311 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

I support being able to travel were you wish.
I also support being able to ignore the plot and skip parts of it.

[deuce985]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

If by bridging zones you mean something like the road from Ostergar to Lothering where we meet The Bodster and Enchant-man, then yes, I'm ok with that kind of bridge zone.  An encounter like meeting new NPCs means something and is totally worth playing through.  A zone that offers me nothing but a delay between story points in exchange for an opportunity to kill some Bandits or spiders or bears for Old Man Crinkles, the random farmer...  That kind of bridge zone is not worth it to me.

Now, you turn those bandits into a trio of chevaliers flirting with a farm girl who is trying to herd her sheep across the road, and the knight's flirting is maybe edging up to or even going over the line...  Now I'm ok with that bridge zone.  Because that encounter tells me something about the city I'm travelling too.  It's not just random XP.

This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread. I don't like it when I'm running through "bridged" zones without continous main plot. And even if you run into "side-quest" they should all have heavy narrative or relate to the main plot. I can understand them not making all side-quests apart of the main plot...then what would be the point of calling it a side-quest? Especially in a world like Dragon Age that has so much going on. I'm ok with that, esepcially if they have their own little narrative story. I don't think that will be a problem though because side-quests have had their little stories in both games. I liked how Mass Effect 3 tied all side-quests to the main story. That was a little different though considering how the story is told and everybody is getting hit by Reapers.

[Allan Schumacher]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Or when the Super Friends are tromping along the road and encounter a story point.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're open to the "bridging zones" as long as there's a story (main plot) reason for being there, right?

If by bridging zones you mean something like the road from Ostergar to Lothering where we meet The Bodster and Enchant-man, then yes, I'm ok with that kind of bridge zone.  An encounter like meeting new NPCs means something and is totally worth playing through.  A zone that offers me nothing but a delay between story points in exchange for an opportunity to kill some Bandits or spiders or bears for Old Man Crinkles, the random farmer...  That kind of bridge zone is not worth it to me.

Now, you turn those bandits into a trio of chevaliers flirting with a farm girl who is trying to herd her sheep across the road, and the knight's flirting is maybe edging up to or even going over the line...  Now I'm ok with that bridge zone.  Because that encounter tells me something about the city I'm travelling too.  It's not just random XP.

Okay I get what you're saying.  It doesn't need to be essential to the main plot, but at least provide some interesting context rather than just random.

[Sylvius the Mad]

From the PC's perspective, all unexpected content looks random when first encountered. I can understand why people want there to be a reason behind that content, and I agree with that, but that does not require that the PC be directed to go find it.

I would encourage BioWare to consider how all of the game's content looks from the PC's point of view. This is, I insist, the point of view that matters the most.

[ajbry]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Okay I get what you're saying.  It doesn't need to be essential to the main plot, but at least provide some interesting context rather than just random.

Would team-building -- learning more about your party members and witnessing some humorous and/or interesting interactions -- fall under that label? Not that it'd be mundane battles and random banter, but the purposeful voyage to the next city as we've alluded to, and the potential challenges that accompany it.

[Allan Schumacher]

ajbry wrote...

Would team-building -- learning more about your party members and witnessing some humorous and/or interesting interactions -- fall under that label? Not that it'd be mundane battles and random banter, but the purposeful voyage to the next city as we've alluded to, and the potential challenges that accompany it.

It could.  Although arguably that could be done just as well (and maybe better?) with an interactive cutscene instead of a full level.  This is assuming the goal of said level was to perform team building stuff.

If you're going to create bridging levels for something like this, it'd have to serve into the level/exploration itself in order to work better.  This would include ambient talks about the journey, specifically about the area that you're in, leading up to probably something more specific and full fledged conversation.


If a level were to be created that wasn't random exploration, but was designed to learn about the party members, it'd probably be smaller.

Though ideally there's nothing stopping team building from being included in an area where some more specific plot (mainline or not) exists.  That'd probably work best and I find a part of team building exists with how they interact in other plots.

If not for meeting Morrigan, we'd never have gotten a "swooping is bad!"

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So don't visit them.  I'm not calling for the game to require or even encourage aimless wandering.  It just don't want the game to force me to go only where it thinks I will want to go.

.

But you are asking for them to spend a fairly hefty chunk of resources catering to aimless wandering.  Because a town should look very different before the demonic hordes turn up than it does after they do.

I'd rather they spend those resources on stuff which it makes sense for the player to see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So don't visit them.  I'm not calling for the game to require or even encourage aimless wandering.  It just don't want the game to force me to go only where it thinks I will want to go..

But you are asking for them to spend a fairly hefty chunk of resources catering to aimless wandering.  Because a town should look very different before the demonic hordes turn up than it does after they do.

I didn't say every location should be visitable all of the time.  You're criticising a position I haven't espoused.

There's a reason why the NWN OC doesn't let you back into Neverwinter after Chapter 1.  Neverwinter would be a very different place once the plague had been stopped.  But all of the locations in Chapter 2 can be visited even if the game hasn't yet told you to go.  Quest items can be found (and lost) without the PC first learning about the quest.  That's what I'd like to see - less railroading.  But less railroading doesn't require infinite wandering.

I'd rather they spend those resources on stuff which it makes sense for the player to see.

BioWare can't know what it makes sense for the player to see unless BioWare controls the PC's personality.  And if BioWare controls the Pc's personality, then they've eliminated roleplaying from the game (unless, as I've mentioned before, they provide an exhaustive description of that personality to the player before gameplay begins).

[Allan Schumacher]

Bioware used to make the best story driven games on the market until they started hating their customers

???

[Realmzmaster]

Tesclo wrote...

Bioware used to make the best story driven games on the market until they started hating their customers. But I always thought that if you could bring the open world envirnment of a game like Skyrim to the story and choice element of a Bioware game you would have an amazing rpg. Maybe Bioware should've merged with Bethesda or Blizzard instead of EA?

What company makes a better story driven game than Bioware? How is Bioware hating their customers? I am a Bioware customer and I like the story and concept of DA2.

Bioware was bought by EA. The founders of Bioware are EA officials. Bioware did not merge with EA. Bioware was purchased outright. I do not believe Bethesda had $860 million laying around to buy Bioware. Blizzard is owned by Vivendi SA . Blizzard could not merge with Bioware since it is not an independent company and is already merge with Activision under Vivendi SA.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 05:41 .

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay I get what you're saying.  It doesn't need to be essential to the main plot, but at least provide some interesting context rather than just random.

Question for you then Allan.

If you make the game more open and longer. Does that mean you need more interaction to stop it feeling watered down ? Same principle as juice, you can have the same ammount of juice, but depending on how much water you add, the taste is very different.

Will the banter lines repeat ? Or will they just stop,once they are used up ?

[Rahelron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The story is always about what your character does.  That can happen anywhere.

I think it's fair that many people love a BioWare game due to the plot and how it progresses.  Baldur's Gate 2 is much more structured in its plot and you can make a reasonable argument that it's more Irenicus' story than the player's.  And this is the game that many consider the pinnacle of BioWare.

I see what you want to argue, but Baldur's Gate II is structured in a way that makes clear that the player is the main character.

The story is structured in three movie-like acts (http://www.cod.edu/p...lm/threeact.htm) centered around the player:

ACT 1:
The player is wandering around after the events of BGI (setting)
The protagonist kidnapped for unknown reasons (inciting incident)
He breaks free, he could just walk away and continue his journey (refusal) but...
Imoen is arrested together with Irenicus. The protagonist decides to free her (first plot point)

ACT 2:
The protagonist needs to rise money to reach the island where Irenicus and Imoen are held captive (preparation)
The protagonist reaches the island and fights Irenicus (first culmination),
Irenicus steals the protagonist's and Imoen's soul and escapes (midpoint).
Now the protagonist needs to find a way to enter the elven city where Irenicus is trying to become a god and kill him (preparation, second part).
Finally he finds the Rhynn Lanthorn and enters Suldanessellar (second plot point)

ACT 3:
Second culmination. Irenicus is defeated and everyone is happy.


The 5 Protagonist Points in BGII (according to Dominique Parent Altier)
PROTAGONIST: The player.
TARGET: To recover his own soul (a personal goal, not someone else's)
OBSTACLE: Irenicus and his allies.
CONFLICT: Struggle against Irenicus
RESOLUTION: Irenicus is killed and the soul is retrieved.



Let's try to do the same thing with irenicus as protagonist:

ACT I:
Irenicus is happy and lives in Suldanessellar with his lover (the eleven queen, don't remember her name) (setting).
Something happens (inciting incident)
Some kind of inner struggle takes place (refusal)
Irenicus decides that he wants to become a god and develops a plan to reach his goal (first plot point)


ACT II:
His first attempt is foiled and he is banished from suldanessellar
(first culmination and midpoint)
Irenicus wants revenge, but he needs the soul of a god to fulfill his plan.
He finds one in the BG's protagonist.
He steals the soul of the BG's protagonist and heads back to Suldanessellar (second plot point).

ACT III:
He tries to drain the tree of life's energy once again but he is defeated once more (final confrontation).

As you see all the first act events are missing, they are not included in BGII. The player learns part of them through indirect storytelling and is left wondering for the rest. This would not be acceptable if Irenicus was the protagonist.

Modifié par Rahelron, 06 juin 2012 - 08:14 .

[Allan Schumacher]

@Rahelron

The idea that BG2 is Irenicus' story is not mine (nor is it even one I agree with). It's just one that has been around as long as the game has.

Question for you then Allan.

If you make the game more open and longer. Does that mean you need more interaction to stop it feeling watered down ? Same principle as juice, you can have the same ammount of juice, but depending on how much water you add, the taste is very different.

Will the banter lines repeat ? Or will they just stop,once they are used up ?

I think that a game with more "level content" will need to be supplemented elsewhere to pad everything. Large, relatively empty levels can certainly convey a sense of exploration and vastness, but if it's not filled with additional interesting content, the game will begin to drag on IMO. If you're done all the party banters in the first 1/3 of the game, there's a good chance you'll notice that they aren't speaking up anymore and the game won't finish as strongly as it started.

I'd rather a 30 hour game with 30 hours of interesting content than a 60 hour game with 30 hours of interesting content.

To take an example of my favourite game, Planescape Torment had very mediocre combat elements which in many cases just prevented me from experiencing what it was I wanted to experience (the kickass writing). I remember using Annah to literally sneak through entire levels (especially places like Baator) because I just founds those elements less interesting.

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare can't know what it makes sense for the player to see unless BioWare controls the PC's personality.  And if BioWare controls the Pc's personality, then they've eliminated roleplaying from the game (unless, as I've mentioned before, they provide an exhaustive description of that personality to the player before gameplay begins).

Well, I'd say they should focus their efforts on PCs whose reaction to a horde of dragons invading isn't to go for a stroll in the woods.

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The combination between exploration and interaction with companions is great for me regarding the RP experience. I can even say it's what I'm looking for (among other things) in a RPG like DA.
As this thread is about exploration I will not get into the other things here .

A game doesn't need to be very long if the content is satisfying. As mentioned above I indeed prefer a game that contains 30 hours filled with stuff to see and to do then a game that lasts 60 hours with a lot of 'nothing interesting to do' or is repetative with things.

Heh, think the perfect game should be in duration between 25 and 35 hours of gameplay depending on the players need 'to explore or not to explore'. This related to the mentioned 30 hours gameplay.

I would not trade the 160 hours of Xenoblade for anything. Well I might trade the time I wandered around the cities looking for quests...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare can't know what it makes sense for the player to see unless BioWare controls the PC's personality.  And if BioWare controls the Pc's personality, then they've eliminated roleplaying from the game (unless, as I've mentioned before, they provide an exhaustive description of that personality to the player before gameplay begins).

Well, I'd say they should focus their efforts on PCs whose reaction to a horde of dragons invading isn't to go for a stroll in the woods.

You're characterising exploration in the worst possible terms to delegitimise it.  Are you aware you're doing that?

When faced with a horde of dragons, a PC might choose to face them head-on.  A PC might choose to travel to a distant wizard academy to seek aid.  Let's say he does the latter.  The PC is going somewhere to look for help.

How does he get there?  He can stay on the roads, where the dragons might see him, or he can travel through the woods.  Getting the make that choice matters.

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're characterising exploration in the worst possible terms to delegitimise it.  Are you aware you're doing that?

I'm characterising it in the normal, standard way it's implemented in RPGs.  In particular, I was describing the standard gameplay of Skyrim.

When faced with a horde of dragons, a PC might choose to face them head-on.  A PC might choose to travel to a distant wizard academy to seek aid.  Let's say he does the latter.  The PC is going somewhere to look for help.

How does he get there?  He can stay on the roads, where the dragons might see him, or he can travel through the woods.  Getting the make that choice matters.

That's all fine. None of it has much to do with exploration.

In a story based design, the player would choose which option he wanted, probably get an encounter or full adventure depending on the path he chose, then arrive at the wizard academy and get on with the story.

In an exploration based design, the player would go to the forest, exhaustively explore every inch and kill all the random wildlife and sentient trees, then go to the roads, search up and down the road and surrounding countryside hunting bandits, then go to the wizard academy and recieve praise for arriving just in time.

Or maybe the player would decide to actually do what would actually make sense and get to the wizard academy ASAP by which ever route they prefer - in which case they'd be down a whole bunch of loot, and XP, and miss a whole bunch of content.  And when they got to the wizard academy, they'd still just arrive in time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

That's all fine. None of it has much to do with exploration.

In a story based design, the player would choose which option he wanted, probably get an encounter or full adventure depending on the path he chose, then arrive at the wizard academy and get on with the story.

I'd rather the content be there in the forest already, and if he finds it he can have a relevant advanture, but if he avoids it then he can move ahead the dragon/wizard plot.  Forcing all players to experience exactly the same story has no value

In an exploration based design, the player would go to the forest, exhaustively explore every inch and kill all the random wildlife and sentient trees, then go to the roads, search up and down the road and surrounding countryside hunting bandits, then go to the wizard academy and recieve praise for arriving just in time.

Why would the character do that?  If he has somewhere to be, searching through the forest exhaustively doesn't make a lot of sense.  It could be that some characters will think that's a good idea, but it's hardly the most likely conclusion.

You're treating this as if the gameplay decisions are driven not by the character's perceptions of the threats they face, but by the player's understanding o how the game is structured.

I don't think the player's awareness of the game should ever matter.  The designers need not ever take that into account.  But having a big foest there to explore allows the maximum number of character designs to behave appropriately.  If there's no path through the forest, how does the PC find his way to the wizards?  Maybe one PC superstitiously always veers left when meeting an obstacle.  If there's only one route to follow through the forest (as described in your story-based example), then there's no room left for in-character decision-making.

Or maybe the player would decide to actually do what would actually make sense and get to the wizard academy ASAP by which ever route they prefer - in which case they'd be down a whole bunch of loot, and XP, and miss a whole bunch of content.  And when they got to the wizard academy, they'd still just arrive in time.

That the extra content is there improves the game, even if the player never sees it.

I've mentioned this before, but I really like the level design in NWN2.  Along any path that needs to be followed, there are often other areas - forks in the road, or small meadows - which could be explored.  Exploring them gains the character nothing, but that they are there dramatically improves the feeling that the game world exists as a world, rather than just a means to tell this specific story.

[Dakota Strider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

[This just turns into a semantic argument about what the precise definition of an RPG is (to which I'll contend that there isn't a precise definition).

I would suggest that if anyone is wondering what an actual ROLE-PLAYING game is, they should go to a nearby game store,  (not computer game store), and ask the proprieter where they can find a local D&D campaign with an experienced DM.  (It could be any similar game).  Ask them to let you sit in on a couple sessions, and perhaps create a character that can tag along with the rest of the party.   Watch how the DM forms the outline, and lets the players create the story.  While the combat mechanics will seem very slow, to someone that has only played computer games, you will see how tactics are the most important part, and using teamwork among party members.   Intelligent and innovative play is rewarded, sloppy and careless play is penalized. 

I think that you would gain a better understanding of what a Role Playing game actually is.  For an employee of Bioware, I would think this would have to be a pre-requisite.  Early computer Role Playing games had the elements you will find in most pnp games.   Wizardry, Ultima, Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance (and all the SSI Gold box games), and the early Bioware games.   I believe that modern crpg's, have lost the feel of what the classic cRoleplaying games used to be, because people that create today's games may not have ties to the pnp games that the computer version evolved from.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 06 juin 2012 - 05:36 .

[AkiKishi]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

[This just turns into a semantic argument about what the precise definition of an RPG is (to which I'll contend that there isn't a precise definition).

I would suggest that if anyone is wondering what an actual ROLE-PLAYING game is, they should go to a nearby game store,  (not computer game store), and ask the proprieter where they can find a local D&D campaign with an experienced DM.  (It could be any similar game).  Ask them to let you sit in on a couple sessions, and perhaps create a character that can tag along with the rest of the party.   Watch how the DM forms the outline, and lets the players create the story.  While the combat mechanics will seem very slow, to someone that has only played computer games, you will see how tactics are the most important part, and using teamwork among party members.   Intelligent and innovative play is rewarded, sloppy and careless play is penalized. 

I think that you would gain a better understanding of what a Role Playing game actually is.  For an employee of Bioware, I would think this would have to be a pre-requisite.  Early computer Role Playing games had the elements you will find in most pnp games.   Wizardry, Ultima, Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance (and all the SSI Gold box games), and the early Bioware games.   I believe that modern crpg's, have lost the feel of what the classic cRoleplaying games used to be, because people that create today's games may not have ties to the pnp games that the computer version evolved from.

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.