Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[GennadiosMxms]

After reading the countless condescending articles from the gaming enthusiast press, and the very many uses of the term "interactive storytelling" I got to thinking - we should have seen this coming.

The underlying pattern of Bioware's brand of "interactive storytelling" is that while the player is free to go around making the humdrum decisions of everyday gaming, the writers still see themselves as producing linear, cinamit story. When they feel that a certain event should happen, they will always give priority to their message or version regardless of player preference.

They felt the need for a specific resolution in DA2, and many of the problems of that particular endgame closely mirror those of ME3. Certain events played out that only made sense under certain game decisions but effectively invalidated others, scenes or dialogs were begging for a good/bad influence option that never came, etc. The writers knew the kind of resolution they wanted, and in the words of Jim Sterling, "you felt as if the game was dragging you along under duress, annoyed that this gimpy little turd was following it around."

Same precedent was set im ME2, although pre-endgame and not as stark. I've never particularly like the "pile all your specialists into a shuttle and leave the Normandy conveniently defenseless," story ark, but at the time I saw the need for it, although I still think they could have done better. Same problem, the dialogue was just begging for a renegade option - Id've loved nothing more than to whip out my pistol, smack Miranda upside the head, and tell her to get the hell off my ship at that point - however, the important decisions are clearly to be left to Bioware writers here.

In short, I will still buy the ending DLC when it comes out, and I'm reasonably confident that free market forces will see to that, but the Bioware smoke and mirrors show is starting to creak. Further disappointment awaits along this path.