58 réponses à ce sujet

[Ayanna Nyx]

Mmw04014 wrote...

Eh, I prefer one protagonist throughout one game. Your idea seems like a neat idea, but it would cut into the time you could get attached to your PC or your PC's companions. I feel it would become more about the narrative at the cost of a less personal feel.

This.

[Zkyire]

The best part about Suikoden 3 was allowing you to play these 3 different characters, experiencing the world from 3 completely different ways. One was a young boy from the Karaya tribe/clan, one was a young adult female Knight-Captain of Zexen, and one was a male in his thirties or thereabouts, leading a group of some mercenaries in the service of the superpower Harmonia. Each "main" character had their own perspective on things, their own storyline, and their own followers and in different places, but each was telling you a piece of the overall story. Rather than having one character go everywhere and do everything.

Then you eventually get to choose which one of them gets the True Fire Rune to become the "main" hero, while the others were still very important characters.

Playing three different characters did not detract from your connection to any of them.

I'd like if DA3 attempted to do something similar, but perhaps make you choose your "main" earlier on, rather than waiting near the end like Suikoden III.

[Pzykozis]

deuce985 wrote...

All the old JRPGs are classics. I'd say JRPG gaming went incredibly downhill as soon as 360 came out.

Companies like Bioware and Bethesda just evolved the formulas. People in the west who actually enjoyed JRPGs started converting to WRPGs. I think that's what happened. Not to mention most of the good developers in Japan broke up and they're not exactly a huge bed of talent on a few small islands. Budget definitely had a lot to play in it too. Notice Japanese games have INCREDIBLY SLOW development times. Then they dish out mediocre games. 3-4  year dev cycle for a average game. Bad management and screws the budget up too.

Best games I've played from Japan this gen...Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Catherine...all niche games.

Meh, there are some interesting gems, Eternal Sonata, Lost Odyssey, Resonance of Fate and I'm in the minority but I still love FF, they're not golden era FF's i.e. 7, 9 and well I liked 10 aswell. But, meh. They do suffer somewhat by mismanagement and things though.

[The Elder King]

deuce985 wrote...

All the old JRPGs are classics. I'd say JRPG gaming went incredibly downhill as soon as 360 came out.

Companies like Bioware and Bethesda just evolved the formulas. People in the west who actually enjoyed JRPGs started converting to WRPGs. I think that's what happened. Not to mention most of the good developers in Japan broke up and they're not exactly a huge bed of talent on a few small islands. Budget definitely had a lot to play in it too. Notice Japanese games have INCREDIBLY SLOW development times. Then they dish out mediocre games. 3-4  year dev cycle for a average game. Bad management and screws the budget up too.

Best games I've played from Japan this gen...Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Catherine...all niche games.

I'd say Xenoblade could be added to the list (it's in my opinion the best JRPG of this gen, and one of the best of all time), though I suspect that a lot of people didn't play it. Heh, I wouldn't have played if I didn't borrow a Wii from a friend.

[Realmzmaster]

Suikoden series is more than just a story based rpg. It also has large land and sea battles which are played out on a large graph with turn based strategy. These battles are equally important to the story. The series is quite linear and the most land and sea battles must be won to move on in the game.

Winning certain battles is optional, but the games plays differently if you lose.

So you are as much a general as a role player.The game also plays differently depending on how many stars you recruit. The best possible ending occurs if you recruit all 108 stars of destiny. You can actually miss stars if not recruited at the proper time or under certain conditions.

You are able to assemble your party from any of the 108 stars, but only certain ones are key to the story and at time you party must consist of certain characters.

The games are excellent. My son has played them from 1 to five. Sadly no more are being made.

You do have three protagonists in Suikoden 3, but there is one main protagonist called the Flame Champion (owner of the flame rune).

Gamers probably will not get as attached to the characters in the series as they do in the BG and DA series, but that is my opinion.

The problem is that the story unfolds the same no matter how you play. There is not selecting one side over the other like elves vs werewolves or mage vs templar. You are basically set on the path. The source of magic is runes. Sea battles make use of rune cannons and only certain characters can use certain runes in battle. The land and see battles are a more sophisticated form of rock, paper and scissors.
You get to manage a castle, defend it and lose it during the story. Sorry no changing that event unlike in Awakening.
The game is 100+ in length but replayability is an issue. It is not a game you will have one playthrough after the other like DAO or DA2.

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I suggested this not too long ago. Along with having a main protagonist that you follow 90% of the game with occasional forays into the shoes of other NPCs, as in the Witcher 2.
I'd like to see it done though there was resistance to the idea from others on the forum.

Plus, there's precedent for this in both Mass Effect 2 (Joker getaway!) and Dragon Age Origins (Companions storming Fort Drakon to free the Warden/s).
But I think the OP is going more among the lines of Pulp Fiction or Four Rooms, several interlocking vignettes with a "main host" driving continuity. While I personally have no objection to a vignette-style narrative, it'd require all characters be fixed, else madness awaits. And as mentioned either, it doesn't really mix well with party-based RPGs.

Modifié par Xewaka, 16 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[Piecake]

Xewaka wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I suggested this not too long ago. Along with having a main protagonist that you follow 90% of the game with occasional forays into the shoes of other NPCs, as in the Witcher 2.
I'd like to see it done though there was resistance to the idea from others on the forum.

Plus, there's precedent for this in both Mass Effect 2 (Joker getaway!) and Dragon Age Origins (Companions storming Fort Drakon to free the Warden/s).
But I think the OP is going more among the lines of Pulp Fiction or Four Rooms, several interlocking vignettes with a "main host" driving continuity. While I personally have no objection to a vignette-style narrative, it'd require all characters be fixed, else madness awaits. And as mentioned either, it doesn't really mix well with party-based RPGs.

Well, the game i keep referring to that uses the exact structure that i want IS a party-based rpg, so it can be done.  And i dont really want vignette-style narrative, I want 3 main characters who are related to an overarching main plot, they just give different perspectives on that plot, and who might possibly meat up later and join together.  The only problem I can see with this structure is that choice/consequence would get might complicated, but also mighty awesome at the same time

[upsettingshorts]

Heavy Rain did it.

Pretty well, I'd say.

[Cultist]

Zkyire wrote...
And we all know the CoD series is a commercial failure.
...waaaaaitaminute.

And we all know CoD seies is a FPS.

Zkyire wrote...
A Song of Ice and Fire book series.

Too bad we are dealing with video games.

Im not suggesting 1 main characters and then you seeing the game
periodically from different perspectives.  Im suggesting 3 equal main
characters.

Never played CoD, so dont know how they did it, but i
doubt it was 3 main characters, each having a chapter an Act that act
synchonously.  I think that format would work incredibly well with a
well thought out choice/consequence system (insanely complicated too, id
imagine)

The thing you are proposing will make protagonists just a fillers for storytelling. And that's what will IMO destroy the very concept of traditional BioWare RPGs - when player assiciate themselves with protagonists, not some pre-set character they had temporary control of.

[esper]

Pzykozis wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've never owned a console.

Can someone explain to me how the Japanese can create these 100+ hour, intricate story-based RPGs when Western developers can't? And don't mention BG 2. Shadows of Amn came out twelve years ago and was an oddity even then.

They can't anymore, though Yakuza is fairly lengthy. I guess on the other hand they don't really offer choice as much, but if that's not a deal breaker they used to and still do to a certain extent provide a very good experience.

@Esper Yeah, blue haired kid was clearly the evil one to me, thats why I merged like a pro and killed my party.

To be fair I liked the emperor more than blue-haired kid too, but it is obvious which ending was the good one. (Not to mention you had to say may so three times in a row to even have the option of merge, if not you just had unsure which lead to a 'no' and 'definitly no' option). Did you get a game over after the merging ending sequence.
What I liked about fire emblem 4 was the 'god'-making antagonist who got away scott-free because he was a non-combat characther and just teleported out. There was a smart antagonist. Hero's-party always win? Solution teleport away and avoid combat.

However, as said there was a clear and very valid story reason for the multiple pow in that game. And that is not really do-able in dragon age, unless we are playing as an abomonination (in which game we would still share an body). 

[CarlSpackler]

Meh I'm not a fan of multiple POVs. I like to create my character and only play from my character's pov.

[AkiKishi]

I could go for that idea. Something like Suikoden III or Radiant Dawn would be quite interesting.

You play three chapters with different characters and then you find out the "real" plot of the game. At which point you either choose your champion or army to enter to the end game.

Quite how you would manage that with 6 NPCs though. Can't see it happening.

should have read the thread first

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Piecake]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I could go for that idea. Something like Suikoden III or Radiant Dawn would be quite interesting.

You play three chapters with different characters and then you find out the "real" plot of the game. At which point you either choose your champion or army to enter to the end game.

Quite how you would manage that with 6 NPCs though. Can't see it happening.

should have read the thread first

An easy solution - all your companions are mute.  And when the heroes meet, most will be killed, but the ones that dont will regain their voice.  

Volla!  

[Dakota Strider]

After giving this issue more thought, I think I would have to say I agree with those that prefer to stick with one main character throughout the game. However, I would not be opposed to doing perhaps one short sidequest as each of your companions that may, or may not join you. That way, you can better see the motivation of the npc to join (or not join) the player character. You would gain a better understanding of just what their strengths and weaknesses are. I would not want to alternate back and forth with these npc's doing their own thing, for the whole game. But, one Origin style quest per NPC would actually be a good idea.

[PsychoBlonde]

Mmw04014 wrote...

Eh, I prefer one protagonist throughout one game. Your idea seems like a neat idea, but it would cut into the time you could get attached to your PC or your PC's companions. I feel it would become more about the narrative at the cost of a less personal feel.

I have to say, some of the scenes in Kotor2 where you play as the Droids or Atton or whoever were AWESOME.  However, I almost got trapped into a very nasty situation because Atton basically gets stuck having to fight two Jedi with whatever equipment he has on him, and I had him with an extremely sub-par blaster at the time because my super-Jedi Exile annihilated everything without help.  If I hadn't figured out a way to bug the pathing using the bar, I would have been *screwed*.

So, playing as other characters sometimes = can be ossum.  Surprise-forcing companion characters to solo boss fights = problematic.

[FedericoV]

Piecake wrote...

If anyone has ever played Suikoden 3, you know what I am talking about, and I would be perfectly thrilled if DA3 or a future DA game used that format.

We have talked about that issue long time ago and on paper I would love it. If you think of it, the multiple POV structure has become a staple of fantasy literature. Martin, Abercrombie, Scott Baker, etc. etc.: all the worthy author of the contemporary fantasy genre  use the multiple POV storytelling to great effect.

I'm just not sure if it could work in a Western RPG: I never played a JRPG but from what I've heard and read they are mostly about narrative. The idea is not to create your charachter and interact with the world but to controll an estabilished charachter and just take note of the narrative decided by the devs with cinematic and such (mmmhh.... sounds familiar...).

Just to say: JRPG's design is perfect to use those kind of narrative tricks. But they can be used effectively because the genre do not consider a lot player freedoom. What's the tradeoff for a DA game? Probably less interaction with the story. Less significative choice with actual consequences. Less exploration and less areas. Less customization for your main charachter. Less companions. In general, less to none player agency.

In DA2 they allready tried to use a storytelling trick (framed narrative) and in many ways it has shown to come at the expense of player agency and gameplay. Many people have complained about DA2 being JRPGish and mostly thanks to Extra Credits I get the point: it's not only big swords, emo charachters and twilights romances.  It's the invasive nature of the authorial narrative over EVERY element of gameplay and the removal of player agency in name of the narrative estabilished by the writers.

With multiple POV the authorial narrative could be even more invasive, especially in a gameplay context similar to DA2. You need the likes of Tyrion, Eddard, The Bloody Nine or Kellhus for a multiple POV narrative to work: very defined charachters with a set morality and personality. Could it work with open ended charachters? So, I would like to see a multiple POV story but only if done in WRPG style. How? I don't know, I'm not a game designer . Maybe as an evolution of the "create your whole party" feature of classical RPGs like the Ultimas.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 avril 2012 - 09:13 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The one aspect I really hate in my game, or reading story and watching movie is disconnection or interruption. Either through story segregation, plot skip, multiple POV  & character skip or real life interruption

I am not a fan of multi-pov, multi-characters or multi whatever.

When I make a choice I'd like to stick to that choice and live through it until the end. Whether it's bad or good choice And that's includes the choice of playing who my character is.

Seriously, No. It's immerse breaker and I don't find it interesting.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2012 - 08:19 .

[FedericoV]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The one aspect I really hate in my game, or reading story and watching movie is disconnection or interruption. Either through story segregation, plot skip, multiple POV  & character skip or real life interruption

Well, so you do not like even The Lord of the Rings? I mean, I understand that gaming is a different beast and you could have different expectations but multiple narratives is a very basic and effective storytelling tecnique.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[AkiKishi]

Piecake wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

I could go for that idea. Something like Suikoden III or Radiant Dawn would be quite interesting.

You play three chapters with different characters and then you find out the "real" plot of the game. At which point you either choose your champion or army to enter to the end game.

Quite how you would manage that with 6 NPCs though. Can't see it happening.

should have read the thread first

An easy solution - all your companions are mute.  And when the heroes meet, most will be killed, but the ones that dont will regain their voice.  

Volla!  

Somehow I don't see that happening in cinematic game. Unless Bioware is willing to expand the character roster then it's never going to happen.

[astreqwerty]

Piecake wrote...

If anyone has ever played Suikoden 3, you know what I am talking about, and I would be perfectly thrilled if DA3 or a future DA game used that format.

Basically, in Suikoden 3 has 3 main characters.  You play each character, in any order you choose, to advance to the next act.  So, 3 chapters in 1 act, and these chapters and acts are synchronous - meaning that your protaganists could cross paths, visit a place one of your characters just been to, or in their chapter at the same place/time etc.  This goes on for 3 acts where you then have to make a choice who your main character is going to be.  The other two characters remain important (and lead a party in the final dungeon), but the dude you choose is the hero now

I think a structure like that, especially the first 3 acts would work amazingly well with a well thought out choice/consequence system.  Yes, it would probably be insanely complicated, but just think how awesome it would be that your game could change simply based on the order of what character you decide to play first?  The decisions you make in your first character would impact the second and so on if those characters visited the same places, overlapped, met, etc

Plus, I just like the idea of multiple perspectives because I think it gives a story a wider scope, makes it feel bigger, and you get to see the conflict or the world in the eyes/perspective of a different character (works well in fiction)

Not only that, but having multiple protaganists gives the writers and creators the option to include a dwarf, elf, human, wahtever, but still tell a personal story that relates back to that characters circumstances and that characters race.  Sure, you sort of got that in the Origin stories (that story really didnt transfer over to the rest of the game), but this is simply another way to do it, and probably a better way, for your character's history, race, circumstance to get more world recognition/reaction

LOL
Isabela: Justice is an idea. It makes sense in a world of ideas, but not in our world.

[LolaLei]

I'd only want one protagonist but I'd like to be able to play as our companions every now again for their personal quest/to save your PC and/or during mini quests where you have to control them briefly to help your character acomplish something (like in DA:O where you had to pick 2 companions to rescue Alistair and the Warden, but on a grander scale.)

[LolaLei]

Dakota Strider wrote...

After giving this issue more thought, I think I would have to say I agree with those that prefer to stick with one main character throughout the game. However, I would not be opposed to doing perhaps one short sidequest as each of your companions that may, or may not join you. That way, you can better see the motivation of the npc to join (or not join) the player character. You would gain a better understanding of just what their strengths and weaknesses are. I would not want to alternate back and forth with these npc's doing their own thing, for the whole game. But, one Origin style quest per NPC would actually be a good idea.

This!

[G00N3R7883]

I'm not sure I'd like this idea. I think it would make me feel disconnected from my characters. I already felt that way in DA2 because of the timeskips, and I think spending hours at a time away from one or two characters would be an even worse situation.

I experienced a similar mechanic in Lost Odyssey where in later chapters the party was split up into various locations, and I didn't like that (although I didn't like the game as a whole so it might not be a fair comparision). I didn't like controlling "other" characters in Witcher 2 and that was only for about 10 minutes.

Having said all that, I could live with it if there are 2 player characters, and those characters are the Warden and Hawke. I'm already somewhat connected to those characters. I'd prefer that to 2-3 new characters.

Hmm, actually just remembered that the upcoming Game of Thrones game is doing pretty much this, with 2 characters. I guess that will potentially be a showcase for if this is a good idea. (As long as it doesn't get buried under the rest of the game being mediocre, which judging by the trailers is a possibility).

[fchopin]

What we want and what we get are not the same.