69 réponses à ce sujet

[Satyricon331]

4. Could you post the examples?  I'm sorry to make you replay the intro, but I don't remember noticing this issue.  If it wasn't that noticeable (to me) and I'm not simply forgetting (very possible, of course), then I might have benefited without ever realizing (I was never that engaged with DA2, though).

3. I was playing through BG1 last week, and there's a diolag with Imoen that the NPC Project mod introduces that does exactly this.  Imoen didn't recognize a god that an enemy invoked, and the PC has the option of schooling her.  I suspect it used my INT rating to make the dialog available, but I haven't checked the file.  Anyway, I kind of liked it; I thought the NPC Project example worked since the information was not necessary (or even helpful) for me to know - it was just a nice way to have a smart PC talk as though s/he actually studied back at Candlekeep.  Bioware would have to tread carefully here though lest they make the information critical for the player but out-of-character for a range of PCs people might want to play.  It might work, but at this point I'm not really sure I'd trust Bioware to handle it with the necessary finesse not to make it just a tool to define the PC even more without my input. 

2. I think I agree with Atakuma here.  I definitely disagree wit hthe idea of not letting the player go back and ask all the questions in the investigate list (though I would want Bioware to be a bit more careful in writing the answers so the follow-up question can sound like it follows fluidly).

1. Yeah, they might be able to improve their exposition, but I just wouldn't accept a DA game that didn't have the Codex.  It has all sorts of great information, that's oftentimes very interesting but would be out of place in the game exposition.

[PsychoBlonde]

CrustyBot wrote...

Have the group of Elves yelling at the man for any last words. The human cries out for help while the Elf yells that she'll get revenge for her mother and ordering you to stay back. If you choose to leave them alone, they execute the human. If you go closer, the Elves auto attack you since they perceive you to be a threat.

Personally, I would have left that scene out altogether.  It really didn't add anything to the game--it's the ONLY TIME in DA2 when werewolves are even mentioned, and no matter what you do Hawke's response just seems totally offbase.  WTF does Hawke know about curses, werewolves, or the struggles of the Dalish in Ferelden?  It was SO random.

What MIGHT have been much cooler would be to have a very small subplot (around the size of The Bone Pit, say) involving some local werewolves and have this scene be a PART of that in a way that would, say, allow the comparison/contrast of the Ferelden werewolves with the Kirkwall werewolves/whatever-they-actually-were.  If you did that, it'd reveal something interesting about the gameworld, tie it to something that already exists, make a reference to events that already happened elsewhere, and possibly set the stage for more stuff having to do with this issue coming up LATER.  Instead, it just sort of slams down like a cow from orbit and disappears.

[PsychoBlonde]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I am sure you're correct. No need to trouble yourself on my account.

I'll just do a few then.  Heck, there's a notable one in Cassandra's little interrupt:

Cassandra: Bull****!  That's not what really happened!

(I think we get that you disagreed with his interpretation when you said "Bull****", dear.)

Then you have things like:

Leandra:  Maker save us, we've lost it all, everything your father and I built . . .

(2 of those clauses are redundant)

Bethany:  We should have run sooner.  Why did we wait so long?

Carver: Then let's go.  Lead on.

It's not ALWAYS a bad thing.  People do tend to ramble a bit when they speak unless they're unusually laconic, so used sparingly it can add a bit of versimilitude.  But it's absolutely everywhere in the dialog and could be tightened up.

I tend to notice this kind of thing more because I'm trying to learn to edit my own writing better (make no bones about it, I'm pretty bad when it comes to editing my own stuff, but practice makes perfect), so when I like something I sit there and say, "how could I restate that to tighten it?" or running through questions like "what information does this statement convey?" and "how efficient is it?" etc.

I almost came on the forum foaming at the mouth after I read Asunder because The Gaider COMPLETELY MISUSES THE WORD REDOLENT in it.  I came really close to sending him a PM that just said "INDOLENT YOU MEANT INDOLENT IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!!!!"  So I'm not saying everybody ought to be freaking out over this, just that it's Something That Bothers Me.

[Firky]

^ That's an interesting one. Although that's probably "better writing" in most modern literary genres, I'm not sure if that stuff is always better in games, especially ones where lines are delivered by cutscene.

Like. If Cassandra had just said Bull-etc and then moved on, I'm not sure I would have understood what was happening. Even if Varric was clearly shown as being interrogated. But I do tend to read slowly. Maybe the idea needs time to sink in, whether the second half is delivered through dialogue or some other means.

I seem to remember Irenicus in BG2 doing a lot of explaining himself. That scene with him exploding the fishwife. I'll see if I can find it. But it seemed to contribute to the horror of it all, somehow. The pacing was all different in those games, though. Maybe BioWare are a bit in the middle of them, as the cinematic thing gains more importance.

(PS. I don't recall "redolent." Probably because it's a word I don't know. But I thought Asunder was beautifully written by virtue of its structure. I didn't really notice individual sentences, though.)

Modifié par Firky, 19 avril 2012 - 05:39 .

[Arppis]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Arppis wrote...

They tried show not tell with Mass Effect 3 ending. It didn't go very well.

Everything needs to be explained, or people will not like it.

Clearly you do not know what Show Dont Tell means as a narrative concept.

An example of Telling and Not Showing is when Obi-Wan and Anakin are talking in the lift in the Jedi Temple in Ep 2 about Anakin being reckless and irresponsible, and occassionally foolish and headstrong. It is meant to be foreshadowing Anakins ultimate fall to the Dark Side.
Unfortunately these traits are never Shown to the audience. We are simply repeatedly told, Anakin is this and Anakin is that and just expected to accept it without supporting evidence that would have been presented in the Show. We are never Shown what he is like, in fact when the opportunity to Show us that he is reckless and headstrong crops up not 10 minutes after the conversation about his recklessness they decline to take it and instead have Obi-Wan act like Anakin supposedly is instead.
And it is one of the reasons Anakin fails as a main character. He is not presented in any way that would allow the audience to relate to him. Again the focus on Telling us who he is instead of Showing us who he is creates a disconnect between the audience and the character.

Showing can involve Telling, and indeed often has to, to get the point across. But without the Show part the Telling fails epically.

And the ending of Mass Effect 3 neither Showed nor Told.

It showed what was the end result, but never told the pessifics.

So yeah it did. It just vaguely told player what will happen if you do this. Still you wrote a good post imo!

[thebigbad1013]

BrookerT wrote...

I thought he meant "Show not tell" marketing wise, you know, instead of talking about combat, actually showing it.

This is how I understood it as well, much like they have already done with their armor ideas.

[Das Tentakel]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I almost came on the forum foaming at the mouth after I read Asunder because The Gaider COMPLETELY MISUSES THE WORD REDOLENT in it.  I came really close to sending him a PM that just said "INDOLENT YOU MEANT INDOLENT IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!!!!"  So I'm not saying everybody ought to be freaking out over this, just that it's Something That Bothers Me.

A propos writing: I don't touch tie-in novels, not even with a ten-foot barge pole, but I think railing against Gaider is sort of meaningless.  Asunder is probably pulp, quickly written and probably with not particularly rigorous proofreading. But it doesn't have to be more.

At the same time, ranting is good

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 19 avril 2012 - 06:56 .

[Das Tentakel]

Concerning the Codex, I agree that you need SOMETHING as a kind of record that you, as the player, can read regarding background lore. But it should be either something your character personally experienced / ran into, or things your character already knows.

One way to trigger the last would be running into a situation regarding, say, social etiquette. Your character could be given dialog options or even physical moves (‘let’s dance the Remigold, messire !’) that reflect your character’s ‘innate knowledge’, after which a Codex entry is created that gives a description. From your character’s point of view, preferably.

The library idea was one I've been thinking of myself. A library would be a great central place where your character could read into different kinds of background lore that may or may not be relevant, but is not essential to the plot.
And some bits might; a library could become the context of a minigame by itself, reading books that trigger options (by way of, say, a Librarian NPC) to ask for other books, that could ultimately lead to things like Stuff Man Was Not Meant To Know as well as other adventures.

Of course, beware of the 'closed section', 'hidden section', 'arcane section' or whatever it is called by the Librarian

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 19 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Halberd96]

I disagreed with what you said about the codex at first but now I sort of agree.

In Half Life 2 they didn't need a codex to explain everything instead there was a lot of expository stuff, and there was always the wiki to regather information.

So yeah, I think they could potentially do without a codex in a future game but still do a good job at making it so all the information can be learned through the game.

Just like in Half Life...

heck people have analyzed the game completely and have already caught onto what the G-man's motives might be. And I thought it was really cool at the start of HL 2 hearing all that information from random people. Like how the water effects your memory, and how the food the combine give the people is terrible and how people are able to join the Combine for better food and quality of life.

TL;DR: It might be for the better that they get rid of the codex and try and explain the Dragon Age universe through the game. Instead of a great battle being described in the codex maybe you can hear about it from several NPCs and the players will hear it and compile it into a wiki, or maybe it goes into a player journal for you to read later.

EDIT: Still though I don't have a problem with the codex and that is probably what the devs are going to stick with but who knows

Modifié par Halberd96, 19 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[Wulfram]

I'm pretty sure the game is already written so you don't need to look at the codex. I know I don't tend to actually read the codex much when I'm actually playing the game.

Incorporating more "investigate" into the main dialogue might be an idea. But to a large extent I think the current system exists because different people want different levels of exposition - they want people to be able to just get the basic necessary facts and get on with the quest.

[AkiKishi]

The codex has no real game function it's just background. That information could be delivered in a different way, or left out completely without changing anything in the game. The codex tells you a lot of stuff you don't realy need to know to play the game.

[shootist70]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The codex has no real game function it's just background. That information could be delivered in a different way, or left out completely without changing anything in the game. The codex tells you a lot of stuff you don't realy need to know to play the game.

That's right. 'Show don't tell' only applies as far as plot progression goes. The audience should be shown everything that unfolds in the narrative so that it keeps them hooked from start to finish. If the writer tries to take shortcuts here then they run the risk of alienating the audience.

As far as the codex and lore goes, you could jam in as much as you liked, as long as it didn't bog down the narrative. 

This is where games differ uniquely from things like novels and movies - they can make it entirely optional for the audience. A novel can't do that - excessive infodump can grind the whole thing to a halt.  Sure, it's always nice to have some lore dripped into the main narrative, and made relevant to it without arresting the narrative, but a game can also afford to have tons of optional lore in there without presenting any danger.

[Firle Fanz]

1. I don´t see how codex entries are unnecessary and should only relate to the plot. It´s an optional feature so if you are interersted in the world read it, if not simply don´t. Or read only the parts that matter story-wise. I don´t understand how keeping the player from optional information is a good thing.
Important facts though shouldn´t only be present in the codex, I agree on that.
In DA2 I wish the companions themselves would have talked a little about their life in Kirkwall instead of simply reading about it in the codex, for example.
I don´t mind finding codex pages lying around, though it would be nice if they were stored in a library or something like that.

2. I diagree. From what I´ve read so far you seem to prefer it if information is wrapped up as tightly as possible without unnecessary adornments, but I disagree on that - I want as much information as possible, even if it doesn´t relate to the plot. That´s why many questions are, like the codex entries, optional.
I don´t believe it´s a good idea to take the choice of  how much exactly  they want to learn away from the player.
Not everyone is the same, and as someone mentioned already a computer game is the only medium where you can make stuff like that optional.
Investigation options are never necessary to understand the plot.
I don´t see how having different approaches to a situation is related to investigate options - I´d be happy if that were possible, but in addition.
People reacting to your prodding though is a nice idea, I´d love to see that.

3. Your character knowing more than yourself is something that has to be handled very carefully.
It´s an easy way to alienate the player. If at all it should be used sparsely.

4. I guess your idea of unnecessary dialogue differs widely from mine, at least based on the example you gave in this thread. So no, please don´t cut the dialogue.

Modifié par Firle Fanz, 19 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[katiebour]

I like the codex. It enables me to investigate the resolution of quests (even if it's just one line- "Bonwald has his shopping list. Tremble, oh Thedas.") It gives me additional background info on characters and items, and for those of us who love the lore, it's a great resource to check in with if/when we want to investigate something further. Letters, books, history- these are all great things, but just because you've come across it in the story doesn't mean you want to read all of it in one go. The codex lets you come back to it without having to reload a save and sit through expository dialogue that would replace the written record.

[LolaLei]

Das Tentakel wrote...

Concerning the Codex, I agree that you need SOMETHING as a kind of record that you, as the player, can read regarding background lore. But it should be either something your character personally experienced / ran into, or things your character already knows.

One way to trigger the last would be running into a situation regarding, say, social etiquette. Your character could be given dialog options or even physical moves (‘let’s dance the Remigold, messire !’) that reflect your character’s ‘innate knowledge’, after which a Codex entry is created that gives a description. From your character’s point of view, preferably.

The library idea was one I've been thinking of myself. A library would be a great central place where your character could read into different kinds of background lore that may or may not be relevant, but is not essential to the plot.
And some bits might; a library could become the context of a minigame by itself, reading books that trigger options (by way of, say, a Librarian NPC) to ask for other books, that could ultimately lead to things like Stuff Man Was Not Meant To Know as well as other adventures.

Of course, beware of the 'closed section', 'hidden section', 'arcane section' or whatever it is called by the Librarian

That's an amazing idea!

[thats1evildude]

CrustyBot wrote...

Have the group of Elves yelling at the man for any last words. The human cries out for help while the Elf yells that she'll get revenge for her mother and ordering you to stay back. If you choose to leave them alone, they execute the human. If you go closer, the Elves auto attack you since they perceive you to be a threat.

If you let the Elves execute the guy, as they walk some of them comment "I'm glad it's finally over, we've been hunting the beast since he fled from Brecilian Forest." They give you some gold for your silence and they leave. Since it's an event that happens only from an Origins import, the player should get the reference. If that's not enough, you could leave a letter on his dead body that explains it further.

If you save the guy, he gives you some money for your trouble and runs back to Kirkwall. After all, he's not going to tell you he's a Werewolf. You can also loot the dead Elves and find a similar letter referencing the events, along with some nice items, including a special Ironbark Bow.

But that negates the third option: talk the elf into letting the human go, which is open to a diplomatic Hawke.

Also, it doesn't cue off an Origins import alone; the "Hero of Ferelden" and "Martyr" imported histories both result in this encounter. If you didn't have any exposition, you'd alienate any new DA2 players who wouldn't know why these elves are antagonizing this human.

[Melca36]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

 So, The Laidlaw was talking a bit about how they really, really want to get more into the "Show, Don't Tell" ethos with the writing on The Next Thing™.  So maybe we can come up with some suggestions on how to accomplish that!

Here's some of mine:

1.  Write the game as if there's no codex.  Even better (IMO) GET RID OF THE CODEX ENTIRELY.  It's not that I dislike all the cool stories and stuff, but I think having it there is holding you guys back from really developing your ossum characteriztion and expositional abilities!

2.  Write as if there are no investigate options, and you have to convey 100% of the situational information without ever letting the player click "investigate".  Maybe even consider getting rid of the "Investigate" options entirely in favor of making those different options for the PC to approach the situation instead of just different things for the PC to ASK.  And don't ever let the player go back to the same list of questions in order to cycle through all of them.  Have situations where making a snap decision benefits you because people become irate when they're interrogated.  Stuff like that!

3.  USE THE PC FOR EXPOSITION.  The protagonist has lived in Thedas all their life.  They have to know SOMETHING about SOMETHING.  Let some of the explanations issue from the PC's mouth.  Heck, I would be absolutely floored if you did something as cool as (at least occasionally) replace the ? options with an icon that looks like a book to let the PC deliver some erudition on the topic at hand.

4. CUT CUT CUT the dialog.  When I went back to replay DA2 a couple of weeks ago, I started making notes of how many times a character will a.) say something, then b.) immediately repeat basically the same thing in a slightly different way.  I was up to, literally, DOZENS of examples JUST by the time Hawke & co got to Kirkwall.  Heck, assign an editor just to go through the dialog line by line and flag all of these repeats before they get voice-recorded, and the savings will probably be enormous.  Plus you'll have SO MUCH more air time for stuff that's NOT A REPEAT OF SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST SAID.  I realize this is generally done for emphasis, but if you feel the original statement is weak, emphasize it by fixing that statement, not by rephrasing it and saying it AGAIN. 

Sorry. But some of us happen to ENJOY looking for the codexes. Its a fun part of the game.

[Melca36]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The codex has no real game function it's just background. That information could be delivered in a different way, or left out completely without changing anything in the game. The codex tells you a lot of stuff you don't realy need to know to play the game.

So you basically want to remove an aspect of the game that a great many enjoy.

[PsychoBlonde]

Melca36 wrote...

Sorry. But some of us happen to ENJOY looking for the codexes. Its a fun part of the game.

I love how the main takeaway a lot of people seem to have is ZOMG NO LET US KEEP OUR POINTLESS SCAVENGER HUNT!!!!!!!!!  Is the rest of the game REALLY so boring that THIS is a PRIMARY source of enjoyment for a lot of the people who play?!

My interest in the codex relates purely to how it has an effect on the narrative structuring of the game.  Inasmuch as it has a negative effect, I think they should get rid of it or minimize its impact.  Or, they could do a better job of working it into the game somehow by tying it into the narrative structure.

Having a big wall between the gameplay and the narrative is one of Dragon Age's larger failings.  When the things you *see* in the game are meaningless unless they have an interact tag that triggers a codex entry or a dialog cut scene, that's a problem.  The visuals could be telling a LOT of the story for you--but they don't.  I think having the codex has become a lazy holdover from the days where the game visuals simply could NOT take up the narrative load that way, and they WERE basically just eye-candy--something for people to look at while they read what was essentially an interactive novel.

Part of it, also, is that since the story is always rushing, rushing, rushing to get to the action, there's never any time to set up anything as a baseline or "normal".  This can seriously undercut or even make ridiculous points where there's an attempt to make something seem weird or creepy.  How many people, when they got to the Primeval Thaig and heard that long discussion about "wow, this place is WEIRD", were actually able to identify what caused that response?  Up until then, you hadn't seen any significant dwarven architecture.  Maybe red glowing crystals are normal at this depth.  All the other dwarven tunnels I'd seen had channels of fuming lava.  It really looked like they'd just picked a different light source. That would have actually been a good time for Hawke to be baffled, because I sure didn't know what was going on.

Mass Effect had a similar issue in reverse for me when you first encounter the Rachni.  By that time, I'd already read through a codex entry on the Rachni (you can pick one up on the Citadel), seen a picture of a Rachni, and then, when I was shooting them, they highlighted as . . . Rachni!  And then Kaidan comes out with "WHAT ARE THOSE?!?!?" and my PC says . . . "I DON'T KNOW."  Shepherd.  Most unobservant person EVAR.

Maybe Bioware should hire me as some kind of Exposition Picker.  And then when I GO INSANE over all the minute details that nobody could possibly track from the back end, they'll be all like, TOLD YA SO.

[CarlSpackler]

PsychoBlonde wrote...


I love how the main takeaway a lot of people seem to have is ZOMG NO LET US KEEP OUR POINTLESS SCAVENGER HUNT!!!!!!!!!  Is the rest of the game REALLY so boring that THIS is a PRIMARY source of enjoyment for a lot of the people who play?!

No the codex is a secondary source of enjoyment to be sure.  First of all the codex is ultimatly optional, I don't remember any specific major plot point of the game that requires you to read the codex to complete.  There were a few side quests that I remember using the codex.

Ultimately there's way too much lore in the DA universe to attempt to communicate it all through game expositioin, something you seem to be arguing against anyways.  The codex allows players to read into the lore and history to give them a better sense of the game world without having to listen to wisened npc #23's long winded history lesson.  And I'm squarely in the camp of folks who like the long-winded npc #23.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 19 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[shootist70]

PsychoBlonde wrote...


My interest in the codex relates purely to how it has an effect on the narrative structuring of the game.  Inasmuch as it has a negative effect, I think they should get rid of it or minimize its impact.  Or, they could do a better job of working it into the game somehow by tying it into the narrative structure.


Maybe Bioware should hire me as some kind of Exposition Picker.  And then when I GO INSANE over all the minute details that nobody could possibly track from the back end, they'll be all like, TOLD YA SO.

I see that as wrong. As i said earlier, games have a luxury that books and movies don't have: they can trowel on bucketloads of infodump and still keep it apart from the main narrative. This is what folks are trying to tell you: it's entirely optional and they like it that way.

Personally I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The DA series' problems with infodump and 'show don't tell' almost always relates to the characters, rather than the lore and quests. This is where we tend to get extaneous amounts of dialogue where the characters try to tell you what they're like, and why you should care about them.

This sort of stuff should become evident in the narrative and the character's actual actions and reactions to narrative events, with just a little backstory to allow us to reflect on those actions and to put them into the context of the character, hence 'fleshing them out.'

Imo I don't think we really get to see enough of the characters reactions to events, other than the odd one liner. It's something that should drive the action much more, rather than standing around wading through dialogue.

Modifié par shootist70, 19 avril 2012 - 07:28 .

[Wozearly]

shootist70 wrote...

The DA series' problems with infodump and 'show don't tell' almost always relates to the characters, rather than the lore and quests. This is where we tend to get extaneous amounts of dialogue where the characters try to tell you what they're like, and why you should care about them.

I disagree - I would say that the quests tend to struggle more with being too strong on the telling and comparatively weak on the 'showing'. Characters are definitely better, although not to say that they couldn't be improved.

The huge advantage of the Codex is that its a very convenient bundle of 'tell' that's segregated from the main gameplay, and that you don't have to read if you're not too interested (as others have pointed out). In principle, that should be able to free up some expository space in the dialogue and cinematics to use for more 'showing'.

In a way, the problem is the speed, pace and number / variety of characters and themes that are in the game, all of which require game-time (and, of course, development resource). Its easier to focus more on the 'show me' when there's less going on, because you have the opportunity for foreshadowing, for demonstrating how someone approaches a situation not just on meeting them, but as you grow to to form your opinions of them, so that the 'show me' part leads to a developing and deeper understanding.

DA:O has some great 'show me' pieces along those lines;

The desire demons are fantastic for demonstrating why they can acquire such power and influence when it comes to possession, outside of being told in the codex "yeah, they're pretty powerful because they offer you stuff..."

Rendon Howe is also particularly well delivered as a 'show me'. Not once is he described as a slimy, heartless, ruthless, over-ambitious, snarky little man of doubtful parentage. He doesn't need to be - he self-evidently is, from the moment he appears to his last breath.

Actually, I'd also give a nod to the Architect, Duncan and Cailan. Interestingly, I wouldn't include any of the companions. Despite spending a huge amount of game time with them, with the exception of the party banter and some (usually quite predictable) interjections into conversations, the majority of their interactions are very much on the 'tell me' side.

I wonder if this is part of the problem. Bioware seems very good at using 'show me' where notable characters have very limited air-time, because its a very good way of ensuring they are seen to be notable. Characters that have the luxury of more time seem to find that freeom is used in far more detailed 'tell me's'. But, to give Bioware their due, characters were more 'show me' in DA2, which was a positive step.

Modifié par Wozearly, 19 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[Maria Caliban]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Sorry. But some of us happen to ENJOY looking for the codexes. Its a fun part of the game.

I love how the main takeaway a lot of people seem to have is ZOMG NO LET US KEEP OUR POINTLESS SCAVENGER HUNT!!!!!!!!!  Is the rest of the game REALLY so boring that THIS is a PRIMARY source of enjoyment for a lot of the people who play?!

1. Saying I enjoy something and don't want it removed isn't the same as saying it's my primary source of enjoyment.

2. You can have a primary source of enjoyment without other elements being boring.

3. Between the all-caps words, multiple exclamation points, and poor argument, you're coming off as rather angry. People enjoying something you don't like shouldn't cause this reaction.