623 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I thought the story in Skyrim was pretty good myself, especially with the inclusion of philosophical characters like
Paarthurnax.

I personally thought it was one of the worse I've experienced in TES gaming, which admittedly isn't saying very much. Paarthurnax didn't strike me as being remotely philosophical, particularly, or even an enjoyable character, especially in comparison to characters like Kreia in KotOR 2, who delves into systems of philosophy. Of course, the fact that he kept reverting to the Dragon Tongue didn't help matters. It eventually became tiresome, more than anything else.

That's how I felt about Dragon Age II - it was one of the worst experiences I had with a game, with a poor story, terrible paraphrasing, the two factions were comprised of caricatures, and nothing the protagonist did provided any investment for me as a player because he was overly passive. In contrast, I liked how proactive the Dragonborn could be, I liked the fact that the different Holds felt and looked different, I liked the stories and the characters I encountered across Skyrim, and I appreciated that the developers didn't turn Tullius or Ulfric into villains simply because the protagonist opposed them. Also, I really liked Paarthurnax. I thought it made sense that he would revert to his natural language, and his look on the End of the World bringing about an entirely New World was an interesting view into the ramifications of Alduin's actions.

[Addai]

Am1_vf wrote...

Addai67 - of course your way of playing is perfectly valid. In the Sims 3 you can change almost anything you want in the city to play however you want, for example. Just understand that some people want to play a character set in a fictitional world and have the character adapt to his/her enviroment instead of havin a world that adapts to them.

That's missing the point IMO.  The point is that the player is supposed to craft their own story and the world is there to enable them to do it.  You're looking at this as glass half empty, if I may say so.  You want walls to help guide your story.  I can appreciate a few hooks to use as inspiration, but otherwise I would rather make my own walls to suit my rp story than have the developers dictate to me.  I know Bioware is never going to do that kind of game, though.  Origins was a one-off because it still had a silent protagonist and a sense of exploration in a world that was at least somewhat alive.   But Bioware aspires to "make your own movie" games and they are never going to grab me as much as the "write your own story" kind of game.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

There's nothing inconsistent about the head of a school for arcane magic having absolutely no magical capability? It certainly sounds like a contradiction.

No.  Ever heard of a political appointment?

Given the role that the Dragonborn plays among Nord mythology and history, I'd imagine having the protagonist as the new Archmage would be a great boon for the College of Winterhold.

Besides being a great PR move, the protagonist can also invest time and effort into the different schools of magic, go through the Master Ritual quests to learn master level spells, handle miscellaneous tasks for the instructors, help Arniel Gane with his research, and uncover an artificact of significance through the "Forbidden Legend" questline. Therefore, the protagonist can become a master of the arcane arts, master all the schools of magic, earn the respect of his peers, and feel as though he (or she) has earned the right to be the new Archmage. I did precisely that for my Tribunal mage, and it gave an entirely different feel to the College of Winterhold Questline.

Addai67 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Role-playing is built on the understanding that you have full control of your character's actions and his actions alone. You don't get control of anyone else's, or the setting. You're not asking for more player freedom. You're asking for the DM to change the world to fit your desires. That's not role-playing, but actively rewriting the world to fit your needs. There's a substantial difference between the errors which DA2 commits and which Skyrim commits.

Whatever.  Bottom line, when I see:  Please give me fewer choices and arbitrary classes... that makes zero sense to me.  There are a zillion games like that.

I've had enough of a protagonist that has no choices, too. I prefer games that provide the player with choices.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 13 janvier 2012 - 04:22 .

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's how I felt about Dragon Age II - it was one of the worst experiences I had with a game, with a poor story, terrible paraphrasing, the two factions were comprised of caricatures, and nothing the protagonist did provided any investment for me as a player because he was overly passive. In contrast, I liked how proactive the Dragonborn could be, I liked the fact that the different Holds felt and looked different, I liked the stories and the characters I encountered across Skyrim, and I appreciated that the developers didn't turn Tullius or Ulfric into villains simply because the protagonist opposed them.

Sure, but Tullius and Ulfric also had the benefit of barely being in the game. When people criticize DA2, I doubt they're asking for Bioware to isolate the player from faction leaders. They simply want characters with sensible motivations to interact with. If our goal is to learn from great examples of story-telling in gaming, Skyrim doesn't really have much to provide by way of a main narrative that another (even more recent) game hasn't done better. Games are filled with protagonists who don't act like idiots. Skyrim isn't particularly unique in this regard.

Also, I really liked Paarthurnax. I thought it made sense that he would revert to his natural language, and his look on the End of the World bringing about an entirely New World was an interesting view into the ramifications of Alduin's actions.

But keep in mind, what makes sense doesn't always make for a good story. It made sense because Paathrunax is a dragon, so he could revert to his natural tongue. But having existed amongst mortals for so long, it would also make sense for him to speak entirely in the common tongue. Writers can find all kinds of motivations to justify why a character acts the way they do. Paarthurnax mixing it up with the dragon tongue makes sense, but I personally thought it became tiresome.

I'm also inclined to say that the few sentences Paarthunax spends describing the "New World" doesn't equate to him being philosophical. He merely dropped a few lines about how Alduin's view had a certain appeal. But I think we should ask for more than that, if the goal is philosophy. It would be like suggesting that Isabela is philosophical because she has a certain view on sex which isn't commonly shared by the other characters.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 04:50 .

[Il Divo]

Addai67 wrote...

That's missing the point IMO.  The point is that the player is supposed to craft their own story and the world is there to enable them to do it.  You're looking at this as glass half empty, if I may say so.  You want walls to help guide your story.  I can appreciate a few hooks to use as inspiration, but otherwise I would rather make my own walls to suit my rp story than have the developers dictate to me.  I know Bioware is never going to do that kind of game, though.  Origins was a one-off because it still had a silent protagonist and a sense of exploration in a world that was at least somewhat alive.   But Bioware aspires to "make your own movie" games and they are never going to grab me as much as the "write your own story" kind of game.

Wanting an internally consistent world isn't looking at the glass as half-empty. If you control both action and reaction, you are no longer role-playing, but writing. That's why alot of DMs don't allow their players to control multiple protagonists; when you control both sides of the coin, you lose the reaction aspect of the game. Write your own story, while relying on many of the same skills, is in strict defiance of actual role-playing.
 
Perfect example of what you're suggesting: Skyrim should give players the ability to turn the crime system off, so I can kill whatever characters I want with no repercussions. I could look at that as a hamper to role-playing. Likewise that I can't always be well-rested. Or that I can instantly (and without explanation) raise my skills from 5 to 100. Or the fact that I can't instantly become Arch-Mage upon joining the College of Winterhold. Role-playing is dependent on these kinds of restrictions.

[culletron1]

Liking everything I am hearing from the devs in this thread... Hopefully they will have the resources to implement these ideas effectively for DA3

quite encouraging all in all

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given the role that the Dragonborn plays among Nord mythology and history, I'd imagine having the protagonist as the new Archmage would be a great boon for the College of Winterhold.

Besides being a great PR move, the protagonist can also invest time and effort into the different schools of magic, go through the Master Ritual quests to learn master level spells, handle miscellaneous tasks for the instructors, help Arniel Gane with his research, and uncover an artificact of significance through the "Forbidden Legend" questline. Therefore, the protagonist can become a master of the arcane arts, master all the schools of magic, earn the respect of his peers, and feel as though he (or she) has earned the right to be the new Archmage. I did precisely that for my Tribunal mage, and it gave an entirely different feel to the College of Winterhold Questline.

That's the problem; the game never gives any of that as a potential motivation for the decision, in which case we have no reason. The player's job is to create their own role-playing motivations, not the world's.

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's how I felt about Dragon Age II - it was one of the worst experiences I had with a game, with a poor story, terrible paraphrasing, the two factions were comprised of caricatures, and nothing the protagonist did provided any investment for me as a player because he was overly passive. In contrast, I liked how proactive the Dragonborn could be, I liked the fact that the different Holds felt and looked different, I liked the stories and the characters I encountered across Skyrim, and I appreciated that the developers didn't turn Tullius or Ulfric into villains simply because the protagonist opposed them.

Sure, but Tullius and Ulfric also had the benefit of barely being in the game. When people criticize DA2, I doubt they're asking for Bioware to isolate the player from faction leaders. They simply want characters with sensible motivations to interact with. If our goal is to learn from great examples of story-telling in gaming, Skyrim doesn't really have much to provide by way of a main narrative that another (even more recent) game hasn't done better. Games are filled with protagonists who don't act like idiots. Skyrim isn't particularly unique in this regard.

Skyrim is a sandbox game where the protagonist isn't forced to consistently deal with either General Tullius or Jarl Ulfric, so they aren't involved with every aspect of the narrative because they are in two specific locations in two different Holds in a game where the protagonist can explore the other Nine Holds and chose not to interact with them. You can't make the same claim about Kirkwall, where Orsino and Meredith are caricatures that end up having no real purpose except to go insane and became monsters we fight in boss battles. I would contrast them to Tullius and Ulfric, who are two examples of flawed, but well-meaning, leaders who aren't villified or turnd into monsters, but can end up being antagonists because they have conflicting and different ideologies and goals.

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, I really liked Paarthurnax. I thought it made sense that he would revert to his natural language, and his look on the End of the World bringing about an entirely New World was an interesting view into the ramifications of Alduin's actions.

But keep in mind, what makes sense doesn't always make for a good story. It made sense because Paathrunax is a dragon, so he could revert to his natural tongue. But having existed amongst mortals for so long, it would also make sense for him to speak entirely in the common tongue. Writers can find all kinds of motivations to justify why a character acts the way they do. Paarthurnax mixing it up with the dragon tongue makes sense, but I personally thought it became tiresome.

My father speaks to his friends and slips between English and Spanish, so I don't see anything strange about Paarthrunax doing the same in speaking his natural language and the language of the Dragonborn.

Il Divo wrote...

I'm also inclined to say that the few sentences Paarthunax spends describing the "New World" doesn't equate to him being philosophical. He merely dropped a few lines about how Alduin's view had a certain appeal. But I think we should ask for more than that, if the goal is philosophy. It would be like suggesting that Isabela is philosophical because she has a certain view on sex which isn't commonly shared by the other characters.

Paarthrunax addressing that Mundus is fated be destroyed by Alduin (the son of Akatosh), and will be replaced by an entirely new existance should be equated to... sex? Let's simply agree to disagree here.

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

I was encouraged by some of what Laidlaw said, but other things he mentioned tells me he still hasn't quite grasped the fact that making an uber successful game doesn't have so much to do with what he prefers but what the populace as a whole prefers.  The more I look at these threads, communicate with friends, see the successes of the Witcher 2 and Skyrim, the more I realize that the general populace does not want to be pandered and instead, they desire a challenging and immersive game.

Agreed. And surprisingly, Dark Souls really struck me with alot of this. It's not a game most players would associate with typical role-playing, since there's very light emphasis on narrative, dialogue, and interaction, but it does a phenomenal job of ensuring that what role-playing does occur stems entirely through gameplay. There are covenants (essentially guilds) which promote Lawful Good characters by supporting other players online, evil characters which invade other spirits' realms to steal their humanity, etc. I can't emphasize enough how much I think a game like that could bring to the table, just in terms of gameplay.
 
I haven't had the opportunity to play it yet, but after so many recommendations I am looking forward to seeing what the Witcher 2 brings to the table. Just need that blasted console port.

No multi-platform support is why I've been unable to play Dark Souls.  It does sound interesting.  I wish, however, they had made it available for the PC.  I stopped console gaming a couple of years ago when a friend showed me a comparison between the XBOX and a PC.

Every once in a while, a game comes along that tempts me to buy another console.  Dark Souls is one of them.  I figure, though, I'll hang on until the next generation is released.  Those will be good for a year or two before they're behind what a PC can do, I figure, so from a technological standpoint, I'll be getting some kind of return.

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given the role that the Dragonborn plays among Nord mythology and history, I'd imagine having the protagonist as the new Archmage would be a great boon for the College of Winterhold.

Besides being a great PR move, the protagonist can also invest time and effort into the different schools of magic, go through the Master Ritual quests to learn master level spells, handle miscellaneous tasks for the instructors, help Arniel Gane with his research, and uncover an artificact of significance through the "Forbidden Legend" questline. Therefore, the protagonist can become a master of the arcane arts, master all the schools of magic, earn the respect of his peers, and feel as though he (or she) has earned the right to be the new Archmage. I did precisely that for my Tribunal mage, and it gave an entirely different feel to the College of Winterhold Questline.

That's the problem; the game never gives any of that as a potential motivation for the decision, in which case we have no reason. The player's job is to create their own role-playing motivations, not the world's.

It might be an issue for you, but it seems to be one of the reasons so many people are fans of the Elder Scroll games, and Skyrim. It provides the player with the freedom to create their own protagonist in a way that Dragon Age II doesn't by restricting players to Bioware's Hawke - who is Andrastian, who is passive, who will only react to certain situations and avoid doing anything with his wealth except for purchasing the Amell mansion. The Dragonborn can choose to react to the world based on the player's motivations - join or destroy the Dark Brotherhood, restore the Thieves Guild or leave it to languish into disarray in Riften, help the Stormcloaks liberate Skyrim or aid the Legion in securing Skyrim as part of the Empire. I experience a lot of freedom and room to RP that I find lacking in Dragon Age II, especially because I wanted a proactive protagonist who would "shape Kirkwall with his actions" and "rise to power," and never received what Laidlaw had promised. It might be your kind of game, but I didn't take to Dragon Age II.

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Skyrim is a sandbox game where the protagonist isn't forced to consistently deal with either General Tullius or Jarl Ulfric, so they aren't involved with every aspect of the narrative because they are in two specific locations in two different Holds in a game where the protagonist can explore the other Nine Holds and chose not to interact with them. You can't make the same claim about Kirkwall, where Orsino and Meredith are caricatures that end up having no real purpose except to go insane and became monsters we fight in boss battles. I would contrast them to Tullius and Ulfric, who are two examples of flawed, but well-meaning, leaders who aren't villified or turnd into monsters, but can end up being antagonists because they have conflicting and different ideologies and goals.

And that's why I don't think Skyrim will ever serve as an effective template for a main storyline. Bioware isn't about sandboxes (excluding BG1 and ME1). From the sound of it, The Witcher 2 comparisons are more reliable since it also possesses the same focused story-line. Even something like Deus Ex: HR, which possesses a radically different setting, has more to contribute in this regard. Where I think Skyrim can be used as a model is in how to design a perk system, which I loved, and for how to tell a story using the actual environment around you, which games like DA:O and ME need help with, considering the undue emphasis on codexes.

My father speaks to his friends and slips between English and Spanish, so I don't see anything strange about Paarthrunax doing the same in speaking his natural language and the language of the Dragonborn.

He very well may. I never said it was illogical. My point is more that I found it tiresome, and annoying to hear.

Paarthrunax addressing that Mundus is fated be destroyed by Alduin (the son of Akatosh), and will be replaced by an entirely new existance should be equated to... sex? Let's simply agree to disagree here.

The point is that you can take any belief and turn into a philosophical concept, which deals more with how you talk about something than what you are talking about. You can have philosophy of sex, believe it or not. I'm suggesting that we need more than a comment or two for Bioware to take that as a substantial example of a philosophical character.

[DreamwareStudio]

Am1_vf wrote...

I find all this talk about challenge funny, I don't care for challenge. I don't even remember in wich dificulty I played TW2, all I know is it wasn't the easiest because that made the characters with shields act like they didn't have any, and that just seemed silly.

edit: Wich reminds me one of the first news that annoyed me about DA2, how you have to play the hardest setting to have any kind of friendly fire. Now I know it is because the IA is too dumb not to throw fireballs at it's friends, but come on, there has to be another way of making the game easier without sripping away features.

How can you not care for challenge?  I don't know if I've ever seen someone state something like that, so I'm curious, what would be the point of trying to be successful at playing the game?  Are you into gaming mainly for the stories, perhaps the scenery?

DA 2 and its difficulty settings left me wondering WTF.  The friendly fire aspect really gets under my skin.  IMO, friendly fire should exist on all levels except for easy.  Even on nightmare, the need for tactics was fairly minimal and the combat itself still felt redundant.

[Pzykozis]

Il Divo wrote...
That's the problem; the game never gives any of that as a potential motivation for the decision, in which case we have no reason. The player's job is to create their own role-playing motivations, not the world's.

Whilst the player's credibility to magic casting may be called into question, the actual quest line proves the characters ability to get things of a magical nature done. You basically stopped the college from being decimated and as such prove yourself to be pretty damned valuable. Whilst also undertaking and passing an old trial meant for aspiring archmage's, one that the previous archmage seemingly failed. It's not the pinnacle of storytelling by any means but it makes sense to me, besides if they'd have made you learn the master spells before archmage or something i'd have hated it those spells are poor.. really poor. and I hope that they're taken as a lesson on what to avoid iin making high level spells.

[Il Divo]

google_calasade wrote...

No multi-platform support is why I've been unable to play Dark Souls.  It does sound interesting.  I wish, however, they had made it available for the PC.  I stopped console gaming a couple of years ago when a friend showed me a comparison between the XBOX and a PC.

Every once in a while, a game comes along that tempts me to buy another console.  Dark Souls is one of them.  I figure, though, I'll hang on until the next generation is released.  Those will be good for a year or two before they're behind what a PC can do, I figure, so from a technological standpoint, I'll be getting some kind of return.

If it helps, I'm trying to get everyone I know onto that Dark Souls for PC petition that's going around.

Right now we seem to be in opposite situations. I'm waiting for TW2 to make its way to consoles. I've heard too many good things regarding the games setting, graphics, and choices/consequences.

[DreamwareStudio]

Ponendus wrote...

NWNMarc wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

But I don't want Dragon Age to treat exclusivity like it's a bad thing either.

This really helped me to sum up my major problem with Skyrim. It's a damn near perfect game if you want to immerse yourself in a world, but it's neutral if not hostile to players like me who prefer developing the personality of a character beyond the stats, clothing, and hairstyle.

This is my main problem with Skyrim too. Personal character development, and the development of those around me are more important to me than the other things.

I like Skyrim, but these are some very valid points.

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...


It might be an issue for you, but it seems to be one of the reasons so many people are fans of the Elder Scroll games, and Skyrim. It provides the player with the freedom to create their own protagonist in a way that Dragon Age II doesn't by restricting players to Bioware's Hawke - who is Andrastian, who is passive, who will only react to certain situations and avoid doing anything with his wealth except for purchasing the Amell mansion. The Dragonborn can choose to react to the world based on the player's motivations - join or destroy the Dark Brotherhood, restore the Thieves Guild or leave it to languish into disarray in Riften, help the Stormcloaks liberate Skyrim or aid the Legion in securing Skyrim as part of the Empire. I experience a lot of freedom and room to RP that I find lacking in Dragon Age II, especially because I wanted a proactive protagonist who would "shape Kirkwall with his actions" and "rise to power," and never received what Laidlaw had promised. It might be your kind of game, but I didn't take to Dragon Age II.

Who said it was my kind of game? Criticizing Skyrim doesn't make me a huge fan of DA2, which commits substantially different errors.

I'm simply pointing out that role-playing, since it's dependent on something to interact with, is built around restrictions. If I control everything in the world, including the gameplay mechanics, the setting, and what npcs are thinking, I'm no longer role-playing, but writing. I become God, the author, the Dungeonmaster, the one who designs everything.

In simple terms: It's your character, it's the creator's world. By necessity, you can only control one half of the coin. It's a  pretty critical distinction from writing, where you command both halves.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:24 .

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

And that's why I don't think Skyrim will ever serve as an effective template for a main storyline. Bioware isn't about sandboxes (excluding BG1 and ME1). From the sound of it, The Witcher 2 comparisons are more reliable since it also possesses the same focused story-line. Even something like Deus Ex: HR, which possesses a radically different setting, has more to contribute in this regard. Where I think Skyrim can be used as a model is in how to design a perk system, which I loved, and for how to tell a story using the actual environment around you, which games like DA:O and ME need help with, considering the undue emphasis on codexes.

I think the developers can learn from Skyrim about providing fans with a dichotomy where two groups aren't nothing more than cardboard cutouts from a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. The schism between the Stormcloaks and the Legion, as well as Tullius and Ulfric being handled with respect as flawed men who are imperfect but never outright villains, is something I wished we had seen with Orsino and Meredith. That said, Witcher 2 did an effective narrative with a competent protagonist, in a story where choice actually mattered and lead to deviation. Chris Avellone was correct about his praise for it.

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My father speaks to his friends and slips between English and Spanish, so I don't see anything strange about Paarthrunax doing the same in speaking his natural language and the language of the Dragonborn.

He very well may. I never said it was illogical. My point is more that I found it tiresome, and annoying to hear.

I didn't for me, perhaps it's a cultural difference. It made sense for me, it felt right, especially since people who speak a different language may feel comfortable speaking their native language at times.

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Paarthrunax addressing that Mundus is fated be destroyed by Alduin (the son of Akatosh), and will be replaced by an entirely new existance should be equated to... sex? Let's simply agree to disagree here.

The point is that you can take any belief and turn into a philosophical concept, which deals more with how you talk about something than what you are talking about. You can have philosophy of sex, believe it or not. I'm suggesting that we need more than a comment or two for Bioware to take that as a substantial example of a philosophical character.

I'm still going to have to agree to disagree with you about this, since the death and rebirth of an entire plane of existance is a little different than Isabela's views on sex.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:27 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Mr.House wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
http://cloud.steampo...809585572277309[img]/884EAFCB7C53F8B5CBE01E4B11BC38A59ABF3D36/Yes, that is usually what many say when they can't be ****ed to learn how a game plays. You keep dieing? Must be the game's fault, and not your own lack of ability.

Seeing as I play just fine on hard, no it has nothing to do with my gameplay skills. If you really think Dark was balanced and fun then play more games, or go play Dark Soul. That is a game that fun, a challange and blows TW2 and it's Dark crap out of the water. But why do I waste my breath, people like you will always sniff up to CDP and bash everything Bioware does.Go enjoy your sexist rpgs.

I do not think there is a need to get petty just because someone happens to prefer one developer over another.  Sexism does exist in the Witcher games as does racism, but it should because the Witcher games are heavily entrenched with facets of reality from our own medieval and modern world while also drawing up its own aspects.  If you like political correctness, perhaps you should stick with games offering that.  You'll find little to no political correctness in the Witcher, and I'm glad of that.  Frankly, I tire of the push some developers make to overly modernize games that lend themselves to the medieval.

In the Witcher games women play a hugely important role where sorceresses are concerned.  They help shape world events through their influence and manipulation.  Much of their domain falls over not just men but HIGH STATUS men such as kings and other leaders.

I hope in the next Witcher entry that Triss plays a more vital and active role with the gameplay -- party or couple based gameplay would be very cool with an emphasis towards the relationship.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:30 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

In this thread specifically?  Bending the game, basically, so the world adjusts to the player rather than the player having to adjust to the world.  Other aspects would be those responsible for fracturing the customer base basically.  Trouble spots would be what I've read in interviews, other threads on BSN, and his reaction to DA 2's reception.  I could list them, but I'm tired and headed to bed.

I don't see how DA2 is different from DAO in this regard.

It's not different in this regard.  That was one of the few things I found wrong with DA:O.  Something else I found wrong with DA:O was the repetition in how you recruited different factions.  They were all pretty much the same: do this and you have our help.  I would have preferred at least one be way more difficult, more subtle, and not a one-for-one tradeoff.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:35 .

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


It might be an issue for you, but it seems to be one of the reasons so many people are fans of the Elder Scroll games, and Skyrim. It provides the player with the freedom to create their own protagonist in a way that Dragon Age II doesn't by restricting players to Bioware's Hawke - who is Andrastian, who is passive, who will only react to certain situations and avoid doing anything with his wealth except for purchasing the Amell mansion. The Dragonborn can choose to react to the world based on the player's motivations - join or destroy the Dark Brotherhood, restore the Thieves Guild or leave it to languish into disarray in Riften, help the Stormcloaks liberate Skyrim or aid the Legion in securing Skyrim as part of the Empire. I experience a lot of freedom and room to RP that I find lacking in Dragon Age II, especially because I wanted a proactive protagonist who would "shape Kirkwall with his actions" and "rise to power," and never received what Laidlaw had promised. It might be your kind of game, but I didn't take to Dragon Age II.

Who said it was my kind of game? Criticizing Skyrim doesn't make me a huge fan of DA2, which commits substantially different errors.

I'm simply pointing out that role-playing, since it's dependent on something to interact with, is built around restrictions. If I control everything in the world, including the gameplay mechanics, the setting, and what npcs are thinking, I'm no longer role-playing, but writing. I become God, the author, the Dungeonmaster, the one who designs everything.

In simple terms: It's your character, it's the creator's world. By necessity, you can only control one half of the coin. It's a  pretty critical distinction from writing, where you command both halves.

Except that isn't the argument that people like Addai67 are trying to make - she isn't arguing to control every aspect of the game, she was addressing the control over the protagonist, and the freedom to RP through the lack of restricting the player to a specific type of PC, i.e. Hawke in Dragon Age II who can never be an atheist because he's Andrastian, is passive, and is directed through a specific narrative regardless of player imput.

[Il Divo]

Pzykozis wrote...

Whilst the player's credibility to magic casting may be called into question, the actual quest line proves the characters ability to get things of a magical nature done. You basically stopped the college from being decimated and as such prove yourself to be pretty damned valuable. Whilst also undertaking and passing an old trial meant for aspiring archmage's, one that the previous archmage seemingly failed. It's not the pinnacle of storytelling by any means but it makes sense to me, besides if they'd have made you learn the master spells before archmage or something i'd have hated it those spells are poor.. really poor. and I hope that they're taken as a lesson on what to avoid iin making high level spells.

I don't doubt the character's general capabilities, but it still seems a farcry from Arch-Mage. One primary reason for this, and it's an issue I also took with Oblivion, is that while each quest deals with the arcane arts in a general way, your character isn't really performing anything that demands magical ability. If they had created some honorary position "Protector of the College of Winterhold", or something like that, I could buy it. Magic user or not, your character has demonstrated his quality as a combatant. I could even buy the him being Dragonborn is enough to earn him the position. I just think that kind of information needs to be made explicitly known from the npcs, rather than requiring the us (the players) to supply it.

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

And that's why I don't think Skyrim will ever serve as an effective template for a main storyline. Bioware isn't about sandboxes (excluding BG1 and ME1). From the sound of it, The Witcher 2 comparisons are more reliable since it also possesses the same focused story-line. Even something like Deus Ex: HR, which possesses a radically different setting, has more to contribute in this regard. Where I think Skyrim can be used as a model is in how to design a perk system, which I loved, and for how to tell a story using the actual environment around you, which games like DA:O and ME need help with, considering the undue emphasis on codexes.

I think the developers can learn from Skyrim about providing fans with a dichotomy where two groups aren't nothing more than cardboard cutouts from a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. The schism between the Stormcloaks and the Legion, as well as Tullius and Ulfric being handled with respect as flawed men who are imperfect but never outright villains, is something I wished we had seen with Orsino and Meredith. That said, Witcher 2 did an effective narrative with a competent protagonist, in a story where choice actually mattered and lead to deviation. Chris Avellone was correct about his praise for it.

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My father speaks to his friends and slips between English and Spanish, so I don't see anything strange about Paarthrunax doing the same in speaking his natural language and the language of the Dragonborn.

He very well may. I never said it was illogical. My point is more that I found it tiresome, and annoying to hear.

I didn't for me, perhaps it's a cultural difference. It made sense for me, it felt right, especially since people who speak a different language may feel comfortable speaking their native language at times.

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Paarthrunax addressing that Mundus is fated be destroyed by Alduin (the son of Akatosh), and will be replaced by an entirely new existance should be equated to... sex? Let's simply agree to disagree here.

The point is that you can take any belief and turn into a philosophical concept, which deals more with how you talk about something than what you are talking about. You can have philosophy of sex, believe it or not. I'm suggesting that we need more than a comment or two for Bioware to take that as a substantial example of a philosophical character.

I'm still going to have to agree to disagree with you about this, since the death and rebirth of an entire plane of existance is a little different than Isabela's views on sex.

Fair enough.

[DreamwareStudio]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

  I have no idea what we're supposed to be discussing anymore, so I'm just going to take a point at random and respond.

Mr.House wrote...
 Also how was TW2 and DAO challenging.

Well, I thought DA:O's  challenge level was "just right", so I'm not  going to dispute (or agree) with you  on that.

But the Witcher 2?  Are you serious?  That game, on normal,  throws you to the wolves then laughs in your face  in the friggin tutorial.   Frequent QTEs   are tossed at you  at what seems to be every turn.  If you fail any of them, you're dead and its reload time.  Ditto with Enemy encounters.  If  you ever find yourself surrounded (which happens a lot), you're in deep DEEP trouble, and you're probably going to die in some hideous manner...  unless you're a *real* pro at the game.   And again, this is true from  the very outset of the tutorial and continues without letup until you're about 28th level and you've managed to  equip  the "Please cheat here" gear from the DLCs.

 IMO, Witcher 2 is a fantastic game, but its a fantastic game inspite of its unusual challenge level, not because of it.

Spot on Yakoon, I had the great pleasure of playing TW2 before they patched in the arena and found the game to be beautiful, brilliantly brutal and fun. That said, I ‘m in no real position to speak to the difficultly of DA2 as I literally have no desire to pick that particular game up ever again!

TW 2 was a real pain before the patch (think it was 2.0)...and that was good.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:37 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Dokarqt wrote...

I found TW2 combat to be just right for me (as long as you stay away from easy difficulty where enemies do not even block). It's fun because its challenging and especially because I found it "dynamic". You have to be alot more active than in DA2, it's not just about pushing some buttons for special abilities and let the computer auto-hit for you. You're actively blocking, learning when to power attack and when to attack fast etc.

TW2 combat was good fun. The fact that the animations were great only added to it.

My take on it is the more the computer plays for me the less play I am doing, so what exactly am I paying and playing for?  I do like employing tactics as I'm not a twitch type of player.  I liked that in TW 2 you had both and it employed strategy in parts.  I also liked the combat in DA:O very much as I did in the BG series.  I guess as long as I'm the one doing it and not the computer, whatever "it" happens to be, I'm pretty damn happy.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:44 .

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Except that isn't the argument that people like Addai67 are trying to make - she isn't arguing to control every aspect of the game, she was addressing the control over the protagonist, and the freedom to RP through the lack of restricting the player to a specific type of PC, i.e. Hawke in Dragon Age II who can never be an atheist because he's Andrastian, is passive, and is directed through a specific narrative regardless of player imput.

Effectively speaking, it's the same thing. Controlling both your PC's reactions and everyone else's reactions is controlling the game world, at which point everything is up for grabs in the name of role-play. I could say "I'm simply role-playing a character who is so well-rested he learns all his skills faster".

I think, to the best of the game's abilities, players should have absolute control over what their character does, but not over what others do. This is why it's role-playing; you take an action, game reacts. Despite not being a Mage, my character (since he is my character) should have the option of trying to join the College of Winterhold. But if I try to take certain actions which threaten to break the internal consistency of the world, the game should be allowed to restrict me, because in taking any action, the game must react in some capacity.  

Let me give you my favorite example of where DA2 and Skyrim each fail on their own merits.

Dragon Age 2: After the Qunari mage burning himself alive, I am not able to kill Petrice. This is a perfect example where that RP freedom should be available. The woman is alone, with a single bodyguard, in a warehouse at night, after having stabbed my character in the back. Instead, the game forces me to let her go, with empty threats of revenge.

My action is dependent on only myself, the decision to kill Petrice. It should be available. 

On the other hand, in Skyrim becoming Arch-Mage involves more than my protagonist wanting to be Arch-Mage. It involves the game world and characters, in some capacity, acknowledging that my character deserves to be Arch-Mage.

There, the role-playing is not only dependent on myself, but on the world's reaction/consistency as well. 

That's how I think all role-playing should be handled, and how my group commonly takes it in pen and paper. It's not enough for my character to want something to happen. If I want the game world to react in a certain way, I must also give it reason to act in that way; internal consistency.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:50 .