35 réponses à ce sujet

[MissOuJ]

I'd have to see DAIII go back to the cut-and-dry fantasy formula of DAO. I loved the moral dilemmas both game presented, and I have to admit I personally am a fan of the gray-grey-morality -trope. The difference is, in DAO you could always take the third option and keep But teveryone happy (well except in Ozamar, which was one of my favourite parts of the game): Don't wanna kill Isolde or Connor? Go to get the mages. Don't wanna side with either elves or Zathrian? Persuade Zathrian to lift the curse! In DAII you have to take sides, and I kinda like that. These are big moral questions we're talking about here: we can't sit on the fence forever. I also liked the socio-political commentary and the deconstruction of the mechanics of institutional oppression DAII had going on. Me gusta grande!

But the problem with DAII was that there really weren't many ways you could influence the world around you. Like the Bonepit questline: no matter what you do, all your employees get roasted and eaten, no matter if you'd done only the plot-specific quests or all of the little side-quests as well. What if some/most of the employees had survived if you'd helped them during Act 2? And class/background specific quests would've been nice. Particularly playing a mage in DAII is a bit weird, since you're an apostate (and possibly a blood mage) and nobody seems to care.

But about that narrative... I'd like a hero-ish narrative, if that makes any sense. I like how in DAII you can (and will) fail in some cases, no matter what you do. It was frustrating, at times, but I still think it was actually better than the DAO model of "hero of the land, no matter what you do". So, I guess I'd like an even(ish) mix of both heroic moments and tragic failings, with a side-dish of character-defining sidequests. I'd also like some Phyrric victories/decisions leading to something resembling a Phyrric victory. So, take away the third option - or better yet, make that the worst decision of them all. But the feeling of accomplishment is also really important. So, a victory after terrible costs and hardships, which leads into some sort of peace and a "new beginning for Thedas" or something along those lines... Then again, I'd also like an option where (if - and only if - you do everything you're explicitly told not to do) you end up screwing everything up so bad everybody dies and on the top of that, the whole Thedas ends up completely FUBAR.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm curious... would you consider Planescape Torment to be a heroic narrative?

Yes.

[Das Tentakel]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
(I'm sorry tenkakel here's the Behemoth turning into a vegetable again.)

If you are referring to the affair with the Artishok, I was barely involved.

Wait. Tenkakel?
Here. Have a Koenari.
http://wiki.ubuntu-n...et=koevogel.jpg

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
I for one am really into medieval/renaissance city-state politic and intrigues. It all has to do with the fact that not much is really known from that age and makes it a perfect setting to make a story which can survive speculation and opinion and still appear to be true.

Not sure what you mean by this. You mean ‘real’ history here? You’d be surprised about the sheer volume of historical records we have from that time (from about 1300 and after), though there are gaps and mysteries of course.
It’s precisely because we know far more from that period than earlier times that we have all these crazy characters, incidents, intrigues and wars that we can glean from the records. Crazy stuff, that is perfect for putting into roleplaying settings. And that’s even without all the malicious slander and rumors. Yum yum!

But, referring to writing and depicting a story that isn’t about ‘saving the setting’ (universe/world/country/city) in a pale imitation of Tolkien.

Years ago I saw a short documentary on the late British (Scottish actually) author Dorothy Dunnet, who wrote some of the finest historical novels I’ve read, the Francis Crawford of Lymond and Rise of Niccolo series. It was remarked  upon the fact that this lady wasn’t just very creative, but also very disciplined. Getting a good picture of the setting, the  characters, setting out the plot etc. was really hard work, and she went at it in a very disciplined manner.

From what I’ve read and heard, realizing the story in a videogame is a much more haphazard and chaotic process. It is gradually formed, things are changed, get cut, are taken from the game etc. The more complex the narrative, the more vulnerable it becomes to restraints of time, budget and errors in communication. Lots of meetings. Not enough time to correct mistakes or flesh out certain elements.

Doing a Dunnet-esque plot is I think quite possible, and from what I’ve seen The Witcher II much of it is highly political. Team cohesion, a strong, shared vision, maybe also a sensitivity to the thematic elements are probably needed for that. But that requires a lot of synergy.
Not every studio would be capable of doing that. CDProjekt comes from a country with a long, complex and bloody history, where the past is continuously commemorated in various ways, from movies to historical re-enactment, and all that ‘seeps’ through in The Witcher I think.
Having a long, complex and bloody history isn’t a requirement for a studio from a particular country to be able to do a ‘realistic’ or ‘pseudo-realistic’ story well. I am not seeing the RPG market being overwhelmed by, say, Dutch or Belgian or French or Italian studios for instance. But I do think it helps in making it more likely.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
But there has to be some sort of explanation why. You have to make  everything plausible and explain why and how things happen. This is where DA2 failed in my opinion. They didn't put an end to "the plausibility".

I think you mean that they failed to depict a believable and logical causal chain in DA2?

Wulfram wrote...
The advantage of saving the world as a plot is that it's pretty easy to justify a wide variety of PCs taking it as an objective. And indeed, to justify a diverse group of characters working together.

I don’t think it is a matter of justification. I think writing a plausible motivation for a player-controlled protagonist and additional characters is not that difficult (revenge, greed, lust etc. are pretty much effective motivators). Lots of books, movies and even videogames are not about saving the world, though overcoming formidable obstacles is.
I think it’s more a matter of it being customary and providing an easy ‘schematic’ for the writers, which sort of fits the ‘flow’ of a CRPG. By that I mean that the character usually (though not always, see for instance The Witcher, esp. The Witcher II) goes from ‘zero’ (level 1…) to ‘hero’, which parallels the in-story progression from ‘nameless dude/dudette X, who’s a nobody’ to ‘Hero of Ferelden/Champion of Kirkwall/Hero-Emperor of the Universe’ etc.
As such, it is the ‘comfort zone’ for writers, designers and players alike. Going outside that comfort zone may require a bit of extra effort and skill, but I don’t think it is really that hard for even a semi-competent writer.

[Wulfram]

Das Tentakel wrote...

I don’t think it is a matter of justification. I think writing a plausible motivation for a player-controlled protagonist and additional characters is not that difficult (revenge, greed, lust etc. are pretty much effective motivators). Lots of books, movies and even videogames are not about saving the world, though overcoming formidable obstacles is.

Revenge, greed and lust are effective motivators, but they're not universal ones.  To apply them to a player character means pre-defining a big part of that character.

[Das Tentakel]

Wulfram wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

I don’t think it is a matter of justification. I think writing a plausible motivation for a player-controlled protagonist and additional characters is not that difficult (revenge, greed, lust etc. are pretty much effective motivators). Lots of books, movies and even videogames are not about saving the world, though overcoming formidable obstacles is.

Revenge, greed and lust are effective motivators, but they're not universal ones.  To apply them to a player character means pre-defining a big part of that character.

Let me rephrase that: For NPC's, including Companion characters. The protagonist can suffice with more general ones (protecting life and limb). Even revenge could be integrated into it, the DA:O noble origin could easily have led to revenge against Arl Howe being the motivation, or for that matter revenge against Loghain after Ostagar. As long as you integrate the event that provides that motivation into the game. How they exactly go about it is the player's decision.

To clarify: If your character starts the game with a vague intro cutscene 'Baddie X killed your puppy, you want revenge' that is not satisfactory. But an hour or so of fun gameplay, involving raising a puppy, after which the villain slaughters and kills everyone, flays your puppy alive and violates your pet miniature space hamster...that's another thing.

Of course even then the player can resist accepting such a motivation, in the face of human nature. But that simply means he/she simply doesn't want to play, period.

Alternatively, a colleague of mine who played DA:O and was annoyed by all the dialog and quest text, summarised his attitude to story and motivation in this way: 'Just tell me what to kill and where'.
I fear his attitude is not uncommon, but not something most of us in this thread share.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 22 mars 2012 - 10:48 .

[Shaun2406]

I've got to admit I really liked Dragon Age Origins story NOT because of the 'epic clearly evil villian (the archdemon and darkspawn). In fact, I thought it was the weakest element of the plot, and its role was more of a catalyst for the far more interesting characters (Logain, etc) and conflicts explored in the main quests. The bad guys were boring, and weren't characters, they were just... there...

The build up to the Landsmeet and the Landsmeet itself were incredibly well done, but I ceased to find the overall plot interesting after the Landsmeet because from then on... Well it was pretty much a no brainer how the rest of the story would play out.

Don't get me wrong, I played on cause I cared about the characters, and wanted to see what happened to them, but the overall end game played out in a very standard manner...

I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T have clear evil guys at all, some people enjoy that, and theres absolutely nothing wrong with people enjoying that. However, if they do have clear evil guys, I hope they have an additional, more morally ambiguous and interesting major foil in the game as well (like Logain or TIM).

[Das Tentakel]

Shaun2406 wrote...

The build up to the Landsmeet and the Landsmeet itself were incredibly well done, but I ceased to find the overall plot interesting after the Landsmeet because from then on... Well it was pretty much a no brainer how the rest of the story would play out.

Don't get me wrong, I played on cause I cared about the characters, and wanted to see what happened to them, but the overall end game played out in a very standard manner...

I entirely recognise that. I abandoned my first almost-complete playthrough of DA:O shortly after the Landsmeet. I was going 'oh great, more combat and an unique End Boss ('dragon with bioluminescent pimples') at the end of it'. Had a similar problem late in Baldur's Gate II-_-

It's a pretty basic problem with 'save the universe/world/country/city' scenario involving the Big Bad Baddie (B3).
Once things are ready to confront the end boss, you know game's essentially over and it often seems the writers/designers also have basically called it a day, leading to unmemorable endings.

[Pasquale1234]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Traditional fantasy stories aren't necessary. I don't need to play an Awesome Hero who is the Chosen One to fight the Evil Group lead by the Dark Lord and Save the World.

I do want a heroic narrative. The feeling that I overcame great obstacles and accomplished something worthwhile.

Works for me.

I also like it when stories serve as a backdrop that allow the player to discover the world at their own pace, and the feeling that I am co-creating the story because I have different ways to complete quests and the story at least tries to refrain from the imposition of any particular motivation, moral alignment, or personality traits on the character.

Tragedy is an effective literary device, but it works much better in more passive forms of entertainment, imho.  When a player spends a lot of hours actively pursuing something, I think they need to feel successful in the end.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Das Tentakel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The advantage of saving the world as a plot is that it's pretty easy to justify a wide variety of PCs taking it as an objective. And indeed, to justify a diverse group of characters working together.

I don’t think it is a matter of justification. I think writing a plausible motivation for a player-controlled protagonist and additional characters is not that difficult (revenge, greed, lust etc. are pretty much effective motivators). Lots of books, movies and even videogames are not about saving the world, though overcoming formidable obstacles is.

But in books and movies and most videogames, the protagonist is a pre-written character.  Yes, it's easier to create motivation for a character when you know who that character is and what he values.

But what about when the writer doesn't know the protagonist?  The writer can't know that revenge will be something to which any given protagonist will respond.

That's the problem.  That's why saving the world is so effective.  Only a very small category of possible protagonists would not be interested in saving the world.  But if, for example, the game were plotted around the PC trying to rescue his sister, what if the PC doesn't care about his sister's welfare?  Then what?  Then the game breaks.