established until the very end.

The worst aspect about DAO's story is not really the cliches, but the fact that Bioware recycled their plot from past games and reused the same formula. Thats even more troubling than the use of cliches.

DAII's story was far from bad, in fact its pretty good...had it not been rushed, it would have been great. Its like when KOTOR II first came out. It was better written than the original and was more original, however, it was rushed out the door and the story felt clunky, especialy at the end. DAII is in the same boat.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wut?

IlDivo, all stories follow a steries of steps.

Doesn't matter if it's 4 Star Maps, 4 armies or 3 journals. The number doesn't matter, nor do the specific. Gathering an army is just as much of a plot development as gathering a piece of a journal.

A non-linear narrative is NOT inferior in any way, shape or form.

[Kelnuin]

txgoldrush wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

DA:O's story, while using typical cliches and the heroes journey, was executed wonderfully.
DA2's story, while having original ideas in the way it was going to be told and what the story would be about, was executed horribly.

It wasn't executed wonderfully, it was so cliched its distracting, the mid game lacks all sorts of focus when the side plots overpower the main plot, characters barely develop as they come in to the game mostly developed and require PC for any development, and it had no theme established until the very end.

Having a perfect story plot is not possible, for everyone looks at it from a different perspective.  Creative ideas will change as does the people implementing the story.  A single author writing fantasy fiction is different than the art of cooperative storytelling.  Someone just saying this or that is better than another is only useful in the same plotline.  As the story evolves and people change, many things are different.  "You cannot step into the same river twice."

That said, it is better to tell the creative party (or group) what you like, as well as your dislikes. Author's become better by listening to constructive criticism than a list of dislikes.  Love your authors and they love you back with better stories, hate them and they will come to hate you and ignore the advice. If you believe that you can do better, I will await eagerly for your new product.

Modifié par jamming777, 07 octobre 2011 - 08:06 .

[seraphymon]

txgoldrush wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

DA:O's story, while using typical cliches and the heroes journey, was executed wonderfully.
DA2's story, while having original ideas in the way it was going to be told and what the story would be about, was executed horribly.

I look at it this way. I'd rather have a chef use a damn good recipe book and quality ingredients to make slight variations on my favourite dinner time after time then have that chef serve me up a turd on a plate and declare it 'Original, therefore better'

It wasn't executed wonderfully, it was so cliched its distracting, the mid game lacks all sorts of focus when the side plots overpower the main plot, characters barely develop as they come in to the game mostly developed and require PC for any development, and it had no theme established until the very end.

The worst aspect about DAO's story is not really the cliches, but the fact that Bioware recycled their plot from past games and reused the same formula. Thats even more troubling than the use of cliches.

DAII's story was far from bad, in fact its pretty good...had it not been rushed, it would have been great. Its like when KOTOR II first came out. It was better written than the original and was more original, however, it was rushed out the door and the story felt clunky, especialy at the end. DAII is in the same boat.

Im sorry but i feel if something is not executed good, no matter what it is, im not gonna like it.DAo wouldnt be the game it is if it wasnt executed well. and to me its beyond well, as it is one of my favorite games  of all time. Nobody is arguing about its cliche it is, but you seem to conclude that makes it a bad game or brings it down.

When your on one of the side or major quests, of course the focus is gonna shift because thats whats got your attention right there and then. What your doing  right now, not in the future. But it does not take away from the reason your there in the first place. DA2 however has lot of things, but focus is not one of them. Mainly because there is no focus in the first place. Its basically 3 different stories rolled into 1.

As for character development, DA2 requires the PC for the to develope in the same manner, in fact really what game doesnt really? if not for the prescence of the main character? Even if DA2 did that job better though doesnt mean it brings DAO down for non development, in Which I disagree anyways because there is.

And for the recycled stuff from past games. I say so what, it doesnt make it bad, why? because as people say you should look at a game for what it is in itself. Sqaure Enix use this alot in their final fantasy kingdom hearts games in which they recylce character and barely change them and count them as new. They even use the same voice actor. But that doesnt detract from a game for me.

[Flashing Steel]

What a joke, I'd take this seriously if it were in the DA:O forum

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wut?

IlDivo, all stories follow a steries of steps.

Doesn't matter if it's 4 Star Maps, 4 armies or 3 journals. The number doesn't matter, nor do the specific. Gathering an army is just as much of a plot development as gathering a piece of a journal.

A non-linear narrative is NOT inferior in any way, shape or form.

I'm pretty certain I just demonstrated the opposite.

Gather the armies is not plot development until the Landsmeet, which is typical Bioware format. Non-linear narratives means the player can choose what order to complete the missions in, which means there is greater likelihood that the writers don't know what order the events actually occur in and so won't be able to account for.

The armies is a great demonstration. Go to Redcliffe first. Or last. Nothing changes. There is no plot development after Ostagar because the story is static. Planescape Torment and Jade Empire (ignoring Act II) don't rely on this approach, and notice that things actually happen over the course of the narrative.
 All DA:O does after every mission is:

1/4 armies gathered.
2/4 armies gathered.
3/4 armies gathered.
4/4 armies gathered.

Is that really what we call plot development? Linear narratives mean that the writers always know the sequence of events as they occur.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:48 .

[Il Divo]

txgoldrush wrote...

It wasn't executed wonderfully, it was so cliched its distracting, the mid game lacks all sorts of focus when the side plots overpower the main plot, characters barely develop as they come in to the game mostly developed and require PC for any development, and it had no theme established until the very end.

The worst aspect about DAO's story is not really the cliches, but the fact that Bioware recycled their plot from past games and reused the same formula. Thats even more troubling than the use of cliches.

DAII's story was far from bad, in fact its pretty good...had it not been rushed, it would have been great. Its like when KOTOR II first came out. It was better written than the original and was more original, however, it was rushed out the door and the story felt clunky, especialy at the end. DAII is in the same boat.

Gonna have to go with this. I found the premise of Dragon Age 2 far more interesting than Origins, it was merely the execution which required more work.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

But then you're just citing specific events that always happen as a result of previous ones regardless of how the game is played. The "Choose your own mission" structure in the sense of DA:O or KotOR for that matter does not really equal a non-linear narrative because those choices do not affect the greater narrative nor do they affect each other in any significant way. It's an illusion of non-linearity, a self contained bubble inbetween two straight lines.

IMO, Alpha Protocol is a better example of a "non-linear" narrative, though the concept of wholly non-linear narratives is impossible unless a game's story is created entirely through mechanics and interaction (as opposed to scripted events). The Fallouts and Arcanums of the world kind of take a hybrid approach, with their open world nature lending to a non-linearity of sorts driven by a mixture of exploration, mechanics and scripted events.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:05 .

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

But then you're just citing specific events that always happen as a result of previous ones regardless of how the game is played. The "Choose your own mission" structure in the sense of DA:O or KotOR for that matter does not really equal a non-linear narrative because those choices do not affect the greater narrative nor do they affect each other in any significant way. It's an illusion of non-linearity, a self contained bubble inbetween two straight lines.

Fair enough. Non-linear just seemed the best way to describe what I was calling the "choose your own mission" portion. Regardless, we're arguing semantics. You understand my primary point: the side stories don't affect the main storyline. They're filler content.

IMO, Alpha Protocol is a better example of a "non-linear" narrative, though the concept of wholly non-linear narratives is impossible unless a game's story is created entirely through mechanics and interaction (as opposed to scripted events).

Agreed. And it's because in creating the game, the developers allowed the player to take into account what order missions were completed in, which could have an effect on subsequent assignments. KotOR/Origins/ME2 however don't really take this approach.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:11 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

But then really, you're criticising the BioWare method and not non-linear narratives in general.

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

But then really, you're criticising the BioWare method and not non-linear narratives in general.

Exactly. To their credit, not every Bioware game has employed that approach and some games (ME, Jade Empire) have done it better than others (KotOR, Origins). It just strikes me as a very weak approach to take, without adding much to the experience as implemented, which is why the Alpha Protocol comparisons work so well since it actually tries to take your choices into account.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:17 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Il Divo wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

But then really, you're criticising the BioWare method and not non-linear narratives in general.

Exactly. To their credit, not every Bioware game has employed that approach and some games (ME, Jade Empire) have done it better than others (KotOR, Origins). It just strikes me as a very weak approach to take, without adding much to the experience as implemented, which is why the Alpha Protocol comparisons work so well since it actually tries to take your choices into account.

I can agree with that just fine, but the only reason I decided to reply was because you said that non-linear narratives were inferior, using games like Origins & KotOR as evidence. Lol.

In that sense of non-linearity, or "choose your own" quest arcs with no discernable effect/consequences that funnels back to a linear ending... how is DA 2 all that different? Dragon Age 2 just seems to do it on a smaller level.

I liked Dragon Age 2's premise. It draws some similarities with that of New Vegas and even that of games like Risen, or Gothic 3. On some level, it also shares similarities with Witcher 1. In those types of games with a heavily enforced factional battle of ideology which you are free to interact with, the devil is in the details and execution. For me, Dragon Age 2's was below par and I don't see why it ought to be praised as "unique" or "not cliche", when really, it's neither. It's just less cliche than BioWare's oft repeated formula.

Unless of course, you're going for a "but it's not about Hawke, it's about the framed narrative, you're not supposed to make decisions" angle. To which I point to Alpha Protocol and Dragon Age 2's own marketing.

Then if you want to take the "but it's a personal story about Hawke and those around him" angle, there are many games that enforce this on some level, including most of BioWare's own works, most notably Baldur's Gate 2.

Note you not as in you personally just generally.

On one hand, I accept the limited development time as a plausible reason for imperfect execution, but on the other hand, I remember statemets coming from BioWare that the game could've been given more time, but they chose not to delay it.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:34 .

[Elanareon]

Cliche cliche, omg stop it! It may be cliche'd but it worked... DA2 had an original (was it really???) subpar plot, not interesting at all... Poor pacing...

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...


Did I compare the entire plot of PST to DAII? No, I didn't. I just said that PST has a set protagonist.

Which.... doesn't mean a damn thing.   Again, it's like trying to argue that if you like a juicy T-bone Steak, you'll also like Cow sh*t, since they both come from a cow.



And speaking  of which:

txgoldrush wrote...
However, still the lack of ending variations did hurt the game like it does PST.

^This is  BS  too.   In my 12 years of discussing PS:T online/offline,  you are the only human being I've ever encountered that has complained about its ending.   Most people either love it, or else they just don't feel the need to talk about it because it's simply not what the game is about.

By the way,  why are you comparing the endings?     They're complete  literary opposites of one another and can only be contrasted. DA2's ending is a cliff hanger while   PS:T's ending is the very definition of closure.  Your argument will never overcome this fact.  It's the proverbial  bull in the china shop.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 octobre 2011 - 04:49 .

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

I can agree with that just fine, but the only reason I decided to reply was because you said that non-linear narratives were inferior, using games like Origins & KotOR as evidence. Lol.

Apologies for not being clear on that. But you are correct; the non-linear narrative is not by necessity inferior. Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are two examples of directors who have used it to great effect. However, I would argue that it can be more difficult to pull off, as you must be careful to ensure that by the end your audience understands where the pieces fall into place, since events can occur out of order.

In the case of Origins/KotOR, the narrative is linear (since everything occurs in clear succession). I think I might just go with your term "Bioware method" to describe the structure, if that's alright with you.

In that sense of non-linearity, or "choose your own" quest arcs with no discernable effect/consequences that funnels back to a linear ending... how is DA 2 all that different? Dragon Age 2 just seems to do it on a smaller level.

I wouldn't argue that DA2 is different in that it also implements the Bioware method. But one reason why I avoid listing it along with KotOR/Origins is that DA2 does make the effort to hint at future conflicts through these various elements. With Origins and KotOR, nothing that happens in any of those locations ever comes to a head. I put a Dwarven King on the throne, and the narrative impact was a gameplay mechanic. Likewise with most other choices. DA2 for example makes better use of rescuing the Viscount's son in its central narrative.

But then we fall into an issue because DA2 didn't need the "Bioware method" in order to explore the Qunari/Mage Templar conflict. Basically, Dragon Age 2 commits the same flaw, just not quite as badly. As an example, remove the "Bioware method" quests from DA2. Would the two central conflicts of the game have been as fleshed out? Would the story have been as meaningful, despite its flaws? 

I liked Dragon Age 2's premise. It draws some similarities with that of New Vegas and even that of games like Risen, or Gothic 3. On some level, it also shares similarities with Witcher 1. In those types of games with a heavily enforced factional battle of ideology which you are free to interact with, the devil is in the details and execution. For me, Dragon Age 2's was below par and I don't see why it ought to be praised as "unique" or "not cliche", when really, it's neither. It's just less cliche than BioWare's oft repeated formula.

The bolded is probably what people are referring to. And you bring up a good point. For my own part, I have always preferred the Obsidian approach in KotOR 2 and New Vegas, where I'm just a nobody making his way in the world. In that sense, I enjoyed the DA2 was a change of pace from stopping some ancient evil. Origins (for example) establishes "Darkspawn = bad. Wardens = good". And while it's better executed, it doesn't have much opportunity to experiment, similar to how I prefer KotOR 2's narrative to KotOR's, excluding the ending.

Unless of course, you're going for a "but it's not about Hawke, it's about the framed narrative, you're not supposed to make decisions" angle. To which I point to Alpha Protocol and Dragon Age 2's own marketing.

Then if you want to take the "but it's a personal story about Hawke and those around him" angle, there are many games that enforce this on some level, including most of BioWare's own works, most notably Baldur's Gate 2.

Note you not as in you personally just generally.

On one hand, I accept the limited development time as a plausible reason for imperfect execution, but on the other hand, I remember statemets coming from BioWare that the game could've been given more time, but they chose not to delay it.

No, I defintely agree the game needed more development time and I don't really buy into the Hawke is meant to be passive argument. That would have been fine, but in my opinion that idea was not fleshed out at all.  As implemented, the story in DA2 had a far worse execution than Origins.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 octobre 2011 - 04:52 .

[Killer3000ad]

GodWood wrote...

Call me weird but I'll pick a well executed 'unoriginal' story over a crappy, poorly executed 'original' story any day.

You aren't alone. DAO's story while unoriginal was better executed and told than DA2, which was just a disaster especially at the end when various people quite suddenly went "FULL RETARD".

Modifié par Killer3000ad, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:34 .

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Did I compare the entire plot of PST to DAII? No, I didn't. I just said that PST has a set protagonist.

A) Which.... doesn't mean a damn thing.   Again, it's like trying to argue that if you like a juicy T-bone Steak, you'll also like Cow sh*t, since they both come from a cow.



And speaking  of which:

txgoldrush wrote...
However, still the lack of ending variations did hurt the game like it does PST.

^This is  BS  too.   In my 12 years of discussing PS:T online/offline,  you are the only human being I've ever encountered that has complained about its ending.   Most people either love it, or else they just don't feel the need to talk about it because it's simply not what the game is about.

By the way,  why are you comparing the endings?     They're complete  literary opposites of one another and can only be contrasted. DA2's ending is a cliff hanger while   PS:T's ending is the very definition of closure.  Your argument will never overcome this fact.  It's the proverbial  bull in the china shop.

A) My argument, it does. it goes to show that you do not have to customioze a character for it to be a true RPG. I am not comparing set protagonists with eachother, other than the fact that they are set protagonists.

You are trying to argue something I did not infer yet again.

Yes, TNO is different from other set RPG protagonists, however, he is far different from the Fallout protagonists, The Warden, Elder Scrolls protagonists, etc.

Many people have, especialy when they role play a good character. Players want to be rewarded for their actions.The ending DOES work from a story persepctive, not so much from a GAMEPLAY perspective.

DAII is a cliffhanger as far as the SERIES go, but the story of DAII itself, how Hawke was involved in the start of the worldwide Mage vs Templar conflict, is complete and closed. Really, the cliffhanger regarding the series was established at the beginning of the game, but at the same time DAII closed the chapter as well in regards to what story it tried to tell.

[txgoldrush]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

I agree with point A. That's it. It was done well don't get me wrong and lots of people obviously don't care that it was cliché, but it's a negative for me.

Right on.....

Cliche overuse and formula recycling is lazy. There is no way around this.

Why are so many romantic comedies panned by critics, even if they are techically well made? Because they are badly cliched and formualic. Not being fresh should be criticized, no matter how "well" its made.

The greatest RPGs are the ones that were fresh. In fact, if Richard Garriot stuck to cliche, we would not even have a strong RPG genre.

But he made Ultima IV, an RPG with no villian, where true morality came into play. In fact, it was the first game featuring moral decisions. It still feels fresh even today despite the dated graphics and gameplay. The virtue system was a revelation and so was its setting. And Garriot did not rehash the same storylines for the sequels.

That game from 1985 is much fresher than a kill the evil orcs game from 2009, even today.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 octobre 2011 - 06:06 .

[seraphymon]

txgoldrush wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

I agree with point A. That's it. It was done well don't get me wrong and lots of people obviously don't care that it was cliché, but it's a negative for me.

Right on.....

Cliche overuse and formula recycling is lazy. There is no way around this.

Why are so many romantic comedies panned by critics, even if they are techically well made? Because they are badly cliched and formualic. Not being fresh should be criticized, no matter how "well" its made.

The greatest RPGs are the ones that were fresh. In fact, if Richard Garriot stuck to cliche, we would not even have a strong RPG genre.

But he made Ultima IV, an RPG with no villian, where true morality came into play. In fact, it was the first game featuring moral decisions. It still feels fresh even today despite the dated graphics and gameplay. The virtue system was a revelation and so was its setting. And Garriot did not rehash the same storylines for the sequels.

That game from 1985 is much fresher than a kill the evil orcs game from 2009, even today.

Yet DA2 is more than guilty of the lazy formula. Originality  is a factor in judgment in alot of things. However it is usually never the main aspect. I believe primarily because everything has already been done before in some shape or form.  Not every company has done every type, but that still doesnt make it original or innovative like BW keeps claiming.

Quality beats out originality for me. And i disagree about best or greatest RPGS are ones that are fresh. They can be but they arent or shouldnt be the only ones.  To me if a game from 1985 beat out a 2009 game its because it was just clearly better over in quality, not because  it was original, though it could help.

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

A) My argument, it does. it goes to show that you do not have to customioze a character for it to be a true RPG.

Congratulations.  Now we just have to find  that mysterious poster here who ever argued otherwise.

  Players want to be rewarded for their actions.

You are rewarded for your actions in PS:T's ending.  Your goal is to end the cycle; to reverse the "curse" that  has caused endless suffering for you and the planes.  If you do everything right... you succeed.  And if you watch the ending movie closely, you'll notice that even TNO's fate has a glimmer of hope in it.  He nods and  grabs that weapon for a reason.

DAII is a cliffhanger as far as the SERIES go 

True.  And that's a good distinction to make, actually, because as far  the game's plot goes, it's not even that.     Instead,  the game just  ends.  Arbitrarily.  At Cassandra's whim.  ("well, ok, I guess that's all I'm gonna get out of you Varric, so I guess you're free to go.  Bye!")

That is to say, The templar-Mage civil war occurs well before the ending, so that  certainly doesn't constitute a cliff hanger.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:11 .

[Il Divo]

seraphymon wrote...

Yet DA2 is more than guilty of the lazy formula. Originality  is a factor in judgment in alot of things. However it is usually never the main aspect. I believe primarily because everything has already been done before in some shape or form.  Not every company has done every type, but that still doesnt make it original or innovative like BW keeps claiming.

Quality beats out originality for me. And i disagree about best or greatest RPGS are ones that are fresh. They can be but they arent or shouldnt be the only ones.  To me if a game from 1985 beat out a 2009 game its because it was just clearly better over in quality, not because  it was original, though it could help.

I think an interesting point to consider is that even if DA2 is more original for Bioware, that still doesn't say anything about whether it's a new concept and whether that's necessarily a good thing. The framed narrative for example is not new to story-telling.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...


You are rewarded for your actions in PS:T's ending.  Your goal is to end the cycle; to reverse the "curse" that  has caused endless suffering for you and the planes.  If you do everything right... you succeed.  And if you watch the ending movie closely, you'll notice that even TNO's fate has a glimmer of hope in it.  He nods and  grabs that weapon for a reason.

I almost want to reinstall Planescape now. That ending was nothing short of epic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 octobre 2011 - 12:51 .

[In Exile]

simfamSP wrote...

Origins is clichéd in it's main plot. But In other ways it's fresh. The whole 'save the world thing' is just a backdrop for a more deeper plot involving the four sub main plots.

I think that's what makes DA:O's main plot so uninspired. There's nothing wrong with a good, cliche save the world epic adventure. It's just that DA:O is an epic errand instead.