Modifié par slimgrin, 24 décembre 2011 - 06:46 .
Il Divo wrote...
Elhanan wrote...
But I would take the writing of DA2 over that of Skyrim; also have ca.300 hrs there, too. It is not necessary to describe the wheel in each game, or force rhe need for a glossary. DA has done a great job of allowing much to play out in the game itself; no need for Codex or Wiki searches either.
My issue with Skyrim is that the the civil war is more of a setting than it is an actual storyline. Playing through either the Stormcloak or Imperial factions is really just a series of military conquests that ends with the player winning Skyrim for their respective faction. That's where I think DA2's political story is still miles ahead; it's an actual story, which the game focuses on. Kirkwall's main conflict is between the Templars and Mages in Kirkwall , and how the city is about ready to explode with all the various factions vying for power. It's the critical problem which all TES games suffer from in attempting to give the player freedom.
CenturyCrow wrote...
Morroian wrote...
You mean continuity in game design?
No, a continuity of the story line.
It's called imagination.Moondoggie wrote...
In that case they should just sell empty books and make you write the story yourself. You're making excuses for poor writing by claiming that a game with an actual story and character backgrounds is "spoon feeding you" How the heck do you connect to the character you are and the world you play in if you have no idea what the point of your character and why they are doing what they are doing is? Wiggle room for you to decide what kind of character you are playing is great as is deciding how they make decisions but i find the idea of just giving you some empty canvas and sticking you in an open map of side quests sort of laughable.
Aparently now the player has to do the job of the writers >.>
Yeah but we all know no one has that anymoreAddai67 wrote...
It's called imagination.Moondoggie wrote...
In that case they should just sell empty books and make you write the story yourself. You're making excuses for poor writing by claiming that a game with an actual story and character backgrounds is "spoon feeding you" How the heck do you connect to the character you are and the world you play in if you have no idea what the point of your character and why they are doing what they are doing is? Wiggle room for you to decide what kind of character you are playing is great as is deciding how they make decisions but i find the idea of just giving you some empty canvas and sticking you in an open map of side quests sort of laughable.
Aparently now the player has to do the job of the writers >.>
Couldn't have said it better. The big difference between the two is that to achieve its story aims, DA2 makes all the key players idiots and/or insane. They don't have rational bases for the things they do. In the civil war story line in Skyrim, there are competent, sympathetic characters on both sides who have legitimate clashing interests. Beside the fact that you can actually join a faction.sympathyforsaren wrote...
Just a little disclaimer: Skyrim's civil strife involving the Thalmor, Empire and Stormcloaks was about, eh, I dunno, a million times more interesting than Dragon Age II and their political story.
Take Hawke, a lame and cheesy character that is BioWare's character they let you rent, and his little poor issues and the poor little mages...how they are suppressed.
Then take the Thalmor elves of the Aldmeri Dominion...a race that is far advanced to others in an empire that is more powerful than Tamriel, now overseeing how Tamriel is functioning and is intervening in everything so they can carefully control and monitor the psychological, philosophical and political structure of Skyrim and Tamriel. Their goal: the slavery or elimination/eradication of all mortals and non-Thalmor, for they, in their own eyes, are a Superior Race with sophistication and benevolence.
Is Bethesda the best in writing? No. But there was some pretty solid writing in Skyrim. Their political sub-story was leagues better than BioWare's :-0
You're really missing out. I don't always read the books in game, though. Sometimes later on the wiki or now they have them all available in e-book format.Elhanan wrote...
And while I have played ca.300 hrs in Skyrim thus far, not one Codex entry has been read; barely bother with the books except for IG clues. To be fair, this is much the same for the DA and ME series; if I wanted to read stuff in small print, I have the manuals....
Moondoggie wrote...
In that case they should just sell empty books and make you write the story yourself. You're making excuses for poor writing by claiming that a game with an actual story and character backgrounds is "spoon feeding you" How the heck do you connect to the character you are and the world you play in if you have no idea what the point of your character and why they are doing what they are doing is? Wiggle room for you to decide what kind of character you are playing is great as is deciding how they make decisions but i find the idea of just giving you some empty canvas and sticking you in an open map of side quests sort of laughable.
Aparently now the player has to do the job of the writers >.>
Modifié par DarthCaine, 24 décembre 2011 - 08:40 .
What about non mage Hawke? What about the poor oppressed Nords in Skyrim crying because the imperials were forced into banning Talos worship.sympathyforsaren wrote...
Just a little disclaimer: Skyrim's civil strife involving the Thalmor, Empire and Stormcloaks was about, eh, I dunno, a million times more interesting than Dragon Age II and their political story.
Take Hawke, a lame and cheesy character that is BioWare's character they let you rent, and his little poor issues and the poor little mages...how they are suppressed.
slimgrin wrote...
What I'd rather see is Bioware resurrect those ME1 maps, make them more organic, and populate them with points of interest. Maybe they could make an outpost with a single survivor here, a scientific laboratory, a cave leading to the unknown. The potential for open world exploration is ripe. And in case everyone thinks it will ruin story, this would be DLC. It would be separate from the main game.
Open world map packs, each for a different planet, who the hell wouldn't want that?
There is so much potential when it comes to sandbox play. If I were Bioware I'd sell this stuff as DLC- sandbox exploration per planet, each with its own story and places to be discovered.
Oh, wait a minute, we're still talking about Dragon Age?
Tommy6860 wrote...
Your comparison doesn't hold water at all. Firstly, there is a story to the factions (relevantly like DA2, it is religious in theme) and it just happens to be appropriately ancillary to the Skyrim main quest. When one listens to the opposing sides, one eventually makes a choice what side to choose (or simply doesn't do it, which is a choice), similar to DA2. How is that any different when they Skyrim factions are essentially at war with each other, while dragons are burning down parts of Skyrim? In DA2, no matter what side one chooses, which ONLY happens at near the very end, as opposed to one being able to choose a side nearly right off in Skyrim, there is no one side that wins Kirkwall. IMO, that's less a setting than even holding it to being a storyline, it has no ending. What kind of conquest is that for a "champion" of a city state, especially if one choose a side?
Not only that, at least in Skyrim, you feel like you made a conquest with an outcome and it had a purpose for the choice one made for the side they chose. What conquest was there in DA2, what side came out on top? I also cannot play DA2 anymore after the main plot is done, you're stuck at home, with no beer, no card game to play, and your friends only want to be around your dog. Unless you count buing able to go to the Black Emporium and practice rearranging your looks, that's it, it is done.
That was my point. DA:O left too many things unanswered that should have been finalized. Even some of the DLC just added more things hanging that never were resolved in DA 2. DA 2 could have been named differently, not sequentially as if it was a series. Given all that was accomplished with DA:O and the length of development, I had the impression the development team had a well thought out plan for Dragon Age. DA 2 dispelled that. And DA 2 didn't leave me with a feeling I'd be interested in whatever came next.Morroian wrote...
Right from DAO they have said the franchise is about Thedas in the Dragon Age not 1 individual character, it was never meant to tell 1 story. They have been explicit that each game will tell a standalone story.
Modifié par CenturyCrow, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:22 .
Chuck_Vu wrote...
Here's my take on Role Playing Games. It all hinges on choices and decisions.
Choosing to break and enter every house in the game IS role playing and chosing not to steal is also role playing. Ignoring your prophesied role as "The One" is also role playing.
Being railroaded to do "X" in order to advance is NOT role playing (because what if I decided that my character felt like going on a bender instead?).
Skyrim has a main story (two if you consider the return of the dragons and the civil war) that you could pursue or ignore. It's what you choose to do or not to do that makes it a role playing game.
Shepard the Leper wrote...
Chuck_Vu wrote...
Here's my take on Role Playing Games. It all hinges on choices and decisions.
Indeed.Choosing to break and enter every house in the game IS role playing and chosing not to steal is also role playing. Ignoring your prophesied role as "The One" is also role playing.
Well, that makes everything "role-playing" doesn't it. I don't feel like "role-playing" when I decide not to take part in a certain race (playing a racing game); or playing against a certain team in any sports game; or not launching a certain map in a (MP) shooter game etc.Being railroaded to do "X" in order to advance is NOT role playing (because what if I decided that my character felt like going on a bender instead?).
It's impossible to "role-play" without context thus you (the player) is always "railroaded" towards the game's objective. You cannot produce a story without a plot.Skyrim has a main story (two if you consider the return of the dragons and the civil war) that you could pursue or ignore. It's what you choose to do or not to do that makes it a role playing game.
No it's not and that's why Skyrim isn't a "role-playing" game at all. There is nothing in the game you - the player - can influence. Skyrim is an adventure / exploration game with a crapload of things you can do, but none have any impact on your character, the world around you, the NPCs, or the (other) quests you (can) participate in.
You can slay the Emperor of Tamriel but nobody cares; You can marry someone, but nobody (including your spouse) cares; You can save Skyrim, but nobody gives a sh*t; you can become grandmaster of all the guilds but everybody in Skyrim still reacts to you like you're some kind of insignificant fool etc etc. Skyrim lacks any form of progression, whether it's your character, those you interact with or the world around you.
Skyrim is static and in order to "role-play" things ought to be dynamic. Decisions made should have an impact on how the world evolves around you, how people react to you and so on. In Skyrim you can walk into a town and start butchering the lot for the lulz. You cannot kill that many because most NPCs are dumb quest givers and cannot die. They don't seem to care that you swung your warhammer in their faces repeately an hour ago, they only do what they're told - give you the damn quest. It's pathetic really.
I did enjoy Skyrim and had more fun playing it than DA2. But when it comes down to "role-playing", DA2 is miles ahead of Skyrim and The Witcher 2 is miles ahead of DA2.
Modifié par mrcrusty, 24 décembre 2011 - 03:58 .
Tommy6860 wrote...
Your comparison doesn't hold water at all. Firstly, there is a story to the factions (relevantly like DA2, it is religious in theme) and it just happens to be appropriately ancillary to the Skyrim main quest. When one listens to the opposing sides, one eventually makes a choice what side to choose (or simply doesn't do it, which is a choice), similar to DA2.
How is that any different when they Skyrim factions are essentially at war with each other, while dragons are burning down parts of Skyrim? In DA2, no matter what side one chooses, which ONLY happens at near the very end, as opposed to one being able to choose a side nearly right off in Skyrim, there is no one side that wins Kirkwall. IMO, that's less a setting than even holding it to being a storyline, it has no ending. What kind of conquest is that for a "champion" of a city state, especially if one choose a side?
Not only that, at least in Skyrim, you feel like you made a conquest with an outcome and it had a purpose for the choice one made for the side they chose. What conquest was there in DA2, what side came out on top? I also cannot play DA2 anymore after the main plot is done, you're stuck at home, with no beer, no card game to play, and your friends only want to be around your dog. Unless you count buing able to go to the Black Emporium and practice rearranging your looks, that's it, it is done.
Modifié par Il Divo, 24 décembre 2011 - 04:30 .
Chuck_Vu wrote...
The Player decides the Player Character does, and who he/she is that makes it role playing, not the Devs or GMs. In order to make a good RPG software devs or GM (for those of us who play pen and paper RPGs) are supposed to provide the backdrop and enviroment and allow us to interact with it. The more choices you take away, the less it becomes an RPG and the more it becomes like a Quick Time Event Game (with a premade character that we had no choice over, and there is only one path/corrider to advance - Dragon's Lair anyone?) When you remove all choices it is a movie or tv show where we are watching and not participating at all.
Linear RPGs have a very strong narrative hold over the PC (Notice I didn't pick the word "Good", they are two different things), but the player doesn't have much freedom, if any, on what he/she can do. And more often then not, the background is non interactive. That door you see isn't a part of the plot so you can't interact with it, what so ever. All you really decide is how far left or right on that corridor you want to be. Open world sandbox RPG's have a much weaker narrative hold over the PC (I didn't say "Bad" here for the same reasons), but the player is given more freedom to do as he or she pleases. And you can interact with most objects in the game world. Clay pots and calipers be damned.
mrcrusty wrote...
*snip*
Where it fails is applying those concepts to the bigger plot points. One particular issue would've been how they could use the Bounty/Crime System to enforce some real consequences for joining a Faction for the Civil War, requiring disguises, Speech checks (bribes/persuade) or stealth to get into enemy strongholds (doesn't make sense that a renowned Legate can stroll into Windhelm). But that could've really screwed over the accessibility factor since many people don't really want consequences for their actions if there's a negative component to it.
I couldn't imagine the amount of ****ing there'd be if Skyrim would permanently brand your character an extremely wanted criminal in enemy holds (and removing fast travel to the cities) once you started the Civil War questline.
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/dec/21/clone-wars-games-industry-plagiarismClone Wars: is plagiarism killing creativity in the games industry?
Alex Chapman, a lawyer at Sheridan's specialising in games, says: "Generally speaking there is no copyright in a game mechanic or the functionality of a game (or indeed any other type of software). Copyright will protect the visual appearance of the game to the extent that it is original – such as by protecting the graphics, screen layouts and art assets. It will also protect the underlying software code. However, it will not protect the functionality.
Modifié par CenturyCrow, 24 décembre 2011 - 06:53 .
Shepard the Leper wrote...
Chuck_Vu wrote...
The Player decides the Player Character does, and who he/she is that makes it role playing, not the Devs or GMs. In order to make a good RPG software devs or GM (for those of us who play pen and paper RPGs) are supposed to provide the backdrop and enviroment and allow us to interact with it. The more choices you take away, the less it becomes an RPG and the more it becomes like a Quick Time Event Game (with a premade character that we had no choice over, and there is only one path/corrider to advance - Dragon's Lair anyone?) When you remove all choices it is a movie or tv show where we are watching and not participating at all.
The issue I have with games such as Skyrim is the lack of choices and the constant feeling that my character is a spectator instead of actively participating in the game world. Choices didn't have any real impact which is a shame because it would be quite easy to implement. For example:
The Companions are the warrior guild, they favor melee and dislike magic, yet you can complete their entire quest line as a pure mage who never uses a melee weapon. That, imho, almost completely defeats the purpose of "role-playing". Someone without any magical capabilities can also melee-fight their way through the College of Winterhold quest line. That ain't right. It would be much better, "role-playing"-wise, to force the player to "act" like one of those guilds > joining the Companions would force you to fight and behave like one (i.e. using melee in combat; too much magic or frequent sneak-attacks would get you expelled - that ain't the way of the Companions
Why not have the option to betray the Companions and side with the Silver Hand and wipe out those werewolves?
Simple stuff like that would greatly enhance my RP experience and it would be a great way to improve replayability. In my Skyim playthrough my character became a Jack of All Trades Who Mastered Them All (a common issue with Bethesda games). I never had to chose whether I wanted to create a Thief, Assassin, Paladin, Battle Mage or whatever. A second playthrough offers little value since everything will go exactly like the first time.Linear RPGs have a very strong narrative hold over the PC (Notice I didn't pick the word "Good", they are two different things), but the player doesn't have much freedom, if any, on what he/she can do. And more often then not, the background is non interactive. That door you see isn't a part of the plot so you can't interact with it, what so ever. All you really decide is how far left or right on that corridor you want to be. Open world sandbox RPG's have a much weaker narrative hold over the PC (I didn't say "Bad" here for the same reasons), but the player is given more freedom to do as he or she pleases. And you can interact with most objects in the game world. Clay pots and calipers be damned.
I would argue that both systems are not necessarily mutual exclusive. The quests in Skyrim have the same level of linearity (if not worse) as those in DA and/or ME. You only have a lot more stuff to do outside the (main)quest line. The problem with that much freedom is that you almost certainly end up distracted from the main issue(s). It makes little sense to hang out doing all sorts of things when the world around you is supposed to be falling apart. Skyrim lacks the urgency to do something about the dragon problem. A system that would confront the player with the main issue at regular interfalls (random dragon attacks are not nearly enough) would improve the overall experience for me, and it keeps you focused on the main storyline (I wouldn't have minded a system that triggered the next phase in the main quest line after a certain amount of time has passed or quests completed, for example).
Finding the right balance between the two is key. Personally I think Bioware does a good job at giving the player some freedom in how and in which order (s)he wants to proceed but they also make sure that you never lose track of the main objective.
Modifié par Russalka, 24 décembre 2011 - 07:47 .
Russalka wrote...
At least I got recognised somewhat as a mage in the Dragon Age games.
Retour en haut