120 réponses à ce sujet

[Xandurpein]

I think that before we can even discuss a game's relative merit, we need to agree on the yardstick first. I have seen people argue the relative merits of DA:O versus other RPG based on at least two different yardsticks. One group feels that the merit of an RPG is the level of immerssion in the story. You value being sucked into a story with living characters around you. I belong in this category, and most people in this group thinks (rightly so) that DA:O is an amazingly well-crafted game.

But there are another group to whom the game, and even the immession, is all about character builds and combat tactics. This is the group of people who might actually think Oblivion (a game I couldn't even finnish) is superior to DA:O. Not to mention those who bought the game solely on the basis of the CGI trailers. I wonder how much disappointed negative feedback DA:O has recieved comes from people who thought they would get what the CGI trailer implied.

People value different things, but I'm not going to pass judgment on
what other people consider fun and rewarding. I always try to talk my
friends into trying DA:O, to give them a chance to experience a truly
well-crafted characterdriven game if they haven't before, but ultimatly its
up to them to decide what experience they are looking for.

It's frustration that lack of recognition for great titles relative to
easy and simple ones will result in less titles like DAO, Deus Ex and
to a lesser extent Mask of the Betrayer.

To be honest, for a supposedly narrow game that "the masses" cannot truly appreciate, DA:O has recieved a lot of attention I think.

foolish_sagacity wrote...

There IS a hope I have though. That once games become absolutely photo realistic, so that they look identical to real life, then much like the landscape of painting changed radically when photos became largely available perhaps so too will video games. Perhaps when it's no longer a game engine race (I have the White engine! I have the Unreal engine! I have the Infinity Engine!) we'll see game developers looking for more substantial hooks to their projects and will turn a focused gaze upon in depth story-telling.

Unforunatly one of the things I loved most about DA:O is also one of the things that made it so expensive to make, namely the voice acting. It's not enough to reach the "level cap" of photorealism, you'd need an engine able to reproduce human voice acting without humans, of a level that created audio immersion, not just visual.

That said, I do belive the trend in gaming will still be towards more story-telling and a more cinamtic feel to the game. I do not think that the time when directiong movie directors begin to direct games are that many years away now at all.

[Alex Savchovsky]

Malificis wrote...

How much has DA:O been outsold by, by say, Cod4 MW2? Lets not even go into WoW. Wanna compare the profits? Effort to create? Originality? Professionalism?

One word:
Mainstream.

The truth is that many of the customers of the video-game industry have too low attention span to appreciate this game. Most of them, in fact. You must have seen yourself the constant complaining about dialogs being too long, not having a cut-scene at the end, etc. So in a business point of view, creating a game like DA: O is not very lucrative. Which explains why there are so few games like it. I admire BioWare for deciding to create it. Because this game is not simply a business project, it's a work of art.

[Nekator]

Nice text, even if it´s a bit polemic.. but you´re a psychology student..



But anyways.. to take Ohgren from all the characters as an example is a bit of bad choice.. i think he´s really the least interesting guy in the whole game... and yes.. he is a very stereotypical dwarf.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I agree with the OP. Real quality and depth are often overlooked for quick, shallow entertainment.



EDIT: FF 7-X? Seriously? 8 must be the biggest piece of plot garbage ever made.

[OneBadAssMother]

Bioware games are like TV episodes except YOU are the director. It's just different audiences.

[qoobah]

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents, seeing as some portion of this (otherwise hugely diversified) argument drifted somewhere along the lines of "DA is better/more sophisticated a game than X Y or Z because it has narrative depth and ambiguous characters". Arguments for this being an indicative of an artful form usually orbit around these statements.



I'd just like to point out that games are not always required to have story in order to be valid, innovative even breakthrough experiences. Think chess: very little narrative (some in form of figures, and a metaphor of warring kingdoms). Same thing with Go. A more recent example: L4D, where narrative as such was taken from a very different angle (little stories "emerging" from gameplay as real people interact with the game and each other).



This argument was presented brilliantly by Jesse Schell in "Art of Game Design". Narration in some form is inherent to the gameplay experience, but to what extent varies wildly. In the end it all boils down to the player _experience_, and for some experiences detalied narrative and characters are mandatory in order to be powerful, for others they are not. I wouldn't slack off games just for the fact they have little depth in terms of narrative - it's just that the strenght of their experience stems from other areas. And while obviously as I'm a poster here, narrative depth is a major selling point of the experience for me, and I love BW games the most exactly for that, other people have different needs for them to "experience a great experience"



As to how this impacts "games as art" - frankly, I try to stir clear of these arguments. It's the experience that matters.

[OneBadAssMother]

Gameplay based games such as Mount and Blade despite its low budget was also quite fun. No story whatsoever, but combat system was... revolutionary. Too bad no other game these days lets you go lancing.

[Malificis]

What i REALLY want is that when a game comes out which is so much classier than the rest, that it should be recognised as such in charts and sales as well as reviews and acclaim - above all the rest - resulting in more being created. This is idealistic in a sense - i admit this wont happen. Doesn't stop me being angry about it though. But the problem is something which encourages developers to simply "ape convention" (comtrav) with the boring-old-samey WW2 FPS rather than come up with something interesting.
The idea that if everyone appreciated stuff like DAO over CoD4's "visceral tension" (squiggles1334 p4) there would be complaints controversial to my thread is hard to argue - people will always "understand" (ibid) such things as "cinematic gameplay" (ibid) because its very hard not to. Takes some effort and intelligence to appreciate the much cited Planetscape Torment/Deus ex/DAO and co.

Driveninhifi wrote...
Something else to keep in mind: Shakespeare tried to appeal to everyone. He's got low and high brow stuff in all the plays - from political machinations to blood flowing across the stage.

p.4

this is the most pertinent and insightful comment i've seen so far. Maybe we should not so much "embrace" as "use" the general wish to see easy/simple themes and styles in games. This relates back to ComTav's comparison to movies - look at Dark Knight for example. Dark Knight had the explosions of a major blockbuster but it was also pretty complex - somewhat like DAO in some aspects. Compare that to something (im only looking at modern films atm) like The Prestige or Donnie Darko. Undoubtedly high brow films.
YET Dark Knight did better in relation to its contemporaries in terms of  acclaimed success. It appealed to both worlds just as Shakespeare did indeed use lowbrow elements to appeal to the masses as well as the elite of the period. To what extent does DAO do this? Obviously the "elite" are those who can appreciate the more complex games, and the masses are those who happily lap up the average and mass reproduced conventions.
Donnie Darko especially did amazingly well as well - though I sincerely doubt most people who saw it understood it. Is that being unfair? If it isnt, then why did it do so well? Theres no amazing sex in it or anything to draw a popular crowd. Why did it do so well when its so utterly not-summer-blockbuster? 
Both The Prestige and Donnie Darko rose above the competition even being as theywere - so why cant games of the same level do this? I suppose its down to film audiences vs gaming audiences but arent these very similar groups of people?
What about Metal Gear Solid? Addresses very complex issues and ideas but has a LOT of pure eyecandy and the like.
Tough questions.

Thanks for all posts! esp people who love me (hi skydiver, T )

Modifié par Malificis, 10 décembre 2009 - 03:56 .

[Malificis]

Oh and for the record - I really liked Oblivion but it had serious issues with insanely repetitive gameplay, a weak main quest and fairly bad combat.

Side quests and World were incredible however. Graphic were good too.

FFVIII has a special place in my heart, dont diss ;p



What do we think of Baldur's gate in comparison to DAO btw? Don't wanna go too far off topic but i am interested.

[OneBadAssMother]

BG's comparison? Being a child of bhaal > being a grey warden.

Oblivion? If it wasnt for the mods (HUGE amounts of them), it would have been shelved on the 2nd week.



Btw I understand your frustration but the fact is that not everyone will appreciate Bioware-style games, the good thing is that personally however I do not see Bioware walking down that road.

[JHorwath]

OneBadAssMother wrote...



There's nothing we can really do about the game industry nowadays, .

That's where your wrong.  You can do something about things by not purchasing this junk game companies are shoving down our throats. 

[OneBadAssMother]

Hahaha, perhaps, but even if we don't, a ton of kids will! xD

[Malificis]

JHorwath wrote...

OneBadAssMother wrote...



There's nothing we can really do about the game industry nowadays, .

That's where your wrong.  You can do something about things by not purchasing this junk game companies are shoving down our throats. 

yeah indeed. if something sells a lot, you get more of it around.

[Driveninhifi]

I think it's worth keeping in mind that gaming as a medium has the potential to be more than an interactive novel or a shooter. For all its greatness, Dragon Age really does not do anything new - it does things well, but it's also very familiar.

I won't repeat the wall of text I wrote a page ago, but I think it's a mistake to judge a game just on its story, or just on its mechanics. You have to take both into account. The most recent game I can think of that really ties the plot and mechanics together is a russian game called The Void. Of course, that game is very hard, almost to the point where it's frustrating to play - but it is honestly unique.

[Xandurpein]

Malificis wrote...

What do we think of Baldur's gate in comparison to DAO btw? Don't wanna go too far off topic but i am interested.

I think it is hard to compare them. It's almost comparing a book to a movie. BG had was more open, which is what many miss in DA:O. I think that the leaps taken in voice acting, camera directing and visuals adds a lot the immersion and puts DA:O ahead of BG. What settles it for me in favor of DA:O is that I believe that the characters are better developed in DA:O. I think it actually shows that the authors have learned their craft and grown in skill over the years. While I love the characters in BG they have even more depth in DA:O. Minsc was just a very funny guy, but no real depth. Even the better developed more complex characters like Jaheira or Viconia*, pales next to Alistair or Leliana in my opinion.
(* I'm sorry Viconia, but you are still the first virtual love of my life....)

Modifié par Xandurpein, 10 décembre 2009 - 08:46 .

[ComTrav]

Malificis wrote...

What i REALLY want is that when a game comes out which is so much classier than the rest, that it should be recognised as such in charts and sales as well as reviews and acclaim - above all the rest - resulting in more being created. This is idealistic in a sense - i admit this wont happen. Doesn't stop me being angry about it though. But the problem is something which encourages developers to simply "ape convention" (comtrav) with the boring-old-samey WW2 FPS rather than come up with something interesting.
The idea that if everyone appreciated stuff like DAO over CoD4's "visceral tension" (squiggles1334 p4) there would be complaints controversial to my thread is hard to argue - people will always "understand" (ibid) such things as "cinematic gameplay" (ibid) because its very hard not to. Takes some effort and intelligence to appreciate the much cited Planetscape Torment/Deus ex/DAO and co.

Driveninhifi wrote...
Something else to keep in mind: Shakespeare tried to appeal to everyone. He's got low and high brow stuff in all the plays - from political machinations to blood flowing across the stage.

p.4

this is the most pertinent and insightful comment i've seen so far. Maybe we should not so much "embrace" as "use" the general wish to see easy/simple themes and styles in games. This relates back to ComTav's comparison to movies - look at Dark Knight for example. Dark Knight had the explosions of a major blockbuster but it was also pretty complex - somewhat like DAO in some aspects. Compare that to something (im only looking at modern films atm) like The Prestige or Donnie Darko. Undoubtedly high brow films.
YET Dark Knight did better in relation to its contemporaries in terms of  acclaimed success. It appealed to both worlds just as Shakespeare did indeed use lowbrow elements to appeal to the masses as well as the elite of the period. To what extent does DAO do this? Obviously the "elite" are those who can appreciate the more complex games, and the masses are those who happily lap up the average and mass reproduced conventions.
Donnie Darko especially did amazingly well as well - though I sincerely doubt most people who saw it understood it. Is that being unfair? If it isnt, then why did it do so well? Theres no amazing sex in it or anything to draw a popular crowd. Why did it do so well when its so utterly not-summer-blockbuster? 
Both The Prestige and Donnie Darko rose above the competition even being as theywere - so why cant games of the same level do this? I suppose its down to film audiences vs gaming audiences but arent these very similar groups of people?
What about Metal Gear Solid? Addresses very complex issues and ideas but has a LOT of pure eyecandy and the like.
Tough questions.

Thanks for all posts! esp people who love me (hi skydiver, T )

I did have Dark Knight in the back of my mind when I made my movie analogy, and I was trying to figure out what game it would be.

If you're asking why there aren't more games that can 'bridge the gap', and use both highbrow and lowbrow elements to appeal to everyone, Driveinhifi's comment on Shakespeare is insightsful. Not every writer is Shakespeare. (And even Shakespeare has stronger and weaker plays. When's the last time anyone's even heard of, say, Timon of Athens?) Who is the 'Shakespeare of video game design'? What video games best fuse mainstream appeal of visceral gameplay with more highbrow appeal of characters and story?

And, more broadly, as long as Bioware makes enough money to make more RPGs--why should I care if it's popular? As long as I can buy and play the sorts of games I want, does it matter which ones are "the most" popular? (It matters only inasmuch as everyone tries to imitate the popular stuff, but that's a failure of the creativity of the industry, not a problem with what is popular. See my previous wall of text )

[dirtywick]

Malificis wrote...

To try to put it into perspective, it's like modern novels. It's Twilight (to an extent, like CoD4: fun but unignorably poorly written and overly populist. Love how a vampire impregnates a mortal off the coast of Rio on an island he owns, while sparkling in the sun - may as well have had him go snorkelling at mid day but I digress and possibly offend the bottom-feeders) vs Shakespeare. The world's population seems to be getting more and more retarded and tasteless.
 

I really dislike this line of argument because everyone gets to decide, based on their own criteria which most likely happens to coincide with their own personal preferences in deciding what's worthwhile while, naturally, excluding themselves from the masses that just don't get it.  Well, truth is we are all part of the masses and everyone has a pet topic where they'll scoff at your poor taste, so remember that next time you laugh at anything that's not British comedy or have a Miller Lite at a BBQ (what kind of BBQ sauce is that anyway!?)

But it's better than those people who just don't like anything.

Regardless, DA did really well with critics and I'm sure the sales and continued DLC content will bear that out.  Really though if it bothers you that people don't appreciate the same aspects of the game that you do, it's helpful to keep in mind that people play games for different reasons.  I like TB strategy games the best, but RPGs are a similar enough experience for me to still play them, so I'm enjoying different things more and others less than the next guy.

[TuringPoint]

OP: I think Bioware deserves recognition for certain things about DA which go beyond taste to an extent, into the realm of being more well thought-out and deeply emotional as an experience. Many games are getting more and more affecting. Saying "deeply, emotionally affecting" (Modern Warfare) is the same as "deeply, emotionally effective"(Dragon Age) is inconsequential and absurd.

What I mean be affecting vs. effective is this: there is art or entertainment that forces a response on you, a gut response that requires no investment except being alive, which is where all of our existence starts - and there is art or entertainment which is more subject to opinion, but comes from a place in all of us that demands action or response or thought, and that is the more valuable sort of entertainment. If we ever stop distinguishing between entertainment that strengthens us and entertainment that corrupts us and allows us to become more cynical and abrupt in our judgement, we will have lost something.

It may be that the world is moving us towards being more cynical and abrupt, but it may be that there has always been plenty of frivolous nonsense calling itself art or entertainment, and there has. To consider entertainment which doesn't move us equal to entertainment which adds no value to our lives, on the basis of it all being subjective, is probably its own class of fallacy, and it seems to be very common.

Everyone should have a right to an opinion and to seek what entertainment interests them, I agree. But, if we ever get so stupid that we no longer want to be moved anywhere, and just simply consume, then our existence will indeed become increasingly short-lived and brutal and senseless. The worst thing to disguise is apathy, as if it were actually common grace and a movement towards real enlightenment to simply "be" and never think about or advance that being.

There isn't much to be done about this; but I agree, more or less, and am willing to add my "mass" to your "mass," and perhaps we can make "masses" with taste. In the end, I have a fairly optimistic view of what this expression of public approval means, and whatever public approval is effective entertainment is still effective, and it will serve a purpose when there are people to appreciate that. That's why it exists.

Modifié par Alocormin, 11 décembre 2009 - 01:11 .

[AntiChri5]

What Bioware definately deserves credit for is the extent to which they are focusing on what makes games unique. Any book can have a good story. Any song can sound great. Any movie can look great. What only video games can do is the interactivity and player driven experience i find so special. They are doing this with both Mass Effect and Dragon age. In Mass Effect you get to experience the way the story shapes itself around you, decisions from even the previous game continue to shape the world in a way completely unique to games. In Dragon Age with the origins Bioware have given us so much choice in how things are and who we are. Some of the origins will almost give you as much time as MW2 on their own.The origins allow us to explore the motivations and personality of the hero in so many ways that we feel like we are writing the story as much as Bioware.

[AntiChri5]

b

[Tarante11a]

OneBadAssMother wrote...

BG's comparison? Being a child of bhaal > being a grey warden.
Oblivion? If it wasnt for the mods (HUGE amounts of them), it would have been shelved on the 2nd week.

*vigourous nodding of head*  Oblivion was, in my opinion, finished off by the gamers themselves.  It was a good game when it came out but when the player mods started appearing it was a truely great game.  Really, from streamlining the graphics, improving them a thousand fold, adding towns and cities, people, buildings, businesses adding some EPIC quest lines and not least a HUGE collaborative project that rebalanced the whole game from mobs to items, the Oblivion modding community are just awesome (I don't use that word often).  And they're still doing it too.

I loved Baldur's Gate.  Unfortunately, the first time I played all the way through, I killed a bunch of thief types in the city, I mean they were naughty robbers right, only to discover that one of them had an essential thingy I needed to defeat  the Boss at the end, so I found it just impossible to kill him.  I was a bit... um.. miffed.