93 réponses à ce sujet

[Ogre2010]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

Dont shoot me for this but i wish they had stayed DND. The freshness of dragon age is all good but i feel its to little magic, mystery, history, beastiary and so much more. I also truly miss the drow, and horror monsters like beholders. When i picture a genlock or hurlock in RL i see a mortal enemy that can be slain like any other. When i picture a beholder i see a thing of nightmares, the very incarnation of fear.

Also DND has many planes of existence, intelligent dragons (Pure "ME CRUSH YOU!" dragons from dragon age are meh in comparison) and such a rich and powerfull pool to draw from.

I know ferelden is just a small part of their new world but i feel it lacks epicness. Still a great game ofcourse but i think DND wouldve been better. Then again if the tables were turned maybe id wish they made something new afterall.

That being said im truly looking forward to the sequel, maybe Bioware will pull of a "Hordes of the underdark" expansion. By that i mean an expansion that is VASTLY superior to the original game (nwn OC VS HoTU in comparison)

Meh...sure DND was there first, but I'm not so sure it would be any better as content for a video game since the ending result would probably be similar but with different visuals. Plus, Bioware has more creative freedom if they hash out their own dark fantasy stuff. In fact the only drawback I can think of is that you can't play as a half-orc or a Warforged...those things were cool.

[exorzist]

Well, if BioWare would've made another DND game it probably end up being 4ed .. and that I am sure would've caused much more dilemma here ...

[Ogre2010]

exorzist wrote...

Well, if BioWare would've made another DND game it probably end up being 4ed .. and that I am sure would've caused much more dilemma here ...

Oh...4D...now you can SMELL the gore of the Beholder as you FEEL the blood splattering your face and possibly accidently TASTE it if your barbarian happens to be making a war cry at the moment.

...huh. I think I just grossed myself out. DND 4D = terrible idea for anyone other than serial killers.

[Derengard]

It all comes down to quality. Some formulas are too simple or specific and they would need additional influences and thoughts to feel like something special, there are other formulas that are universal and general enough that can be used as they are, as long as they are good enough and genuine.
For example, the Indiana Jones "holy grail" quest in DA. It might be well-done, but it's too simple and specific, and not quite altered enough by other influences that anyone would say "wow, have you played that quest of the Urn of Sacred Ashes, that was such a special adventure, I'll always remember it!".
Or take "political intrigue and betrayal" - universal enough that you will take almost any amount of it, as long as it's genuine emotion and characterisation.

Or take Tolkien himself. He took many things that were already there, but welded them into something to conform to a special vision, that feels almost like a genuine invention.

This explanation sucks, but maybe it points in the the right direction.

Modifié par Derengard, 06 décembre 2009 - 10:46 .

[aphelion002]

Ogre2010 wrote...

exorzist wrote...

Well, if BioWare would've made another DND game it probably end up being 4ed .. and that I am sure would've caused much more dilemma here ...

Oh...4D...now you can SMELL the gore of the Beholder as you FEEL the blood splattering your face and possibly accidently TASTE it if your barbarian happens to be making a war cry at the moment.

...huh. I think I just grossed myself out. DND 4D = terrible idea for anyone other than serial killers.

/facepalm. 4ed = 4th edition

[EJ42]

David Gaider wrote...

Niten Ryu wrote...
Bioware was smart when they designed Dragon Age to be generic fantasy. It sells well and players, no matter if they know it or not, get that familar feeling that they've experienced this before. Torment, one of my all time fav CRPG were set in the one of my all time fav imaginary worlds. Too bad for me and the designers, that most of the players found to be it way too alien and bizarre.

There's a segment of fans who have played everything, read everything, done everything... so when something comes down the pipe that even vaguely resembles something they've seen before, they're immediately bored with it. A jaded outlook, perhaps, but perhaps an understandable one if you're an avid fan of any genre. Thing is, making something that is different enough to peak the interest of those fans immediately risks being off-putting to anyone else -- and while those fans tend to be vocal, they're sadly don't number as many as some of them believe.

I also suspect sometimes that many of them don't know what they want, and that if you tried to give them what they're asking for they wouldn't, in fact, like it. That's a generalization, however -- certainly there is room for variation even in the traditional fantasy mold, and your estimation of how uniquely we applied the archtypes will no doubt vary to how exposed you've been to them.

David,

I believe the word you were looking for (in bold above) was "pique."

I submit this as evidence that people can, and will, complain about anything.

[exorzist]

Exactly, there is no way to satisfy everyone with something ... But I believe most people are very satisfied the way Dragon Age Origins turned out to be with the decisions BioWare/EA made ...

[Wolfva2]

To late EJ42, someone already corrected him on that a page ago. I'm sorry, but that nit has been piqued.

/rimshot

[Lughsan35]

exorzist wrote...

Obviously even Tolkien was inspired ...

Tolkien was an admirable linguist and a complete HACK as a writer...

If you read his works, they become progressively stilted over time. 

His pacing stinks. 

He didn't tell a single new thing with his 'epic' ...in fact most of it reads like a BAD re-telling of Irish and Finnish myth...

[Sibelius1]

aphelion002 wrote...

If you make up a bunch of new races with different names and abiliities, thats not original or special. If you take familiar races and weave it seamlessly into your own unique setting and story, why then, thats a piece of art.


Kudos on this front, Bioware.

What a lot of nonsense this statement is.

How can making up your own new races and creating your own archetypes not be original?

I'll bet you were praising and giving kudos to Bioware for creating new species with unique abilities in Mass Effect.

[aphelion002]

Sibelius1 wrote...

aphelion002 wrote...

If you make up a bunch of new races with different names and abiliities, thats not original or special. If you take familiar races and weave it seamlessly into your own unique setting and story, why then, thats a piece of art.


Kudos on this front, Bioware.

What a lot of nonsense this statement is.

How can making up your own new races and creating your own archetypes not be original?

I'll bet you were praising and giving kudos to Bioware for creating new species with unique abilities in Mass Effect.

First off, new races != new archetypes. Plenty of hack developers have made new races - but none of them are original enough to be really remembered.  Its relatively basic to make up new races and their respective physical features and abilities. To me that is superficial and unimportant. What is more important is new story and a new world - and on that far more important front, Bioware delivered. Although the 3 core races are not new, they fit in well and are subtly different enough to create a fresh world.

And Mass Effect is easily my least favorite of all the Bioware games.

[-Solrek-]

exorzist wrote...

One of the major criticisms of Dragon Age: Origins has been that the game draws on ‘derivative fantasy’ in its plot and storyline. Now, staying away from the debate over whether or not DA:O is ‘dark fantasy’ as marketed, or ‘Tolkien-esque epic fantasy’ , the whole discussion leads me to ask why is it that anything in the fantasy genre is immediately under fire for being self-referential.

Because Fantasy, far and beyond any other genre, allows leeway for creating new worlds completely unlike our own or others previously imagined. Most creative work in the Fantasy genre today is so derivitave of previous works that the audience feels as though they are experiencing the same story and world repeatedly, although with slightly different locales, histories, and characters.

To fail at creating a fantasy world that feels unique among others either shows an extreme lack of imagination or a willful attempt at creating a "familiar" place for the audience. It is my opinion that DA:O creators wanted to create a "familiar" place, which in itself shows a lack of courage by playing it safe. Therefore Bioware deserves all the criticism they get for creating a derivitave world.

[Derengard]

Lughsan35 wrote...

exorzist wrote...

Obviously even Tolkien was inspired ...

Tolkien was an admirable linguist and a complete HACK as a writer...

If you read his works, they become progressively stilted over time. 

His pacing stinks. 

He didn't tell a single new thing with his 'epic' ...in fact most of it reads like a BAD re-telling of Irish and Finnish myth...

You mean progressively stilted like in progressively serious and mythical, bad re-telling like in original vision, re-modelling? Yes, certainly.

Modifié par Derengard, 08 décembre 2009 - 01:25 .

[aphelion002]

-Solrek- wrote...

exorzist wrote...

One of the major criticisms of Dragon Age: Origins has been that the game draws on ‘derivative fantasy’ in its plot and storyline. Now, staying away from the debate over whether or not DA:O is ‘dark fantasy’ as marketed, or ‘Tolkien-esque epic fantasy’ , the whole discussion leads me to ask why is it that anything in the fantasy genre is immediately under fire for being self-referential.

Because Fantasy, far and beyond any other genre, allows leeway for creating new worlds completely unlike our own or others previously imagined. Most creative work in the Fantasy genre today is so derivitave of previous works that the audience feels as though they are experiencing the same story and world repeatedly, although with slightly different locales, histories, and characters.

To fail at creating a fantasy world that feels unique among others either shows an extreme lack of imagination or a willful attempt at creating a "familiar" place for the audience. It is my opinion that DA:O creators wanted to create a "familiar" place, which in itself shows a lack of courage by playing it safe. Therefore Bioware deserves all the criticism they get for creating a derivitave world.

Maybe you just don't appreciate subtly and need big flashy changes to beat differences into your head. Thankfully I can clearly see that Thedas is no Middle Earth and I appreciate the developer care that goes into the multi-layered folds of the world that BW created.

This game has its faults, but world-building isn't one of them. To be different for the sake of being different may satisfiy people like you for a short-time but its stupid and results in a worse product in the long r un.

[-Solrek-]

aphelion002 wrote...

Maybe you just don't appreciate subtly and need big flashy changes to beat differences into your head. Thankfully I can clearly see that Thedas is no Middle Earth and I appreciate the developer care that goes into the multi-layered folds of the world that BW created.

This game has its faults, but world-building isn't one of them. To be different for the sake of being different may satisfiy people like you for a short-time but its stupid and results in a worse product in the long r un.

Failed reading comprehension in the past?

I never said that I do not like the Dragon Age world. I said that Bioware deserves criticism for creating a derivitive world and that it is my opinion that they created a derivitive world on purpose, to provide a "familiar" environment for fans of the fantasy genre.

[Ogre2010]

aphelion002 wrote...

Ogre2010 wrote...

exorzist wrote...

Well, if BioWare would've made another DND game it probably end up being 4ed .. and that I am sure would've caused much more dilemma here ...

Oh...4D...now you can SMELL the gore of the Beholder as you FEEL the blood splattering your face and possibly accidently TASTE it if your barbarian happens to be making a war cry at the moment.

...huh. I think I just grossed myself out. DND 4D = terrible idea for anyone other than serial killers.

/facepalm. 4ed = 4th edition

=]Almost anything Ogre2010 says = bad joke:P or chaotic insight in hidden truths:blink:...your pick.

[aphelion002]

-Solrek- wrote...

aphelion002 wrote...

Maybe you just don't appreciate subtly and need big flashy changes to beat differences into your head. Thankfully I can clearly see that Thedas is no Middle Earth and I appreciate the developer care that goes into the multi-layered folds of the world that BW created.

This game has its faults, but world-building isn't one of them. To be different for the sake of being different may satisfiy people like you for a short-time but its stupid and results in a worse product in the long r un.

Failed reading comprehension in the past?

I never said that I do not like the Dragon Age world. I said that Bioware deserves criticism for creating a derivitive world and that it is my opinion that they created a derivitive world on purpose, to provide a "familiar" environment for fans of the fantasy genre.

No, my point is quite valid. The fact is that you are criticizing Bioware solely on Thedas being a "derivative work", not from any particular points of story, depth or character development. This is clearly wanting something to be different for the sake of being different.

[-Solrek-]

aphelion002 wrote...
No, my point is quite valid. The fact is that you are criticizing Bioware solely on Thedas being a "derivative work", not from any particular points of story, depth or character development. This is clearly wanting something to be different for the sake of being different.

I am criticizing Bioware for producing a derivative work in an effort to play it safe with their product and appeal to a mainstream audience introduced to fantasy mostly through the works of Tolkien and the modern Middle-Earth franchise. Certainly there are differences, but even the original poster admits to there being similarities akin to the following of an archetype.

As for wanting something to be different for the sake of being different, perhaps you have forgotten the joys of discovering a fictional world unlike any other you have experienced. Do you remember following Maud’Dib through his trials on Arrakis, stumbling out of a dust storm to discover the crab-shell architecture of Ald’ruhn in Morrowind, or watching Kira and Jen ride atop a towering Landstrider in The Dark Crystal? Were these worlds different for the sake of being different? I contend their courageous divergence from the mainstream ideals of fantasy provide far more immersive experiences, which lead to their standing apart from other fantasy worlds in our memories.

Modifié par -Solrek-, 09 décembre 2009 - 01:15 .

[cpip]

-Solrek- wrote...
As for wanting something to be different for the sake of being different, perhaps you have forgotten the joys of discovering a fictional world unlike any other you have experienced. Do you remember following Maud’Dib through his trials on Arrakis, stumbling out of a dust storm to discover the crab-shell architecture of Ald’ruhn in Morrowind, or watching Kira and Jen ride atop a towering Landstrider in The Dark Crystal? Were these worlds different for the sake of being different? I contend their courageous divergence from the mainstream ideals of fantasy provide far more immersive experiences, which lead to their standing apart from other fantasy worlds in our memories.

I remember being bored to tears by Arrakis and setting the book aside, and laughing at my friend for not realizing an ocarina was a real instrument when we saw them later in life and she was squeeing "OMG THEY MADE THE INSTRUMENTS FROM DARK CRYSTAL!"

...does that count for anything?