267 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica83]

That's truly hilarious... Blam DAO story when DA2 had just a mediocre rushed and static story....

Ohhh come on

[Vicious]

Both of the stories had issues. DA:O I honestly get bored playing now, just because the game drags with the 'visit 4 places and then finish the game' bit they have been doing since KOTOR, and some of the areas [redcliffe, deep roads] are just as boring as any part in DA2, except they last longer.

[billy the squid]

BubbleDncr wrote...

Regarding the characters that are divorced from the plot:

My opinion on DA:O and DA2 love interests is that Bioware gives you one male and one female love interest that are important to the plot. Alistair and Morrigan, and Anders and Isabella. Either by luck, or by the fact that Bioware purposly tailors those ones to be the most popular love interests, I've ended up romancing those (male) characters in my first playthrough. Tho, if by some chance I hadn't, when i got to the end I probably would have felt sad that my love interest wasn't as important to the story as other characters,

Tho I would think it would be too much if all companions were equally important to the overall plot.

I'd don't think that any of them are central to the plot, they play a larger role, but they are not integral. For instance, Alistair can be exiled or executed and his role as potential king of Ferelden doesn't really come to fruition until the very end, and only if you chose to follow that path. Whilst Morrigan could actually be turned in at the Circle Tower in the re added content via mods, whilst the Dark ritual isn't central to the plot it's more a get out of jail free card.

I wouldn't take the above to mean that the characters were poorly done or bad, they certainly weren't, but they added to a plot in terms of detail and allowed players to grow attatched to them rather than becoming a plot device which was put in to drive the storyline forward.

DA2, whilst I didn't think the characters were all bad per se, Anders and Isabela did suffer from a barely disguised problem of being forced into a plot to push the narrative. For instance, Anders, talking to Cullen, could you turn him in? No, could you influence him from his course over the years, no. The plot demands that he blow up the Chantry, it is a device used to create the situation and as a result we are left listening to Anders whine for nigh on 10 years about oppression, because the plot demands he blows up the chantry, there is very little player autonomy and makes no sense in the wider scope of Mage vs Templar story.

As to Isabela, whilst I liked the character, having the Qunari hang about for a number of years in Kirkwall and sit on their hands until, it's suddenly discovered Isabela has a relic of theirs suffers from much the same problem, not so accutely, but how does it make sense for the Qunari and the Templars to sit doing nothing for years.

I don't see the need for characters to be pivotal to a plot to be interesting.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Playest]

There are no new ideas. Every time a mario game comes out i know i will have to collect coins kick Bowser's ass and save the princess. Even if the structure of the game is familiar it's the details within the hero's journey frame work that makes DAO my favorite video game ever.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Il Divo wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

While I agree some of the sidequests were pointless in DA:O like collecting the galls from the undead rather stupid but some side quests I would do for one reason: the money. Weapons, Armors, potions, and stuff cost money. I might find the quest incredibly stupid but if I want a grandmaster silverite rune (for example) I need the money to get that rune there is also something else you're forgetting 90% of side quests in Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and every other RPG is optional.

His point isn't about side quests but about the "Choose your mission" portion of pretty much every Bioware main quest since Neverwinter Nights. The problem is that these portions rarely move the narrative forward in any significant way. KotOR, Origins, and Mass Effect 2 are probably the worst offenders in this regard.

And why should they all have to all to be part of main storyline? 
Some are for simply are pretty much if you do them that they are money, experience, or for some items. Some are there to explore other aspects of their respective universes.

[Il Divo]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

And why should they all have to all to be part of main storyline? 

Because any half-way decent narrative does not have large segments of story that I can just throw out as absolutely useless.

Planescape Torment, Red Dead Redemption, Deus Ex, don't follow this incredibly weak approach to narrative structure. KotOR, Origins, and Mass Effect 2 all feature these side stories which (literally) don't alter the main narrative in the slightest. I could recruit a hundred armies in Origins, find a  million Star Maps, and recruit 24 dirty dozen-style characters.  Or I could do none of those things. The story is the same either way.

The problem isn't that these games don't spend the entire time focusing on the narrative. The problem is that the meat of the game is contained within the "choose your own mission" portions, and they add absolutely nothing to the overarching storyline. What about choosing the order of your missions is so critical to the Bioware experience?

Some are for simply are pretty much if you do them that they are money, experience, or for some items. Some are there to explore other aspects of their respective universes.

So are you arguing that I can't earn money, experience, or items if the main quest was a long continuous chain? I guess Planescape got it wrong then.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:53 .

[tmp7704]

Il Divo wrote...

Because any half-way decent narrative does not have large segments of story that I can just throw out as absolutely useless.

Planescape Torment, Red Dead Redemption, Deus Ex, don't follow this incredibly weak approach to narrative structure. KotOR, Origins, and Mass Effect 2 all feature these side stories which (literally) don't alter the main narrative in the slightest.

(...)

So are you arguing that I can't earn money, experience, or items if the main quest was a long continuous chain? I guess Planescape got it wrong then.

You might want to play Planescape again; because it has tons of optional side-quests which have no relevance to the main plot beyond maybe "the protagonist takes part in them".

(regarding the 'middle part loses focus because you can do it in any order and it doesn't move the plot' complaint, i disagree with it -- both the objective of that part and the reasons for it are laid out clear beforehand. And you'd be hard pressed to explain exactly how taking care of the "gather armies" part of "gather armies and then go to war" doesn't advance the overall plot)

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:14 .

[taixuanzi]

Spam removed 

Modifié par casamar, 06 octobre 2011 - 03:03 .

[txgoldrush]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

While I agree some of the sidequests were pointless in DA:O like collecting the galls from the undead rather stupid but some side quests I would do for one reason: the money. Weapons, Armors, potions, and stuff cost money. I might find the quest incredibly stupid but if I want a grandmaster silverite rune (for example) I need the money to get that rune there is also something else you're forgetting 90% of side quests in Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and every other RPG is optional.

His point isn't about side quests but about the "Choose your mission" portion of pretty much every Bioware main quest since Neverwinter Nights. The problem is that these portions rarely move the narrative forward in any significant way. KotOR, Origins, and Mass Effect 2 are probably the worst offenders in this regard.

And why should they all have to all to be part of main storyline? 
Some are for simply are pretty much if you do them that they are money, experience, or for some items. Some are there to explore other aspects of their respective universes.

they should either

A) connect to the main plot

if not than connect to the story's main conflict or side conflicts (such as the first Witcher's Order vs Scoia'tel)

and if not than C) Connect to the games theme or themes.

Random sidequests actually detract from building a cohesive and coherent world, not add to it. It also takes focus off the plot. They can work in Oblivion because there really is multiple stories or plots, the "main" one is just one of them. But a game like Fallout 3, it really detracts fromt he game as the Capital Wasteland really isn't that coherent of a universe, unlike New Vegas's Mojave Wasteland which is extremely connected and coherent. Not only did New Vegas feature MORE sidequests, but better wriiten ones, and these quests connect to the main conlficts of the region, which is what the story is about.

Many well written RPGs do connect their sidequests either to the main plot or the main themes. Many Witcher sidequests deal in finding who the true monster is and choosing the lesser evil. It goes well with Geralt's Witcher work. Deus Ex Human Revolutions sidequests either connect to the main plot, elements of the main plot, fleshes out its main characters (Jensen and Faridah Malik for example), or features the central conflict of augmentation. The errands in that game connect to the story. Jade Empire is another example of sidequests connecting to theme, the theme of disturbing harmony causing problems.

DAII is another such example of sidequests done right (well most of them). In fact, DAII does a good job classifying them. Optional quests that strongly related to the plot or its themes are named "Secondary Quests" while quests not as much related to the plot or not at all are "Side Quests", your gang killing and item returning quests, along with demon boss kills.

[txgoldrush]

MingWolf wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

TNO and Geralt in the first Witcher are similiar. While he has a set oast, hi smotivations are determined by the player. The quest Identity is about the player shaping the new Geralt. In TW2 his motivations are far more set. And I did not this about the first Witcher, not only did it use a cliche thats been used way too many times, it was unnecessary. There could have been other ways to get around this.

While they are all utitlized differently, they are still all set. You cannot change Nameless's sex or apperance for instance. He has a set past as well and the game revolves around this. The thing that isn't set is his current life. This really does become a problem at the end, when there is one set ending, damnation. Even as a good character. This dampens the game a bit. Why be good if it doesn't matter to the character? That is my only issue with the story of PST.

And really, fully customizable characters have weakenesses. They have very little backstory, for one, and when they do, it lacks depth. I think Lonesome Road truly opened up a huge flaw in Fallout New Vegas's writing. The Courier himself/herself. The whole regular game, the character's past isn't an issue, but Lonesome Road gives the character a past. But its simply not fleshed out and unless he or she is amnesic, I shouldn't have to learn my charcters past from other characters. This caused the conflict with Ulysses deliver less of an impact. Had the character been far more fleshed out, then Lonesome Road would have worked.

There is tradeoff when having customizable character and that is the loss of depth, and giving a fully customizable character depth can only be used with a trick like amnesia. Revan for example. Set protagonists can be far deeper.

There are pros and cons with both fully customizable characters vs. set characters.  When it comes to game design, whichever modality to use ultimately comes down to what will engage the player more.  Games are not novels.  Games require interaction, and thus execution is a prime importance. 

With fully customizable characters, the player's imagination can fill such characters with depth, and I believe that in most cases, that is either the result or the intent.  It personalizes the experience all the more, and in most cases (note that I said most), the story isn't so much about what you are trying to customize but what is revolving around you.  Unlike novel protagonists, it is the player who is in control, whereas in the novel, it gets told one way only (typed out font).  What makes the story grand may depend on whether you prefer playing someone you can customize (almost as though your looking through it in the perspective of first person), or third person (non-customizable).

While having fixed characters worked for TNO and the Witcher, you really have to go much deeper into the mechanics of how the game was executed, or what the game was trying to tell you, to understand how it really worked.  In the case of TNO, I think Yrkoon (either on this page or the previous page of this thread) explains it quite well.  The Witcher is similar in this regard.  You made a statement earlier that PS:T was heralded as one of the best written games because of the set protagonist.  I disagree.  You cannot take out the fact that the game had a set protagonist and use that solely as the basis for it's success.  There is much more to that I assure you. 

Note that just because a game has a set protagonist doesn't necessarily make it a good game or a good story.  Some of the more successful games have it, sure, but it is still the execution that matters and how to bring that execution into the right context.  I've helped a friend run a little RPG gaming group for a bunch of players once, and one of the things my friend decided to do for a game was impose roles to each of the players participating (set protagonist, set stories).  Suffice it to say that at least one person dropped out in outrage because they didn't like the idea of having a story imposed on them, and really, it didn't take a genius to figure out why. 

There are pros and cons with any method of story telling.  In a game, the method must make sense (and carry much more weight than just related themes).  Execution is once again a key importance.  It's not just the story that makes the game, it is how the player interacts in the story.  They are two sides of the same coin.  You lose one side you lose the other. 

However, in PST's ending, it wasn't your Nameless One that you created, his current life, that really mattered in regards to his fate, it is the set portagonist aspect of him, his past lives and misdeeds. Therefore no matter how good you play, TNO is still damned. Therefore he is still a set protagonist with a set final outcome. And actually I don't like this...the ending is the only blemish on PST's writing becuase role playing agood character doesn't matter. However, the set protagonist backstory and the exploration of, that is central to PST, so indeed, his character is part of the reason or is the reason why PST is highly regarded.

I get that both have their drawbacks, but DAO fans act like their is no drwaback for having a fully customizable character so Bioware should keep making them for the series. In fact, I like the genre to have variety, a fair share of set heroes, and a fair share a fully customizable ones. Even the same series should have variety.

And really I find the Warden (and the Spirit Monk and the KOTOR characters) highly flawed in how they are handled. I can forgive the Xbox era games for techinical limitations, but those heroes are portrayed inconsistantly and takes one out of the experience. The Warden is VA'd for battle, but why not for conversations? Why do these characters stand around emotionless and have a blank stare when a conversation is going on? While Hawke and Shepard are hardly flawless, at least they fit in the games conversations.

[txgoldrush]

Il Divo wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

And why should they all have to all to be part of main storyline? 

Because any half-way decent narrative does not have large segments of story that I can just throw out as absolutely useless.

Planescape Torment, Red Dead Redemption, Deus Ex, don't follow this incredibly weak approach to narrative structure. KotOR, Origins, and Mass Effect 2 all feature these side stories which (literally) don't alter the main narrative in the slightest. I could recruit a hundred armies in Origins, find a  million Star Maps, and recruit 24 dirty dozen-style characters.  Or I could do none of those things. The story is the same either way.

The problem isn't that these games don't spend the entire time focusing on the narrative. The problem is that the meat of the game is contained within the "choose your own mission" portions, and they add absolutely nothing to the overarching storyline. What about choosing the order of your missions is so critical to the Bioware experience?

Some are for simply are pretty much if you do them that they are money, experience, or for some items. Some are there to explore other aspects of their respective universes.

So are you arguing that I can't earn money, experience, or items if the main quest was a long continuous chain? I guess Planescape got it wrong then.

Umm no...

Red Dead Redemption is an example on NOT how to handle a story, neither is the first Deus Ex. Both have HUGE pacing problems. Why? Because side plots that have no main story relevance or stories that should be cut out, are forced into the main narrative. In fact, RDR's story is mostly doing stupid tasks for stupid people, to get their "help", one character could be fine, but there are far too many dumb comical characters. Nevermind that the story is overlong regardless and sticks with one plot point, find the outlaws, for way too long. Niko's campaign in GTA IV is another example of Rockstar's inability to pace their stories. Characters like Irish, The Professor, and Seth could have been cut out and the story would not only be not much impacted, but even improved from their absence because the pacing would be better. While RDR begins and ends well, the middle is so full of filler, it simply drags the main plot.

Whats worse than having random sidequests is having them forced into the main plot.

KOTOR and its restored sequel is a far better way to handle the plot, give us side stories related to the plot while looking for the plot coupons. Mass Effect 2 was centered around its characters and it was more about them than the Collectors.

And Alpha Protocol is a choose your mission order story done right as well. I have other quelms about the game though, such as the diotic combat and many of its characters (not named Mina or Sis).

[Wintersembrace]

BAHAHAHA where is DAO in your Registered game list
oh the only fail with RDR is its not on PC

Modifié par hotedge, 06 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
..., but DAO fans act like their is no drwaback for having a fully customizable character so Bioware should keep making them for the series.

See? This is why your general post is not received well. This is the second times you tried to troll DAO fans in this thread. First you troll them for their choices which does matter in DAO endgames and now you mock their fully customized character. For your information, there is drawback for fully customizable character. Mingwolf already explain it very well the pros and cons of both set and player-created character. But still you turn your deaf ears and attack DAO fans instead of properly counterpost with your point of view . What do you hope you could gain from this? 

txgoldrush wrote...

In fact, I like the genre to have variety, a fair share of set heroes, and a fair share a fully customizable ones. Even the same series should have variety.

 
Another flaw of your argument. Stop using "In Fact,..." when stating your preferance. There is no fact for liking something. You like the genre to have variety, that's subjective and not fact. And here is my OPINION as well, a series which share fully customizable character and set protagonist suffer identity crisis and difficulty to build fan base in future. Why? Story driven by set protagonist and story written spesifically for fully customizable character are difference in term in how the players perceive their character and interaction with the world.  Set protagonist need to be well established, popular and developed in order to gain better reception among players espescially new players. Take Geralt in the Witcher for example, we already knew he is set protagonist in TW. His character is  already established in TW. I assume ( since I don't buy TW series ) TW fans know and love him for who he is already. Otherwise, they wouldn't be buying TW 2 since the central theme of TW is Geralt like Mass Effect's Sheppard. What happen if CD Projekt change Geralt into fully customizable character? I think many TW fans will rage since they no longer be able to follow up Original Geralt's character. Beside, in games which central theme is the world itself like TES and DA, having set protagonist does nothing because every sequel features different hero. A set protagonist can never be well established in this setting. Also people don't care about unknown hero but they do care if this hero is their character regardless if every sequel feature different heroes. And since I don't play set protagonist, this will certainly not going to keep my interest with DA franchise.

txgoldrush wrote...


And really I find the Warden (and the Spirit Monk and the KOTOR characters) highly flawed in how they are handled.

The Warden is handled by the players and not the game. If they're flawed then it's your flaw of handling your own character. Not the game. 

txgoldrush wrote...


I can forgive the Xbox era games for techinical limitations, but those heroes are portrayed inconsistantly and takes one out of the experience. The Warden is VA'd for battle, but why not for conversations?

In battle, your main focus is keeping yourself alive and not about the sound of your character voice. In conversation however, your focus is about expressing your intent. How you express yourself determine who you are. Just like in real world.

txgoldrush wrote...


Why do these characters stand around emotionless and have a blank stare when a conversation is going on?

 Because if there are 5 billion players who play the Warden's role, there would be 5 billions difference responses. Each one of them are unique. And because they are unique, it's impossible to show how this 5 billions responses in video games. Unless we have a technology to record and display individual behaviour in video games, we can never potray each of this responses. That's why it's up for the players to imagine their own character's response. That's why RPG require imagination which is commonly known since the day people started to roleplay. It doesn't matter if you play tabletop RPG or Cardgames RPG or Text based RPG in Comodore 64 or Miniature RPG or LARPS or even in professional film acting. Emotionless and blank stare only happen if you don't use your imagination just like you only see text in novels when it narrates forest. If you properly play your character role, you won't be seeing this "emotionless and blank stare". It's all depend on how your imagination works. Everything you see is imagination even if the game show only blocky 640x480 pixels environment or wall of text. If you stop using your imagination then you wouldn't be enjoying your environment, character and interaction with the world. That's why, in the past, only people who are labelled as "nerd" play RPG. Common people will not be able to fathom what this "nerd" people see in RPG. 

But to be fair, stop OOC-ing ( Out of Character ) your character. Maybe then you can see  something else beyond that flat monitor. There is a virtual world out there. Go travel and make your own legend. 

txgoldrush wrote...



While Hawke and Shepard are hardly flawless, at least they fit in the games conversations.

Hawke and Shepard only fit games conversation according to designer. Not you. Even some players who can role-play Hawke and Sheppard knows the responses are not always fit in games conversations. I know because I've seen few of their posts. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 octobre 2011 - 11:03 .

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...
However, in PST's ending, it wasn't your Nameless One that you created, his current life, that really mattered in regards to his fate, it is the set portagonist aspect of him, his past lives and misdeeds. Therefore no matter how good you play, TNO is still damned. Therefore he is still a set protagonist with a set final outcome. And actually I don't like this...the ending is the only blemish on PST's writing becuase role playing agood character doesn't matter. However, the set protagonist backstory and the exploration of, that is central to PST, so indeed, his character is part of the reason or is the reason why PST is highly regarded.

PS:T is  so NOT about its ending.  It's about the Journey  to it.     If it was about the ending, then there'd be no point in playing past the prologue, since you're flat out *told*  about the ending about 20 minutes into the game.

And I have no idea why you're even bringing   up Planescape: Torment on this  thread.   PS:T doesn't even remotely resemble anything in DA2, story-wise, mechanics-wise or even plot-structure wise.   As far as I can see, You're attempting to argue that the two games share some massive, fundamental similarity   ( they both have a set protagonist with a set backstory, yo!)  But  that doesn't mean a damn thing.  It's like arguing that a juicy T-Bone steak and a pile of cow sh*t are the same because they both come from a cow.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 octobre 2011 - 11:13 .

[Uzzy]

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'

[Il Divo]

tmp7704 wrote...

You might want to play Planescape again; because it has tons of optional side-quests which have no relevance to the main plot beyond maybe "the protagonist takes part in them".

Side quests are irrelevant. I'm not talking about side quests. I'm referring specifically to the "choose your mission" structure found in every Bioware game since KotOR, which adds nothing to the narrative. Planescape's main quest is an extended chain. It may have side quests, however they don't disrupt the structure of the main quest.

(regarding the 'middle part loses focus because you can do it in any order and it doesn't move the plot' complaint, i disagree with it -- both the objective of that part and the reasons for it are laid out clear beforehand. And you'd be hard pressed to explain exactly how taking care of the "gather armies" part of "gather armies and then go to war" doesn't advance the overall plot)

I don't think I would be. Why do I need to collect four star maps? Because Bioware decided that four was a perfect number for the main quest. Why four armies? Same reason. It doesn't matter how clear the main objective is laid out. I'm not arguing that the objective is illogical; it makes sense within the context of the game. I'm arguing that it does nothing for the narrative structure.

None of those does anything to push the narrative forward once the PC understands how the concept works. I understand that collecting four Star Maps reveals the location of the Star Forge. That doesn't change that the adventures I experience on Kashykk, Tatooine, Manaan, and Korriban are just side stories. Likewise with Origins. Bioware could have decided that Redcliffe would provide enough soldiers for the army and spent the rest of the main quest actively fighting Loghain. What does selecting a Dwarven King have to do with stopping the Darkspawn? Nothing. What does stopping Uldred have to do with punishing Loghain? Nothing. What does settling the Elf/Werewolf conflict have to do with avenging Duncan? Again, nothing. They are arbitrary methods of extending game length while ignoring the key threat.

Compare that to Planescape Torment, where practically the entire narrative is moved forward as TNO pieces together his past.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 octobre 2011 - 12:43 .

[Il Divo]

Edit: Double Post.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 octobre 2011 - 12:21 .

[Il Divo]

txgoldrush wrote...

Umm no...

Red Dead Redemption is an example on NOT how to handle a story, neither is the first Deus Ex. Both have HUGE pacing problems. Why? Because side plots that have no main story relevance or stories that should be cut out, are forced into the main narrative. In fact, RDR's story is mostly doing stupid tasks for stupid people, to get their "help", one character could be fine, but there are far too many dumb comical characters. Nevermind that the story is overlong regardless and sticks with one plot point, find the outlaws, for way too long. Niko's campaign in GTA IV is another example of Rockstar's inability to pace their stories. Characters like Irish, The Professor, and Seth could have been cut out and the story would not only be not much impacted, but even improved from their absence because the pacing would be better. While RDR begins and ends well, the middle is so full of filler, it simply drags the main plot.

Whats worse than having random sidequests is having them forced into the main plot.

KOTOR and its restored sequel is a far better way to handle the plot, give us side stories related to the plot while looking for the plot coupons. Mass Effect 2 was centered around its characters and it was more about them than the Collectors.

And Alpha Protocol is a choose your mission order story done right as well. I have other quelms about the game though, such as the diotic combat and many of its characters (not named Mina or Sis).

We've been over this. That you think KotOR is an example of how to follow a narrative structure is laughable at best. I'm still skeptical of  your "Darth Bandon pushes the narrative forward" argument.

[tmp7704]

Il Divo wrote...

Side quests are irrelevant. I'm not talking about side quests.

They still form "large segments of story that I can just throw out as absolutely useless" which is something a "any half-way decent narrative does not have". As such they are not irrelevant, but rather inconvenient for the argument you're making.

Even when it comes to the main storyline there's parts which, using your argument, don't actually move the narrative forward, but serve as extra tasks for the player, the "arbitrary methods of extending game length" as you put it.

I'm referring specifically to the "choose your mission" structure found in every Bioware game since KotOR, which adds nothing to the narrative. Planescape's main quest is an extended chain. It may have side quests, however they don't disrupt the structure of the main quest.

Being able to choose the order of main quests simply means the narrative is somewhat more flexible, which can be handy depending on what character you choose to play -- different characters can choose to tackle objectives in different order based on their personality and/or background. It doesn't add much (from the narrative viewpoint, the benefit can be greater when considering other aspects) but it also doesn't take away from it, nor disrupts it. As such, it's a net gain imo.

I don't think I would be. Why do I need to collect four star maps? Because Bioware decided that four was a perfect number for the main quest. Why four armies? Same reason.

Or, just mabe, it's four armies because it provides the player with insight into the major groups of the game world -- humans, elves, dwarves and the mage/templar conundrum, forming convenient structure to establish the game world in decent detail through "show, don't tell".

Our brains are wired to look for patterns everywhere, but it doesn't mean every pattern we think we found actually is one.

Likewise with Origins. Bioware could have decided that Redcliffe would provide enough soldiers for the army and spent the rest of the main quest actively fighting Loghain.

What would be the relative gain from switching focus of the bulk of narrative on second-grade opponent who isn't supposed to be the main threat?

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:01 .

[Il Divo]

tmp7704 wrote...

They still form "large segments of story that I can just throw out as absolutely useless" which is something a "any half-way decent narrative does not have". As such they are not irrelevant, but rather inconvenient for the argument you're making.

What large segments of story are you referring to? KotOR"s four planets compromise the bulk of the gameplay/narrative experience. If I don't want to do side quests, I don't have to. Side quests are an RPG trope which have existed for a while. I'm not their biggest fan, but the point is that they're not intended to be narrative-oriented. "Choose your own mission" segments are part of the main quest which don't flesh out the main quest, if that makes any sense.

Even when it comes to the main storyline there's parts which, using your argument, don't actually move the narrative forward, but serve as extra tasks for the player, the "arbitrary methods of extending game length" as you put it.

Sure, but most linear narratives (such as Planescape) also don't offer such large breaks between plot development. Pharod might request a task from TNO in exchange for his information, but immediately after I receive information relevant to the story. In KotOR, after I get off Dantooine, the storyline is static until I complete three different planets. What in the storyline changes except:

1/4 Starmaps collected.
2/4 Starmaps collected.
3/4 Starmaps collected.
Leviathan (Plot development!)
4/4 Starmaps collected.

As I said before, it is not necessary to be receiving plot developments every 30 seconds, however Bioware's typical approach yields narratives where nothing significant happens for extended periods of time.

Being able to choose the order of main quests simply means the narrative is somewhat more flexible, which can be handy depending on what character you choose to play

Then demonstrate for me how KotOR's and Origin's narratives change after the completion of every relevant quest location. For these locations to be important to the narrative, there must be development of some kind. If the narrative is more flexible, in all likelihood it is weaker.
 

-- different characters can choose to tackle objectives in different order. It doesn't add much (from the narrative viewpoint, the benefit can be greater when considering other aspects) but it also doesn't take away from it, nor disrupts it. As such, it's a net gain imo.

What is greater about it? Did merely choosing what order you tackled those locations in have a drastic affect on role-playing opportuniities? If we're talking Alpha Protocol, you might have a point. But no Bioware game has offered choice even remotely approaching that level, as KotOR/Origins demonstrate.
 
Complete these planets in any order you like. What is the net gain to which you are referring? 

Or, just maybe, it's four armies because it provides the player with insight into the major groups of the game world -- humans, elves, dwarves and the mage/templar conundrum, forming convenient structure to establish the game world in decent detail through "show, don't tell".

Despite your implication, there is no necessary connection between recruiting four armies and exploring the major groups/lore of Ferelden. If that was Bioware's intention, they could either:

1) Find a plot-oriented reason to explore these locations.
2) Save them for some other game.

Mass Effect 2 is a perfect demonstration of #2. We didn't need to see the Terminus Systems or the Flotilla in ME1, but these locations were saved for a later game. "Show, don't tell" is great. Now why can't Bioware show something relevant to the main plot?

What would be the relative gain from switching focus of the bulk of narrative on second-grade opponent who isn't supposed to be the main threat?

Origins establishes two main conflicts.

1) Darkspawn
2) Loghain

Either one is acceptable for the narrative's focus. Considering the level of both of these threats, I should be doing something more pro-active than killing demons.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 octobre 2011 - 04:13 .

[BubbleDncr]

billy the squid wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Regarding the characters that are divorced from the plot:

My opinion on DA:O and DA2 love interests is that Bioware gives you one male and one female love interest that are important to the plot. Alistair and Morrigan, and Anders and Isabella. Either by luck, or by the fact that Bioware purposly tailors those ones to be the most popular love interests, I've ended up romancing those (male) characters in my first playthrough. Tho, if by some chance I hadn't, when i got to the end I probably would have felt sad that my love interest wasn't as important to the story as other characters,

Tho I would think it would be too much if all companions were equally important to the overall plot.

I'd don't think that any of them are central to the plot, they play a larger role, but they are not integral. For instance, Alistair can be exiled or executed and his role as potential king of Ferelden doesn't really come to fruition until the very end, and only if you chose to follow that path. Whilst Morrigan could actually be turned in at the Circle Tower in the re added content via mods, whilst the Dark ritual isn't central to the plot it's more a get out of jail free card.

I wouldn't take the above to mean that the characters were poorly done or bad, they certainly weren't, but they added to a plot in terms of detail and allowed players to grow attatched to them rather than becoming a plot device which was put in to drive the storyline forward.

DA2, whilst I didn't think the characters were all bad per se, Anders and Isabela did suffer from a barely disguised problem of being forced into a plot to push the narrative. For instance, Anders, talking to Cullen, could you turn him in? No, could you influence him from his course over the years, no. The plot demands that he blow up the Chantry, it is a device used to create the situation and as a result we are left listening to Anders whine for nigh on 10 years about oppression, because the plot demands he blows up the chantry, there is very little player autonomy and makes no sense in the wider scope of Mage vs Templar story.

As to Isabela, whilst I liked the character, having the Qunari hang about for a number of years in Kirkwall and sit on their hands until, it's suddenly discovered Isabela has a relic of theirs suffers from much the same problem, not so accutely, but how does it make sense for the Qunari and the Templars to sit doing nothing for years.

I don't see the need for characters to be pivotal to a plot to be interesting.

I don't think any of the characters were done badly - while Alistair and Anders play a larger role in the story, I felt that Zevran and Fenris were actually the more developed characters, with the better overall romance. So to me, it evens out.

I think they definately did a better job, overall, of integrating the companions characters into the storyline in DA2 than they did in Origins, but now that I've read your post, yes there were aspects that were forced. It doesn't really hit me at the time of playthrough, tho, because in my first playthrough (and probably most people are similar), I want to keep all my companions, since they're useful. Especially Anders, as he's the healer. So in my first playthrough, I would never think of turning him in, or banishing him - in later playthroughs, I have, but not my first one.

I think its when you do multiple playthroughs that you realise when thing are forced and don't make sense - and while most people on these forums have done multiple playthroughs, we make up a small group of people who've actually played the game. But the same thing happens with books and movies you've read/watched multiple times as well, so I can't really hold it against Bioware too much.

[tmp7704]

Il Divo wrote...

What large segments of story are you referring to?

Pretty much all side-quests, like mentioned. Yes, you don't have to do them but that doesn't change the fact they exist and dilute the narrative by your metrics. 

Sure, but most linear narratives (such as Planescape) also don't offer such large breaks between plot development.

It depends how you look at it. Re: Planescape specifically, you can easily consider the opening to be:

(trying to get out of Mortuary) looking for journal 1/3
(trying to locate Pharod) looking for journal 2/3
(running Pharod's errand) looking for journal 3/3

etc. In other words, while the individual sub-tasks are more varied, the overall objective doesn't change. Much like when it comes to hunting the star maps and such.

Then demonstrate for me how KotOR's and Origin's narratives change after the completion of every relevant quest location. For these locations to be important to the narrative, there must be development of some kind.

In DAO (since it's the topic) there is development occuring to the groups relevant to the individual sub-tasks (occasionally coupled with gaining another companion) The game world changes as the result. Could also argue the decisions made by the PC show or help to develop his/her personality, so there's potentially character growth present as well. Both these aspects can serve as point of the narrative.

If the narrative is more flexible, in all likelihood it is weaker.

No. It can be just as easily said that linear narrative is the one that's weaker, because it's too simplistic and rigid, requiring the events form nothing but a series of steps, which doesn't always happen in reality. Both these are just opinions, depending on what exactly you consider to be strength or weakness.
 

What is greater about it? Did merely choosing what order you tackled those locations in have a drastic affect on role-playing opportuniities?

If nothing else, it allows to select the order which you think fits the personality of your character, i.e. avoid situation when the rigid order forced onto you doesn't make much sense. A Dalish elf may be inclined to first seek their own brethren, e.g. A dwarf may also want to head for Orzammar first (or the opposite, put it off until it can't be avoided) etc and so on. Because such reasoning is bound to be different for various players, flexible structure allows to accommodate them all.

Despite your implication, there is no necessary connection between recruiting four armies and exploring the major groups/lore of Ferelden. If that was Bioware's intention, they could either:

1) Find a plot-oriented reason to explore these locations.
2) Save them for some other game.

They did #1. Doing #2 instead makes very little sense considering this is the game which establishes the entire IP. You bring up ME2 as example of it, but consider it's not ME2 but the first game that introduces you to all major races of ME universe, as well as the politics, the Citadel etc. Why? Because not doing it would leave the player in permanent state of "wtf are you talking about".

What would be the relative gain from switching focus of the bulk of narrative on second-grade opponent who isn't supposed to be the main threat?

Origins establishes two main conflicts.

1) Darkspawn
2) Loghain

Either one is acceptable for the narrative's focus. Considering the level of both of these threats, I should be doing something more pro-active than killing demons.

Gathering armies necessary to battle threat #1 strikes me as as pro-active as it can get. Note that what DAO does is, in a way, not unlike what you suggest -- it has 4 quests oriented towards #1 and 2 towards #2. Your idea was it could instead have 1 quest oriented towards #1 and them some (presumably more than 2) quests dealing with #2... but since as you say yourself either target is acceptable for the narrative focus that seems very much like six of one, a half dozen of another kind of change for me.

[MingWolf]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
However, in PST's ending, it wasn't your Nameless One that you created, his current life, that really mattered in regards to his fate, it is the set portagonist aspect of him, his past lives and misdeeds. Therefore no matter how good you play, TNO is still damned. Therefore he is still a set protagonist with a set final outcome. And actually I don't like this...the ending is the only blemish on PST's writing becuase role playing agood character doesn't matter. However, the set protagonist backstory and the exploration of, that is central to PST, so indeed, his character is part of the reason or is the reason why PST is highly regarded.

PS:T is  so NOT about its ending.  It's about the Journey  to it.     If it was about the ending, then there'd be no point in playing past the prologue, since you're flat out *told*  about the ending about 20 minutes into the game.

And I have no idea why you're even bringing   up Planescape: Torment on this  thread.   PS:T doesn't even remotely resemble anything in DA2, story-wise, mechanics-wise or even plot-structure wise.   As far as I can see, You're attempting to argue that the two games share some massive, fundamental similarity   ( they both have a set protagonist with a set backstory, yo!)  But  that doesn't mean a damn thing.  It's like arguing that a juicy T-Bone steak and a pile of cow sh*t are the same because they both come from a cow.

This. 

[Il Divo]

tmp7704 wrote...

Pretty much all side-quests, like mentioned. Yes, you don't have to do them but that doesn't change the fact they exist and dilute the narrative by your metrics. 

But the scenarios still aren't equivalent. If I choose to perform side quests, the decision to disrupt the narrative is on me. Side quests also don't have any preconception about being anything greater than side quests. The KotOR planets are not optional. The narrative attempts to present them as important because the Star Maps are located there, which will reveal the Star Forge. But the planets are not important.  

It depends how you look at it. Re: Planescape specifically, you can easily consider the opening to be:

(trying to get out of Mortuary) looking for journal 1/3
(trying to locate Pharod) looking for journal 2/3
(running Pharod's errand) looking for journal 3/3

etc. In other words, while the individual sub-tasks are more varied, the overall objective doesn't change. Much like when it comes to hunting the star maps and such.

So then Bioware games not only make the mistake of the nonlinear narrative but they commit all these errors as well? I'm still not seeing how they come out ahead.

In DAO (since it's the topic) there is development occuring to the groups relevant to the individual sub-tasks (occasionally coupled with gaining another companion) The game world changes as the result. Could also argue the decisions made by the PC show or help to develop his/her personality, so there's potentially character growth present as well. Both these aspects can serve as point of the narrative.

But what can serve as a point of narrative was not used as a point of narrative. There is nothing you have listed so far that requires Bioware to adopt the optional mission structure. I can develop my character's personality fairly well in both Planescape and Jade Empire, which possess fairly linear narratives. I can make decisions and acquire companions in a linear narrative as well.

If your argument is to work, then you must demonstrate what about the KotOR/Origins formats are so necessary that Bioware could not have told the story otherwise without the optional mission structure. 

No. It can be just as easily said that linear narrative is the one that's weaker, because it's too simplistic and rigid, requiring the events form nothing but a series of steps, which doesn't always happen in reality. Both these are just opinions, depending on what exactly you consider to be strength or weakness.

Not easily. Events in real life are always sequential, which is the critical point to consider. Because events can happen in any order does not change that events only happen in one order. Now, events in almost any narrative, be it book, film, or game are also sequential. Let me outline for you the problems with this approach.

Story A:

Event 1-->Event 2-->Event 3--> Event 4

Story B: 

Event 1
Event 2
Event 3
Event 4

Story A incorporates a linear narrative. The writer always knows what happens next because they can clearly identify what happens first. If Event 2 happens, then I know event 1 has already happened. Likewise for events 3 and 4. The author only has to write a single story and in writing that story can have the characters account for all the events as they unfold.

Imagine that Story B lets you engage in the events in any order you want. Either the narrative must take into account every single combination the player can think of or the narrative pretends that each event occurs in isolation (as KotOR/Origins do). 

That's why the non-linear narrative you are supporting doesn't do anything special, and so is not indicative of Bioware's strength as a storyteller. Story A is telling  a single story, where I can clearly identify where each piece falls into place. Story B is a jumble of different events, which don't have a necessary connection to each other. It requires much more effort to a writer to account for every possible set of events in Story B than it is for Story A. Effectively, you're not writing one single story, but several.
 

If nothing else, it allows to select the order which you think fits the personality of your character, i.e. avoid situation when the rigid order forced onto you doesn't make much sense.

A Dalish elf may be inclined to first seek their own brethren, e.g. A dwarf may also want to head for Orzammar first (or the opposite, put it off until it can't be avoided) etc and so on. Because such reasoning is bound to be different for various players, flexible structure allows to accommodate them all.

Which stresses my point that these decisions aren't reflected in the game world. The story never takes into account whether I visit the Dwarves first or last in the manner of Alpha Protocol, which diminishes that notion of role-playing and decisions with consequences. I'd argue that the small benefit to role-playing you perceive doesn't outweigh the lack of a decent narrative, especially when it's possible to express all these ideas in a campaign with a linear narrative.

They did #1. Doing #2 instead makes very little sense considering this is the game which establishes the entire IP. You bring up ME2 as example of it, but consider it's not ME2 but the first game that introduces you to all major races of ME universe, as well as the politics, the Citadel etc. Why? Because not doing it would leave the player in permanent state of "wtf are you talking about".

Notice that Mass Effect did not require that I explore the homeworlds of the Salarians, Asari, Turians, the Terminus Systems and the Flotilla, which would be an equivalent scenario for your "flesh out the world" scenario. It told a story, and utilized all the tools necessary in telling that story.

With Origins, Bioware did not follow #1. They provided a plot excuse to engage in actions non-relevant to the overarching story being told. "Gather an army" happens to be that excuse, no different than "gather four star maps". As I've mentioned several times now, the decision for how many armies/star maps is arbitrary and doesn't add anything to the plotline.

Gather the Mages. Story is the same. Gather the Dwarves. Story is the same. Gather the Elves. Story is the same. It's only after I've hit that magic number of four that the developers decide the plot can move forward again.

Gathering armies necessary to battle threat #1 strikes me as as pro-active as it can get. Note that what DAO does is, in a way, not unlike what you suggest -- it has 4 quests oriented towards #1 and 2 towards #2. Your idea was it could instead have 1 quest oriented towards #1 and them some (presumably more than 2) quests dealing with #2... but since as you say yourself either target is acceptable for the narrative focus that seems very much like six of one, a half dozen of another kind of change for me.

It's pro-active in the sense that it's logical from how the game portrays the events. But why does the entire game focus on gather the army, which is my point. It  doesn't involve any meaningful plot development. My idea is for Bioware to incorporate a linear narrative surrounding Origins and to have more events of significance happen along the way, which is plot development. As told, Gather the Armies is an excuse to engage in four interesting sub-stories which have very little to do with the main narrative. After Ostagar, the game essentially presses the pause button while everything else happens.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 octobre 2011 - 07:51 .

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
However, in PST's ending, it wasn't your Nameless One that you created, his current life, that really mattered in regards to his fate, it is the set portagonist aspect of him, his past lives and misdeeds. Therefore no matter how good you play, TNO is still damned. Therefore he is still a set protagonist with a set final outcome. And actually I don't like this...the ending is the only blemish on PST's writing becuase role playing agood character doesn't matter. However, the set protagonist backstory and the exploration of, that is central to PST, so indeed, his character is part of the reason or is the reason why PST is highly regarded.

PS:T is  so NOT about its ending.  It's about the Journey  to it.     If it was about the ending, then there'd be no point in playing past the prologue, since you're flat out *told*  about the ending about 20 minutes into the game.

And I have no idea why you're even bringing   up Planescape: Torment on this  thread.   PS:T doesn't even remotely resemble anything in DA2, story-wise, mechanics-wise or even plot-structure wise.   As far as I can see, You're attempting to argue that the two games share some massive, fundamental similarity   ( they both have a set protagonist with a set backstory, yo!)  But  that doesn't mean a damn thing.  It's like arguing that a juicy T-Bone steak and a pile of cow sh*t are the same because they both come from a cow.

Did I compare the entire plot of PST to DAII? No, I didn't. I just said that PST has a set protagonist. Of course Geralt, and TNO, and JC Denton will be all different from eachother. I am not comparing them, I am just stating the fact that PST did have a set protagonist and he is one of if not the reason why the game is so revered. And note that I ddi not mention PST specifically at first, I mentioned it along with other games that have a set protagonist. Not every WRPG needs to have a customizable character. I have never compared really anything else of PST with DAII.

However, DAII is about the journey as well if you want to use that logic as you know the ending in the prologue as well. However, still the lack of ending variations did hurt the game like it does PST. If players are going to whine about not having a completely different ending for different choices in DAII, where are the complaints for PST? That aspect is similiar.