155 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

HiroVoid wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I think some players need to have their hands held and led down a corridor without deviation, if deviation is presented, the player struggles to deal with.

Other players need to have freedom, regardless of how its implemented, if they are too railroaded, the player struggles to deal with it.

Both have pro's and con's.

I don't think there is ever going to be a game that covers both sets of fans.

But, DA3 really needs to be different to DA2 for it to re-capture the fans it lost.

I have a theory.  People like Dragon Age because it has a unique lore, nuanced characters, and a serialized epic sense of storytelling.  STORY. (David Gaider and his writing team deserve a lot of credit, IMO.) Everything else becomes cosmetic.  As pretty as Skyrim is...after a 100 hours, if there isn't a story to hook you, characters to love, those pretty world textures start to feel rather empty. The danger of the sand box is that it could hurt the story.  And my opinion is that if people really felt that Dragon Age 2 was so horrible from a story and gaming standpoint....there's no winning them back.  Because a part of me believes they didn't really love Origins either.  Copying Skyrim in Dragon Age 3 will not bring these people back.

A story can be the best in the history in games....and it won't matter if the gameplay is no good.  No matter what type of game you make, you always put gameplay above everything.

Obviously that's not true. Bioware's stories are the whole reason they're popular. If people didn't want story, they could play Tetris or Minesweeper. Most RPGs play almost identically to each other. If you strip away story there is nothing to differentiate a game from any of its competitors.

Gameplay serves the needs of the story, not the other way around. You need to know what kind of story you're telling in what kind of world before you can decide what style of gameplay works with it. You can't create a gameplay system and then overlay the story over it and expect the two to just work together. It won't happen.

[Wulfram]

The story is what makes a great RPG, but gameplay needs to be decent enough or it will detract from anything else.

[Zanallen]

Mr Fixit wrote...

For some inexplicable reason, I am very intrigued by your dinner. What did you have?

A t-bone steak, baked potato, garlic bread and a salad.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Plaintiff wrote...

Obviously that's not true. Bioware's stories are the whole reason they're popular. If people didn't want story, they could play Tetris or Minesweeper. Most RPGs play almost identically to each other. If you strip away story there is nothing to differentiate a game from any of its competitors.

There are plenty of Action Adventures with a focus on great stories, let alone the Adventure games of the past. Assassin's Creed series is probably the most notable recent example. BioShock, etc etc.

To claim that "story" is the only thing setting RPGs apart is not only selling them short, but also simply untrue.

Plaintiff wrote...
Gameplay serves the needs of the story, not the other way around. You need to know what kind of story you're telling in what kind of world before you can decide what style of gameplay works with it. You can't create a gameplay system and then overlay the story over it and expect the two to just work together. It won't happen.

I'd say you're in the wrong genre to claim that.

Remember this is the genre that hails from PnP games. Which goes about things exactly the way you describe as not happening.

[Plaintiff]

mrcrusty wrote...
There are plenty of Action Adventures with a focus on great stories, let alone the Adventure games of the past. Assassin's Creed series is probably the most notable recent example. BioShock, etc etc.

To claim that "story" is the only thing setting RPGs apart is not only selling them short, but also simply untrue.

Certainly Action Adventure games can have good stories, I never claimed otherwise. I didn't say story sets RPGs apart from other genres, I said that story sets RPGs apart from their competitors, as in other RPGs.

I'd say you're in the wrong genre to claim that.

Remember this is the genre that hails from PnP games. Which goes about things exactly the way you describe as not happening.

Except no, because within the RPG genre gameplay that can differ substantially from game to game. Even within the genre of PnP games themselves (I assume you mean 'pen and paper'?), gameplay elements can differ substantially. They don't all follow DnD rules. Hell DnD doesn't even follow DnD rules; subsequent editions have made significant alterations to aspects of the overall system.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:18 .

[Heimdall]

RPG has become such a broad term at this point I'm amazed it still has much meaning at all.

I mean, RPG gameplay varies to an incredible degree.  Building up a character might perhaps be one of the only absolutes.  A tendency to place more focus on story than some other genres is also pretty agreed upon.

Beyond that I don't think I've ever seen a consensus on the subject.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:31 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Plaintiff wrote...

Certainly Action Adventure games can have good stories, I never claimed otherwise. I didn't say story sets RPGs apart from other genres, I said that story sets RPGs apart from their competitors, as in other RPGs.

I don't know about that. We're all here talking about Skyrim aren't we? Diablo was also a pretty popular series (and still is). The Fallouts, both new and old are not narrative and story heavy. They were more about exploration (of the setting) and the morality therein. There are countless other examples, too.

Plaintiff wrote...
Except no, because within the RPG genre gameplay that can differ substantially from game to game. Even within the genre of PnP games themselves (I assume you mean 'pen and paper'?), gameplay elements can differ substantially. They don't all follow DnD rules. Hell DnD doesn't even follow DnD rules; subsequent editions have made significant alterations to aspects of the overall system.

That is not really what I'm talking about though.

The claim (you made) was that gameplay systems do not take priority over stories.

"Gameplay serves the needs of the story, not the other way around. You need to know what kind of story you're telling in what kind of world before you can decide what style of gameplay works with it. You can't create a gameplay system and then overlay the story over it and expect the two to just work together. It won't happen."

Which is untrue.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:39 .

[Plaintiff]

mrcrusty wrote...

I don't know about that. We're all here talking about Skyrim aren't we? Diablo was also a pretty popular series (and still is). The Fallouts, both new and old are not narrative and story heavy. They were more about exploration (of the setting) and the morality therein. There are countless other examples, too.

... and setting is not an element of story? I'm confused. Most fantasy books and movies try to convey a sense of the larger world within which their events occur. These games do the same, if on a much wider scope. When you explore in Skyrim and Fallout, you may be diverting from the main plot, but you aren't leaving the story.

That has nothing to do with anything.

The claim (you made) was that gameplay systems do not take priority over stories.

"Gameplay serves the needs of the story, not the other way around. You need to know what kind of story you're telling in what kind of world before you can decide what style of gameplay works with it. You can't create a gameplay system and then overlay the story over it and expect the two to just work together. It won't happen."

That's blatantly untrue.

Oh, you mean because these games allow players to craft their own stories? I hope that's what you mean because if not then I just don't get what you're trying to say at all.

But if that is what you mean, I'd argue that it's not really the case because the player-crafted stories are still subservient to the larger "story" that is the pre-established lore of the provided setting.

Yes, players can take the gameplay elements of DnD and make their own world and mythology that is completely unrelated, but I would argue that it is going to be weaker as a result. Certainly there are games where the gameplay does, in fact, take precedence over story. My argument (and maybe this is my fault for not expressing myself clearly) was not that this never occurs, but that the resultant game will be a poor one. Or at least, not as good as it could and should be.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 décembre 2011 - 03:42 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Ahh, a difference in definition.

I tend to look at "story"as narrative plot (main plot or otherwise), not everything that makes up the creative elements of a work. If we were to look at say, Tolkien's works, I don't consider the languages he wrote for Elvish or Dwarvish or w/e to be apart of the "story" but apart of the lore and world building elements, which I consider a separate concept.

Similarly too, in a video game, things like level design or atmosphere or lore books are certainly elements that add to the experience, but I wouldn't count it as part of the actual story. I think that difference in definition is really the important bit.

It's why I've always questioned why BioWare is known for their outstanding "stories". I always thought that their stories were good (but not amazing) at best with character interaction as their best element.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 décembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Plaintiff wrote...

subservient to the larger "story" that is the pre-established lore of the provided setting.

Yes, players can take the gameplay elements of DnD and make their own world and mythology that is completely unrelated, but I would argue that it is going to be weaker as a result.

I argue it's completely unrelated. As long as there's main story,  there is no way to divert  from it's setting. Take example Skyrim, you can ignore the main quest but you always start as prisoner who escape Helgen and destined to be dragonborn. You can be a traveller or blacksmith or fisherman or woodcutter and craft any story you want from there but you are still a dragonborn who has the ability to absorb dragon soul and learn word of power even if you never meet the Greybeards.  It's still related to main story. The only way a story can be totally unrelated is when the creator craft their own story outside the main story itself, like using creation kit to bypass the story intro.

I also argue weaker story as a result. Wheter a story is weak or not, can only be validated by someone is not the creator himself. From story creator standpoints, no one going to make or at least claim their story is weak. Everyone will try their best to make their story memorable otherwise there is really no point of making it. People make their own story because they are not happy with the main quest or because they want to explore alternate route which is not provided by the main quest or because they don't like to be spoonfeeded by the quest giver or because it's much more interesting to see "what if" they alter some of the key plot and various other reasons. Whatever their reasons are, it serves to entertain themselves which is more important than the main story.

 

[Plaintiff]

mrcrusty wrote...

Ahh, a difference in definition.

I tend to look at "story"as narrative plot (main plot or otherwise), not everything that makes up the creative elements of a work. If we were to look at say, Tolkien's works, I don't consider the languages he wrote for Elvish or Dwarvish or w/e to be apart of the "story" but apart of the lore and world building elements, which I consider a separate concept.

Similarly too, in a video game, things like level design or atmosphere or lore books are certainly elements that add to the experience, but I wouldn't count it as part of the actual story. I think that difference in definition is really the important bit.

It's why I've always questioned why BioWare is known for their outstanding "stories". I always thought that their stories were good (but not amazing) at best with character interaction as their best element.

This is probably my fault, my definition of "story" tends to fluctuate. When I world-build, I consider it part of the story, because, in a sense, the rules of he world dictate the kinds of stories that can occur within it. I consider the "stuff that came before" to be just as vital as the "stuff that's actually happening", even if it barely gets touched on.

My personal experience with Bioware is, I'll admit, fairly limited. I was citing "story" because that's what people say is so awesome about it (but I use awesome a lot, so maybe I jsut expect less from "awesome" things than other people do). Origins was my first Bioware game, (unless they worked on the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games for consoles, which I doubt, because looking back, they were pretty blah).

My tastes are fairly accomdating, I'm relatively assured of enjoying anything that's put in front of me. Origins definitely follows a formula, but it does it very well. It puts fresh twists on concepts that I generally find to be trite, and manages to work in familiar tropes like "lost heir to the throne" without making me roll my eyes, so I consider that a win. DAII excites me a lot because it's so very different from other games I've played before, and despite what other people think, I consider it to be very well-executed. Even then I don't think I feel that strongly about it.

I definitely agree that character interactions are the best aspect in both games.

[Maria Caliban]

I tend to use "Story" as meaning "X is about..."

As in, "Citizen Kane is about a boy who becomes a newspaper magnate." - plot
"Citizen Kane is about how it's possible to get everything but lose what's most important." - themes

Are there stories that are as much about the setting as the characters and plot? Yes. Historical novels (the Grapes of Wrath) and epic fantasy (Acacia: The War Against the Mein) both tend to be stories about places and times as much as people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

And this I agree with. However, that is what not Sylvius stated. He just gave a general theme that the simple option of accepting quest or not, suffices.

The trouble is, so many games fail even on this pathetically low standard.

Even DA2 forces the completion of quests.  Those fetch quests get completed automatically just by talking to NPCs.  What to ask questions?  Too bad, you just completed a quest.

Tommy6860 wrote...

Spoiled by VA for the PC.

Voicing the PC has ruined every RPG in which it has ever occurred.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 décembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But in BG, as in Skyrim, the player could (assuming he draws no conclusions from meta-game information like journal organisation) have no idea what the main quest is until it's half done.

Sure, if he was utterly retarded. "Oh hey, dragons are returning to the world, that's kind of a big deal. Oh hey, I have dragon-related powers. Those two things just might be connected, and apparently there's some kind of prophecy? Everyone's talking about it."

What parts of this are not immediatly obvious?

Where in there is any information about what you're trying to achieve?  Nowhere, because that information isn't provided to the player unless he goes looking for it.  And the PC has no reason to believe, for example, that the civil war is unrelated to the prophecy, particularly since he doesn't know the details of the prophecy.

So much of the PC's motivation for doing pretty much everything is left entirely to the player, so each player (and, indeed, each playthrough) can produce a vastly different core narrative.

The core narrative in DAO and DA2 are always the same, and in DAO it's always handed to the player on a silver platter (less so in DA2 - this is the one area in which I think DA2 is the better game).  But in Skyrim, the player needs to go looking for it (and he can choose not to do so). 

Nevertheless, integration into the rest of the gameworld is irrelevent to Tommy's argument, since his complaint is that the story is thin and cliche, which it is. If the story sucks, if it's tired and overdone, then how well it's integrated isn't important at all.

I haven't finished Skyrim's main quest, yet, and it's possible I never will, because there are so many roleplaying opportunities within the game.  And the elements of the main quest fall within that group.

I say again, every quest is boring if you plod through it simply because you're "supposed to".

Quality and originality should be the primary concern. Games are, primarily, a story-telling medium. People buy them because they want a good story.

Unless you're including the emergent narrative (the story created by each player's roleplaying), I completely disagree.

The game should be concerned primarily with providing me a platform in which to roleplay.  "Telling" me a story is, at most, a secondary concern.

There is no point in comparing Dragon Age to Skyrim because they are entirely different games with entirely different goals. The Dragon Age games are not open-world and don't pretend to be, it is evident from the word go that they are devoted almost entirely to the resolution of the main questline. This is not a fault, this is a concious choice. Are you seriously going to claim that Dragon Age is somehow flawed for delivering exactly what it promises?

I insist that both games have, as their primary goal, the permission of roleplaying.  I am further saying that the way Skyrim presents its plot is far better at allowing roleplaying than either Dragon Age game is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Most RPGs play almost identically to each other. If you strip away story there is nothing to differentiate a game from any of its competitors.

That is nonsense.  If you strip away the story, I would still choose to play NWN ahead of DA2.  Because the gameplay (and I include things as disparate as conversation and inventory management within my definition of gameplay)  is vastly superior.

Gameplay serves the needs of the story, not the other way around. You need to know what kind of story you're telling in what kind of world before you can decide what style of gameplay works with it. You can't create a gameplay system and then overlay the story over it and expect the two to just work together. It won't happen.

That's entirely the wrong way to build a game.  The story, as you describe it, should do nothing more than illustrate the rules of the setting and provide a backdrop for the player's roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Except no, because within the RPG genre gameplay that can differ substantially from game to game. Even within the genre of PnP games themselves (I assume you mean 'pen and paper'?), gameplay elements can differ substantially. They don't all follow DnD rules. Hell DnD doesn't even follow DnD rules; subsequent editions have made significant alterations to aspects of the overall system.

And here you just completely contradicted yourself.  You just said that without the story the gameplay of different RPGs are effectively indistinguishable.

And now you're claiming the opposite, that RPGs don't share common gameplay characteristics.

[ARTHURIUSS]

Dragon Age's combat,storytelling and lore with Skyrim's Open World,I'd empty my wallet in a heartbeat !

[Ghost_x16]

oh gawd people, admiring Skyrim and MAYBE adding some more features to DA3, doesn't mean they are going to make another Skyrim

[Maria Caliban]

Updated with Dawn of the Seeker SS.

[Lintanis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Voicing the PC has ruined every RPG in which it has ever occurred.

Maybe for you 

[Meris]

Lintanis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Voicing the PC has ruined every RPG in which it has ever occurred.

Maybe for you 

Though I'm not as extreme as Sylvius is, my experience is much much more shallow now. So yeah, maybe for me too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lintanis wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Voicing the PC has ruined every RPG in which it has ever occurred.

Maybe for you 

For any roleplayer.

DA2 is less a roleplaying game than it is an adventure game (this is even more true of the ME games).

As long as BioWare is focussed on telling a story rather than giving the player an environment in which to develop a character, this will continue.

Let's be clear: I have nothing against Adventure games.  The golden age of adventure games produced some excellent titles.  But King's Quest was not a roleplaying game.  If BioWare wants to continue to make Adventure games, I'd like them to call them Adventure games so that the market could then see the void left in the roleplaying genre.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 janvier 2012 - 08:03 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
There are plenty of Action Adventures with a focus on great stories, let alone the Adventure games of the past. Assassin's Creed series is probably the most notable recent example. BioShock, etc etc.

To claim that "story" is the only thing setting RPGs apart is not only selling them short, but also simply untrue.

The example you want is wing commander. It has choices and consequences too, and that's as crucial as a story.

Then, of course, you get to people saying wing commander should be an RPG. For what it's worth, I don't understand this need to draw a line in the sand and try to freeze what a genre means at a point in time. It's all meaningless. What matters are the features.

I'd say you're in the wrong genre to claim that.

Remember this is the genre that hails from PnP games. Which goes about things exactly the way you describe as not happening.

Who cares? PnP is just a wargame. Should we say that everything should serve the needs of combat to the exclusion of all else?