764 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Vormaerin wrote...

I don't like open world games because they invariably give you a colorless character who wanders around interacting with mostly colorless NPCs.   Yes, I can create tons of "head canon" about it all, but I can do that much better writing my own stories.

Yes, there's a lot of freedom.  But there's no *role*.  There's just the *play*.  Any role you invent for the character is purely imaginary.  No one in the world notices it or reacts to it.  The world is nearly as static as an MMO.   The lack of a good story or any serious character interaction other than quest giving just gets boring really quick.

I don't like the game mechanics, either, but that's not germane to the point.

This will be my last post in regard to Skyrim because it's gotten completely away from my initial point when I brought it up as an example of a really successful RPG that doesn't try to cater to any fanbase other than their own.

If all you care about is a story, there are plenty of great books and movies out there. Of course games can tell great stories too, and Bioware has with most of theirs, but if they have to tell them by removing the player from the equation, they're really not getting the full potential out of what's supposed to be an interactive medium.

Modifié par batlin, 08 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MerinTB wrote...
80% of FFXIII is linear.

No idea. I never completed any of Final Fantasy Series including FF7. Not my cup of tea although I like their cutscenes.  
 

MerinTB wrote...

About 60% of DA2 is linear. 

I didn't pick any romance option. Friendship/rivalry at average 5-15 points. Only few choices matter . So it's 80% linear. 

MerinTB wrote...


100% of most FPS's are extremely linear.

I never play for the story. Pure MP with my  friends. So, it's 0% linear.

MerinTB wrote...



Dead Island, at best, is like 40% linear.

Not sure. My conclusion was based on AngryJoe Show's review. My intial argument was about cinematic approach as ineffective factor to appeal players as it used to be with Final Fantasy 7.  But linear stories and cinematic approach fit together, I guess..


"Linear stories have the obvious disadvantage that, due to a lack of decisions, they are not very game-like. As stated above, there is a natural barrier between linear stories and game mechanics, which limits the effect the story can have."
http://gamedesigncon...ar-storytelling

MerinTB wrote...

And for "10 Most Disappointing" - from what lists?

PlanetXboX360.com 
Wired.com
AngryJoe Show

Just google "Dead Island most disappointed games of the year."

MerinTB wrote...

In any case, most people were comparing the game to the trailer... and using the same standard, Dragon Age: Origins is equally disappointing as it plays NOTHING like that trailer.

I find out about Dragon Age Origins a year after it was released and I was looking for a mod. Not trailer or review.

 

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...

You say yourself that you don't like the type of game TES is, that is biased.

I don't like DA2, does that mean DA2 isn't a role-playing game? You don't interact with NPCs, a pre-colored character does.

Yes, that's a pretty good definition of "role".   My problem with TES is that there is no role, because no one reacts to anything.  My morrowind character was an orc, who was head of some drow house, high priest of some temple, and archmage over all the land (despite barely being able to cast any spells).   And no one noticed.   What's the point?

I don't believe self projection is a necessary element of roleplaying.  Roleplaying is me trying to be think like Adam Jensen, not trying to make Adam Jensen think like me.

If all you need is freedom, Minecraft is an RPG.   Obviously, Skyrim is an RPG by computer gaming definitions.  Of course, so is Diablo 2 according to Blizzard.   And, equally obviously, no computer RPG is going to allow true roleplaying, because you are always ceding substantial control over your character.   If I'm going to give up that much control, I want more back than TES gives.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...
I don't like open world games because they invariably give you a colorless character who wanders around interacting with mostly colorless NPCs.   Yes, I can create tons of "head canon" about it all, but I can do that much better writing my own stories.

I do that much better by writing my own mod that work in the game. And I still need my "headcanon" to begin first.

Vormaerin wrote...

Yes, there's a lot of freedom.  But there's no *role*.  There's just the *play*.  Any role you invent for the character is purely imaginary.  No one in the world notices it or reacts to it.  The world is nearly as static as an MMO.

Unless a game can properly graphically visualized my intent character, then I rather have my imaginary's role because role doesn't have to be defined. It can be left open too.  Actual content that doesn't work according to my intent is not roleplaying either. Roleplaying doesn't exist if you refuse to accept such role either by forced or intentional. 

Vormaerin wrote...

The lack of a good story or any serious character interaction other than quest giving just gets boring really quick.

I don't like the game mechanics, either, but that's not germane to the point.

Story become "good"  only if it's concern with my character, my adventure and my decision making. I see no reason to concern for Hawke or Shepard or Cloud Strife when they're just typical NPC protagonist in any stories.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 juin 2012 - 05:49 .

[wsandista]

Vormaerin wrote...

wsandista wrote...

You say yourself that you don't like the type of game TES is, that is biased.

I don't like DA2, does that mean DA2 isn't a role-playing game? You don't interact with NPCs, a pre-colored character does.

Yes, that's a pretty good definition of "role".   My problem with TES is that there is no role, because no one reacts to anything.  My morrowind character was an orc, who was head of some drow house, high priest of some temple, and archmage over all the land (despite barely being able to cast any spells).   And no one noticed.   What's the point?

I don't believe self projection is a necessary element of roleplaying.  Roleplaying is me trying to be think like Adam Jensen, not trying to make Adam Jensen think like me.

Did I say it was? Being able to explicitly choose actions appropriate for the PC is required for me to think of  game as having role-playing. TES games do this. I'm not as concerned with the NPCs reactions as I am with the PC's actions.

If all you need is freedom, Minecraft is an RPG.   Obviously, Skyrim is an RPG by computer gaming definitions.  Of course, so is Diablo 2 according to Blizzard.   And, equally obviously, no computer RPG is going to allow true roleplaying, because you are always ceding substantial control over your character.   If I'm going to give up that much control, I want more back than TES gives.

No, you give up freedom, not control. Ideally, the player shouldn't be able to do anything they want, but the player should be able to have complete control over the PC.

[Vormaerin]

wsandista wrote...

No, you give up freedom, not control. Ideally, the player shouldn't be able to do anything they want, but the player should be able to have complete control over the PC.

Parse your terms however you want.  If I can only do what the developer wants, then I want more back from them than a potemkin village to walk around in.

[ashwind]

Vormaerin wrote...
Yes, that's a pretty good definition of "role".   My problem with TES is that there is no role, because no one reacts to anything.  My morrowind character was an orc, who was head of some drow house, high priest of some temple, and archmage over all the land (despite barely being able to cast any spells).   And no one noticed.   What's the point?

Difference is, in TES - "YOU" the player decided to go to the mages guild. "YOU" can decide not to go there if you are true to your "role" as a warrior. "What's the point?" You choose to do something, so you have to answer that question.

I don't believe self projection is a necessary element of roleplaying.  Roleplaying is me trying to be think like Adam Jensen, not trying to make Adam Jensen think like me.

That is one way of looking at one type of roleplaying. Projecting oneself into a virtual world is no less roleplaying than your definition, it is only different. Some; like me, even like to conjurer a character in our mind and then pitch that character and his/her personalities into a virtual world; you know, like the old days on PnP, before computer RPG even existed?

If all you need is freedom, Minecraft is an RPG.   Obviously, Skyrim is an RPG by computer gaming definitions.  Of course, so is Diablo 2 according to Blizzard.   And, equally obviously, no computer RPG is going to allow true roleplaying, because you are always ceding substantial control over your character.   If I'm going to give up that much control, I want more back than TES gives.

And how much control do you have in DA2? Can I .... choose to live my life out peacefully after I free myself. Can I choose to walk away from the entire Chantry/Mages business? Like remain neutral and just run away? Can I feel happy when my ****** brother is dying. Why is the game telling me that I am sad or that it is hard for me to finish him off? What do you get in return by giving up so much control in DA2?

If Bioware wants to co-own my character and set certain paths for them, I'd expect more than what DA2 offer. I'd expect at least DAO. 

[batlin]

Vormaerin wrote...

wsandista wrote...

You say yourself that you don't like the type of game TES is, that is biased.

I don't like DA2, does that mean DA2 isn't a role-playing game? You don't interact with NPCs, a pre-colored character does.

Yes, that's a pretty good definition of "role".

No, it isn't. If they give you a pre-colored character, you aren't the hero, you're the hero's puppeteer. BIG difference.

Also, people in Skyrim will comment about your deeds, whether you're the Archmage, whether you're a Dark Brotherhood assassin, etc etc.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...
Parse your terms however you want.  If I can only do what the developer wants, then I want more back from them than a potemkin village to walk around in.

Few decades ago TES Arena only have peasants who stand like statue and repeat the same things. Nowdays these people have their own life and more than simply "a potemkin village to walk around in". They actually tell you about their life. Skyrim did that.

BioWare's games didn't. They tell the story about the world but the world itself is not alive. Just look at Kirkwall. Thus their world storytelling never evolve and their personal character development storytelling become even more restricted than ever, just look at Sheppard in ME 3. If this trend continues, you'll not only seeing non-evolving world hiding behind linear story, you'll be seeing  a JRPG as well,  where you no longer playing your character and your story but following a fix protagonist like Cloud Strife.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 juin 2012 - 06:12 .

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...

[q

No, it isn't. If they give you a pre-colored character, you aren't the hero, you're the hero's puppeteer. BIG difference.

Also, people in Skyrim will comment about your deeds, whether you're the Archmage, whether you're a Dark Brotherhood assassin, etc etc.

You are the hero's puppeteer either way.  You have limited control over your dialogues.  You can only do the things the Devs want you to do.   You can't clear a section of jungle and become a farmer, unless they happened to create that option.  You can't weild any authority as a archmage.  You can't *act* you can only accept quests.

People might say "oh, hi, Archmage".   But does anyone ask your advice?  Do you actually supervise the Mage Guild?  Do you fulfill the role in anyway?  

batlin wrote...

BioWare's games didn't. They tell the story about the world but the
world itself is not alive. Just look at Kirkwall. Thus their world
storytelling never evolve and their personal character development
storytelling become even more restricted than ever, just look at
Sheppard in ME 3. If this trend continues, you'll not only seeing
non-evolving world hiding behind linear story, you'll be seeing  a JRPG
as well,  where you no longer playing your character and your story but
following a fix protagonist like Cloud Strife

I don't think we are in any danger of that.  But if you follow the some of the other threads, I think you'll see that I am in favor of Bioware improving in these areas.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 08 juin 2012 - 06:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fair enough... but it might tie back more to the concept of the OP, in questioning if Bioware is looking to expand and realign its fanbase for The Next Big Thing? 

Well, if you want to carry this on and make it a bit more on topic, I'll give that a whirl.  En garde.

For my first volley, is nonlinearity a trait that most of the BioWare fanbase highlights as their driving factors?  IMO, games like BG, BG2, KOTOR, all the ME games, DAO, and DA2 are still pretty linear game experiences.  KOTOR ME 1/2, and DAO do allow some level of variation in how the player can proceed through the story, and while I don't agree with it I can understand why people feel BG is a nonlinear game due to the open ended exploration allowed in the game.  But if you compare these games to any of the Elder Scrolls games, or other ones like Ultima, Fallout or Wasteland, I don't think BioWare's games offered as much non-linearity as many of these other games.

Though from my experiences, the games that are lauded as BioWare's greatest are typically either BG2 or KOTOR, and occasionally DAO.  All these games offer romances (which IMO are now also a requirement for any game we do going forward), and from KOTOR on they also started to become a lot more cinematic.


I think the defining trait for BioWare games has always been the story.  Some may just love a D&D combat romp (which many BioWare games are), but I think it's the story that makes the biggest impact with those that prefer BioWare over other RPG developers.  Most specifically (especially recently) I'd call out the characters.  A lot of time spent in BioWare games is spent in the conversations.

The interesting thing about the conversations is how, I feel, they can appeal to a variety of players.  Conversations are typically where the romance arcs exist.  Conversations is a way for the player to define their character in a roleplaying fashion.  Conversations are the primary way we drive our narrative.  These conversations exist as part of the story, but they still serve players that may prefer other aspects of the game rather than just story.

Aside from BG1, I don't know if I'd agree that BioWare's games are noted for any sort of non-linearity.  I'm sure some feel that's their best strength (especially within the context of still having a meaningful narrative), but I think the narrative itself is what draws most BioWare gamers in.  JMO.


At the same time, RPG gamers definitely show that they can appreciate a more open ended game world.  So while I wouldn't bet on any sort of Skyrim type seamless open world clone, but I think we'd be silly to not consider potential gains we might gain by looking at what other games have done well.  For example, what I really liked about Fallout 3 was it's ability to tell a story without saying any words.  Stumbling into a blown out house I find a skeleton in a bathtub.  But there's a knife through his ribcage... interesting!  Did he kill himself?  Was he murdered?  When could this have happened.  Stuff like that I find helps drive the setting and the narrative (as much as I dislike TES games, I did enjoy FO3 and FONV), and it's done in a way without needing additional writing and cinematics and so forth.


Anyways this is a wall of text now.  I'll check in for a response tomorrow.

Cheers.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[Androme]

Constant philosophical answers to fan questions, damn BioWare, you're good at keeping people satisfied while not even meeting their expectations.

[Allan Schumacher]

You've lost me.

[Kidd]

I'd prefer BioWare to keep doing what they've always been doing, which are somewhat linear games that try to hide their linearity slightly. It's very similar to a PnP RPG campaign to me. That's exactly what I've gotten out of all BioWare RPGs so far and I hope it never stops being that way. It is the only place I can emulate that experience, with what I lose in actual social interaction around the table, I gain in having the other players' characters (companions), NPCs and overall plot be more fleshed out than the improvised dialogue of a GM and players alike.

If I wanted an MMO without other players in it, there are other companies to go to. For those who like both kinds, why hinder variety?

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 08 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't think cinematic approach is phenomenal and effective as the days of FF7 and FF8 anymore. We have recent titles heavily rely on cinematic storytelling like Jurassic Park: The Movie and Dead Island. Still, both are listed among 10 most disappointed games of the year, heavily critized for linearity.. In the end it's still FPS dominated the largest market segment. And Sykim look good to compete with them. Because Skyrim basically has the same element of FPS. Freedom and the feeling of being in the world as the character..

Dead Island is just a poor game, mired with a lot of technical issues that go way beyond linearity. I don't know enough about Jurassic Park though.

I'd also say that most FPS games today are exceptionally linear affairs, centered around flashy set pieces. The only thing non-linear about them is their multiplayer....

Linear games have been successful for decades and continue to be very successful.

Linear games pace well. This is also the reason TES works, because you have no in your face plot pulling you along.
Someone already brought up FFXIII which is almost entirely linear until you reach Pulse and then you are just left to your own devices on a map that is populated by creatures that can and will kill in a couple of hits. It's like playing a totally different game.

Never played Dead Island. Ordered it after seeing the GOTY edition for £22.

While non linearity is great for TES I'd say it is a bad thing when it comes to games which use strong cinematic presentation to drive the plot.

New Vegas is probably the best cross-over that I have seen between story and total freedom to go anywhere.

Biowares formula is something like this.

<Linear>------<Collect/Do 4 things in any order>-----<Linear>

Modifié par BobSmith101, 08 juin 2012 - 10:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fair enough... but it might tie back more to the concept of the OP, in questioning if Bioware is looking to expand and realign its fanbase for The Next Big Thing? 

Well, if you want to carry this on and make it a bit more on topic, I'll give that a whirl.  En garde.

For my first volley, is nonlinearity a trait that most of the BioWare fanbase highlights as their driving factors?  IMO, games like BG, BG2, KOTOR, all the ME games, DAO, and DA2 are still pretty linear game experiences.  KOTOR ME 1/2, and DAO do allow some level of variation in how the player can proceed through the story, and while I don't agree with it I can understand why people feel BG is a nonlinear game due to the open ended exploration allowed in the game.  But if you compare these games to any of the Elder Scrolls games, or other ones like Ultima, Fallout or Wasteland, I don't think BioWare's games offered as much non-linearity as many of these other games.

Though from my experiences, the games that are lauded as BioWare's greatest are typically either BG2 or KOTOR, and occasionally DAO.  All these games offer romances (which IMO are now also a requirement for any game we do going forward), and from KOTOR on they also started to become a lot more cinematic.


I think the defining trait for BioWare games has always been the story.  Some may just love a D&D combat romp (which many BioWare games are), but I think it's the story that makes the biggest impact with those that prefer BioWare over other RPG developers.  Most specifically (especially recently) I'd call out the characters.  A lot of time spent in BioWare games is spent in the conversations.

The interesting thing about the conversations is how, I feel, they can appeal to a variety of players.  Conversations are typically where the romance arcs exist.  Conversations is a way for the player to define their character in a roleplaying fashion.  Conversations are the primary way we drive our narrative.  These conversations exist as part of the story, but they still serve players that may prefer other aspects of the game rather than just story.

Aside from BG1, I don't know if I'd agree that BioWare's games are noted for any sort of non-linearity.  I'm sure some feel that's their best strength (especially within the context of still having a meaningful narrative), but I think the narrative itself is what draws most BioWare gamers in.  JMO.


At the same time, RPG gamers definitely show that they can appreciate a more open ended game world.  So while I wouldn't bet on any sort of Skyrim type seamless open world clone, but I think we'd be silly to not consider potential gains we might gain by looking at what other games have done well.  For example, what I really liked about Fallout 3 was it's ability to tell a story without saying any words.  Stumbling into a blown out house I find a skeleton in a bathtub.  But there's a knife through his ribcage... interesting!  Did he kill himself?  Was he murdered?  When could this have happened.  Stuff like that I find helps drive the setting and the narrative (as much as I dislike TES games, I did enjoy FO3 and FONV), and it's done in a way without needing additional writing and cinematics and so forth.


Anyways this is a wall of text now.  I'll check in for a response tomorrow.

Cheers.

I am a victim of the old Wall o' Text syndrome myself, so I'll try and be courteous and keep this concise. 

Perhaps I choose the word non-linear incorrectly, due its use in the discussion previously when talking about sandbox games.

I think what I maybe originally intended to ask was do you think that Bioware fans expect a high level of choice?

I agree that most Bioware games are fairly linear and that is a neccessary piece of narrative structure. You can't tell a good story by having the ability to hop straight to the end... at least unless you had a penalty for skipping most of the content (like how it can result in an overall failure with the Suicide Mission in ME2).

What Bioware has become known for is weaving choices into a fairly linear story to give it a varied experience. For instance, you couldn't have the option in DA:O of slaying the Archdemon, then challenging Loghain at the Landsmeet, then gathering the treaties. That would make no sense. But we were given options about how to gather the treaties, how we treat Loghain at the Landsmeet, who we want to crown in his place and how to approach the problem with slaying the Archdemon. These choices have in-game consequences, as well as the fact that they offer endings that can result in a slightly (or even a greatly) different story on each playthrough.

So do you think Bioware's fanbase wants plot decisions that are refelected in game? Or would a sufficiently excellent story on the rails, with the option to romance who you choose, be more in line with what the fanbase expects?

[ElitePinecone]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So do you think Bioware's fanbase wants plot decisions that are refelected in game? Or would a sufficiently excellent story on the rails, with the option to romance who you choose, be more in line with what the fanbase expects?

Sorry to jump in but I thought this is an interesting question.

I'd argue allowing choice in games is far more effective as a storytelling medium because we're *aware* we're making the decision. Player agency to affect the outcome of character arcs imbues those choices with huge weight. 

So many of the (professional) reactions to some of, say, ME3's bigger plot points and decisions were "I had to make a decision, I did [x], I can't believe I did that". The focus is as much on making a choice as it is on the outcome. In DA2 something like Hawke's response to Anders at the end (being deliberately vague) could be incredibly powerful if that character was an LI, or if the player had whole-heartedly supported the Chantry, or if they supported Sebastian. A bespoke ending for that scene would, I think, lose that impact. Ditto for the ending of DAO (I distinctly remember David Gaider talking about running around cackling as he planned bittersweet endings, but there really are a multitude available depending on gender and origin). 

So while I think that Bioware could conceivably script an on-the-rails story and it'd probably work out quite decently, the power in their games comes from shaping a unique experience as a result of plot decisions. Where defined plot points *are* needed, it helps if we've been sufficiently immersed in the world and the characters that they do affect us. 

(Case-in-point: the scripted sibling incident at the start of DA2 meant absolutely nothing to me, because we'd known them for about four seconds and had no idea of their relationship to Hawke. I felt far worse for Aveline/Wesley, and the contrast with the Human Noble Origin from DAO was... extreme.)

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
For my first volley, is nonlinearity a trait that most of the BioWare fanbase highlights as their driving factors?

I think in part, its as much the perception of nonlinearity as it is if the actual game is genuinely nonlinear. Plus, what one means by nonlinearity-are we talking about nonlinear narrative progression or nonlinear exploration?

I think earlier BioWare games like BG, BG2, KOTOR and DA:O at least gave the perception to the player of at least some narrative nonlinearity. As you were playing, it felt like the choices you made often had consequences that would be different than if you made a different choice. Nonlinear exploration in BioWare games has dwindled as they've gotten more cinematic, with the BG games getting that feel best, IMO; even with something like BG2, you had such a large number of places to go in Chapter 2, many of which were completely optional, that it gave a sense of freedom that subsequent BioWare games have lacked when it comes to exploration.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Aside from BG1, I don't know if I'd agree that BioWare's games are noted for any sort of non-linearity.  I'm sure some feel that's their best strength (especially within the context of still having a meaningful narrative), but I think the narrative itself is what draws most BioWare gamers in.  JMO.

Again, increasingly with so many RPG devs talking about nonlinear narrative (see The Witcher 2 and what CD Projekt has said about their Cyberpunk 2020 RPG) I do recall Dr. Ray in some interviews saying how BioWare games are about choice and consequences. And IMO, to have meaningful choice and consequences, there has to be some level of nonlinearity there to make big choices and corresponding consequences feel meaningful. It gets back to the perception of importance mattering most. So you can either have a truly diverging narrative via your consequences like The WItcher 2 or Alpha Protocol or provide at least an illusion of more meaningful choices like KOTOR or earlier BioWare games have done.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
For example, what I really liked about Fallout 3 was it's ability to tell a story without saying any words.  Stumbling into a blown out house I find a skeleton in a bathtub.  But there's a knife through his ribcage... interesting!  Did he kill himself?  Was he murdered?  When could this have happened.  Stuff like that I find helps drive the setting and the narrative (as much as I dislike TES games, I did enjoy FO3 and FONV), and it's done in a way without needing additional writing and cinematics and so forth.

Skyrim does this exceptionally well too. One of my most memorable and sad moments in Skyrim is coming across a shack in the middle of nowhere, far off any road, and seeing a man dead laying on his bed. You see a journal next to his bed and read it, and its just a sad little description of this lonely guy dying of rockjoint and how he's worried his dog Meeko will cope without him. And sure enough, you can meet Meeko in or around the cabin (and recruit him). Its nothing huge or epic, but its a moving little moment that was accomplished with no expensive voice acting or cinematics or anything of the sort. Although, reading the journals in Skyrim in actual handwriting is really cool and helps keep you in the game.

But Skyrim is full of stuff like that, which is in no way central to the narrative and most of it off the beaten path. And yet thats the stuff that fleshes out the world and makes it feel more like a lived in actual place with history than just a video game level. Its attention to detail.



So basically, I think the whole nonlinearity argument comes down to what aspects of the game are being considered nonlinear? The exploration? The story? Character progression? And if BioWare's big thing are the characters and stories, should we consider those more nonlinear in the future? Nonlinear narratives don't have to be diluted or weak, like some consider the narratives in open world games- just look at Alpha Protocol or The Witcher 2. So long as BioWare is going to keep doing the whole "choices and consequences" thing, I'd like to see at least some consequences have genuinely different effects on the narrative. Things that affect more than just the epilogue slides at the very end of the game or a handful of dialogue choices. When other games like The Witcher 2 have sort of raised the bar with a more reactive nonlinear narrative in an RPG, its seems a little harder to accept a more linear narrative in a supposedly choice driven RPG going forward. If that came at the expense of cinematics and some of that kind of polish, I'd be ok with that.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ElitePinecone wrote...
In DA2 something like Hawke's response to Anders at the end (being deliberately vague) could be incredibly powerful if that character was an LI, or if the player had whole-heartedly supported the Chantry, or if they supported Sebastian. A bespoke ending for that scene would,

That IF didn't happen in all my playthroughs. 

 

ElitePinecone wrote...

So while I think that Bioware could conceivably script an on-the-rails story and it'd probably work out quite decently, the power in their games comes from shaping a unique experience as a result of plot decisions. Where defined plot points *are* needed, it helps if we've been sufficiently immersed in the world and the characters that they do affect us.

Immersion is unknown factor. What immersed other doesn't necessary immersed to other people.  I can't immerse with constant time skip and plot jump. But some peple don't seem to have problem with that.  

ElitePinecone wrote...


(Case-in-point: the scripted sibling incident at the start of DA2 meant absolutely nothing to me, because we'd known them for about four seconds and had no idea of their relationship to Hawke. I felt far worse for Aveline/Wesley, and the contrast with the Human Noble Origin from DAO was... extreme.)

Yes. I felt the same way. That's the problem.

[joshko]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fair enough... but it might tie back more to the concept of the OP, in questioning if Bioware is looking to expand and realign its fanbase for The Next Big Thing? 

Well, if you want to carry this on and make it a bit more on topic, I'll give that a whirl.  En garde.

For my first volley, is nonlinearity a trait that most of the BioWare fanbase highlights as their driving factors?  IMO, games like BG, BG2, KOTOR, all the ME games, DAO, and DA2 are still pretty linear game experiences.  KOTOR ME 1/2, and DAO do allow some level of variation in how the player can proceed through the story, and while I don't agree with it I can understand why people feel BG is a nonlinear game due to the open ended exploration allowed in the game.  But if you compare these games to any of the Elder Scrolls games, or other ones like Ultima, Fallout or Wasteland, I don't think BioWare's games offered as much non-linearity as many of these other games.

Though from my experiences, the games that are lauded as BioWare's greatest are typically either BG2 or KOTOR, and occasionally DAO.  All these games offer romances (which IMO are now also a requirement for any game we do going forward), and from KOTOR on they also started to become a lot more cinematic.


I think the defining trait for BioWare games has always been the story.  Some may just love a D&D combat romp (which many BioWare games are), but I think it's the story that makes the biggest impact with those that prefer BioWare over other RPG developers.  Most specifically (especially recently) I'd call out the characters.  A lot of time spent in BioWare games is spent in the conversations.

The interesting thing about the conversations is how, I feel, they can appeal to a variety of players.  Conversations are typically where the romance arcs exist.  Conversations is a way for the player to define their character in a roleplaying fashion.  Conversations are the primary way we drive our narrative.  These conversations exist as part of the story, but they still serve players that may prefer other aspects of the game rather than just story.

Aside from BG1, I don't know if I'd agree that BioWare's games are noted for any sort of non-linearity.  I'm sure some feel that's their best strength (especially within the context of still having a meaningful narrative), but I think the narrative itself is what draws most BioWare gamers in.  JMO.


At the same time, RPG gamers definitely show that they can appreciate a more open ended game world.  So while I wouldn't bet on any sort of Skyrim type seamless open world clone, but I think we'd be silly to not consider potential gains we might gain by looking at what other games have done well.  For example, what I really liked about Fallout 3 was it's ability to tell a story without saying any words.  Stumbling into a blown out house I find a skeleton in a bathtub.  But there's a knife through his ribcage... interesting!  Did he kill himself?  Was he murdered?  When could this have happened.  Stuff like that I find helps drive the setting and the narrative (as much as I dislike TES games, I did enjoy FO3 and FONV), and it's done in a way without needing additional writing and cinematics and so forth.


Anyways this is a wall of text now.  I'll check in for a response tomorrow.

Cheers.

You've hit the nail on the head, and honestly, I don't think Bioware should go for "non linear" games in the truest sence.

I think rather, if I maybe so bold, that Bioware should go for different experiences in the mid game based on player choice.
This is not non linear because the story is the same and will end the same, possibly with some slight variation.

I think this would be easier to handle and allow for the easier implementation of sequels and expansions.

Look at it this way, you're going on a trip, sure the destination will be the same, but which road will you take?
The highway?
The scenic route?
Will you go through the city?
etc.

Ultimatly I love Bioware for your stories and characterization, and I would rather sacrifice player "freedom" for a kickass story.

[MerinTB]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
About 60% of DA2 is linear. 

I didn't pick any romance option. Friendship/rivalry at average 5-15 points. Only few choices matter . So it's 80% linear. 

I was being generous, but because you CHOOSE to not take advantage of choices in the game doesn't mean they aren't there.  You can't judge a game's linearity based on YOUR choices - because you know what the odds are of you making the choices you already made? 100%.  So any game, based solely on YOUR choices in one play and nothing else would be 100% linear.  So please don't make arguments based on what you chose to ignore or not take advantage of.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
100% of most FPS's are extremely linear.

I never play for the story. Pure MP with my  friends. So, it's 0% linear.

See my above answer.  You skipping single player doesn't make single player linear or not linear.  It's like saying that since you didn't eat the lemon pie it's doesn't taste like lemon because you detected no lemon flavor in the no pie you ate.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Dead Island, at best, is like 40% linear.

Not sure. My conclusion was based on AngryJoe Show's review.

From wikipedia - "Dead Island features an apparent open world roaming, divided by relatively large areas, and played from a first-person perspective"

Trust me - it's just shy of TES open world.  There's very little linearity to the game.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
And for "10 Most Disappointing" - from what lists?

PlanetXboX360.com 
Wired.com
AngryJoe Show

Just google "Dead Island most disappointed games of the year."

I did google it before I posted - I googled "worst games of 2011", "most disappointing games of 2011" and finally just "Dead Island disappointing" -

I found Wired.  And several other sites linking to Wired or reposting Wired's article.  Otherwise, meh, I didn't find AngryJoe (whomever that is.)  I didn't see PlanetXbox360's either - which, btb, was about "bugginess" and not linearity (or cinematic approach), for why it was disappointing. (?)

I did say that you can find tons of forum lists where you can pretty much find ANY game listed as "most disappointing."  But you list 3 "most disappointing" as proof of how linear, horribly cinematic, or how "bad in general" Dead Island is?

(because you listed the site) - PlanetXbox360's review gives it a 9.1, users there gave it a 9.3 - http://www.planetxbo...d_Island_Review - "We were sitting around the office wondering, “So…what if the game
doesn’t live up to the hype?” Well, now that it’s arrived, that
collective sigh of relief is settling in. This game is damn good, and
more than lives up to the hype."

(first link that comes up from "dead island review" search) IGN gave it an 8, user score 8.8, editor's choice. - http://xbox360.ign.c.../1192320p1.html - "for the next 20 to 30-some hours roam massive maps, take on interesting side quests, and chop the heads off hundreds of ghouls.
"

(second site that comes up) Gamespot gave it a 7, user score 8.1 - http://www.gamespot....review-6332610/ - "Varied open-world setting" " Dead Island is a schlocky, open-world action role-playing game that favours grisly melee combat above all things."

And I'll stop there.  There are bad reviews for the game, and better reviews for the game.  But it's not universally disappointing overall to the gaming industry.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
In any case, most people were comparing the game to the trailer... and using the same standard, Dragon Age: Origins is equally disappointing as it plays NOTHING like that trailer.

I find out about Dragon Age Origins a year after it was released and I was looking for a mod. Not trailer or review.

My point was all the "disappointment" in Dead Island stemmed from it having (like DA:O with Sacred Ashes) one of the best game trailers ever made, and the game being NOTHING like the game trailer.  That's all.

Your personal experience with finding or not finding the DA:O trailer is irrelevant to my point.

Modifié par MerinTB, 08 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

I don't like open world games because they invariably give you a colorless character who wanders around interacting with mostly colorless NPCs.   Yes, I can create tons of "head canon" about it all, but I can do that much better writing my own stories.

Yes, there's a lot of freedom.  But there's no *role*.  There's just the *play*.  Any role you invent for the character is purely imaginary.

That's all roleplaying ever is.  That's exactly what I want from a roleplaying game.  Any roleplaying game that doesn't offer me that has failed.

No one in the world notices it or reacts to it. 

This is nonense.  The NPCs react to you constantly.  They don't react differently based on your role, but why should they need to?  Within that playthrough, your role is all there is.  The NPC reactions in that playthrough atre reactions to that role.

And in a subsequent playthrough, those NPC reactions are reactions to your new role.  That the NPC reactions are exactly the same is irrelevant.

The world is nearly as static as an MMO.

I love this about MMOs.  The only thing that keeps me from playing MMOs is their tendency to force interaction with other players.  If I could solo all of the time in MMOs, I would play them.  Forced grouping is the thing that ruins MMOs for me.  Not the static world.  I like the static world.  In fact, I generally find the world isn't static enough.  MMOS are constantly tweaking the game and changing the rules and patching the content, and that's just not something I want.  I want a static game.

Honestly, if Skyrim had a VATS-like system to let me avoid action combat, it would be just about perfect.

[Cultist]

Wider audience? We already got one - Dragon Age 2 - much wider audience. And that wider audience say "mediocre game" at best.
HUGE SUCCESS!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Regarding your aversion to TES games, Allan, I'll agree that Morrowind and Oblivion really weren't very good once you got a good look at them, but I think Skyrim is comparable to Fallout 3 in its quality and depth.  Skyrim's the best TES game since Arena, I'd say.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, if you want to carry this on and make it a bit more on topic, I'll give that a whirl.  En garde.

For my first volley, is nonlinearity a trait that most of the BioWare fanbase highlights as their driving factors?  IMO, games like BG, BG2, KOTOR, all the ME games, DAO, and DA2 are still pretty linear game experiences.  KOTOR ME 1/2, and DAO do allow some level of variation in how the player can proceed through the story, and while I don't agree with it I can understand why people feel BG is a nonlinear game due to the open ended exploration allowed in the game.  But if you compare these games to any of the Elder Scrolls games, or other ones like Ultima, Fallout or Wasteland, I don't think BioWare's games offered as much non-linearity as many of these other games.

I think you've misdefined linearity.

The plot in the game way well be entirely linear.  The player might be required to hit plot points A to F in order.  That makes the plot linear, but that doesn't necessarily make the game linear.

Whether the game is linear has to do with how many different options are available to the player as he plays.

By this measure, I wouldn't count BG, ME, or DAO as linear.  DAO, I think, can be compared to Ultima IV is its non-linearity.  Ultima IV had just the one big quest, of which there were many parts, with a linear section at the end.  DAO is much like this.  The only real difference is that DAO forces a linear section at the beginning, as well, while Ultima IV allows the player to complete parts of the main quest right from start, even without having completed the intended first part of the game (visit Lord British so he can tell you what you're doing).  This is a minor difference - it adds little to U4, and DAO doesn't suffer from its absence.  But in between, completing the main quest involves the player jumping through a series of hoops in whichever order he sees fit, with some of those hoops occuring in groups which need to be completed in sequence (you can't secure Redcliffe's armies without first finding the Sacred Ashes - you can't meditate on a virtue until you've found its corresponding rune).

If you look at the games as merely a venue for the telling of a story, then yes, BioWare's games look linear, but telling your story is not all the games offer.

I think the defining trait for BioWare games has always been the story.  Some may just love a D&D combat romp (which many BioWare games are), but I think it's the story that makes the biggest impact with those that prefer BioWare over other RPG developers.  Most specifically (especially recently) I'd call out the characters.  A lot of time spent in BioWare games is spent in the conversations.

Because of those conversations, I'd say that the defining trait of BioWare's games is the ability to play a detailed character.  BioWare's dialogue offers the player hundreds of opportunities to express his character design to see what the game does with it.

That's certainly why I play BioWare's games.

But the move to cinematics has gradually made it harder to do, and them voicing the character and hiding the dialogue options from us made it impossible.  I desperately hope you can find a way to give us back control over the PC's personality.

Conversations is a way for the player to define their character in a roleplaying fashion.

It used to be.  I'd like that back, please.

Aside from BG1, I don't know if I'd agree that BioWare's games are noted for any sort of non-linearity.

Which is why BG1 remains BioWare's best game.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MerinTB wrote...
I was being generous, but because you CHOOSE to not take advantage of choices in the game doesn't mean they aren't there.  You can't judge a game's linearity based on YOUR choices - because you know what the odds are of you making the choices you already made? 100%.  So any game, based solely on YOUR choices in one play and nothing else would be 100% linear.  So please don't make arguments based on what you chose to ignore or not take advantage of.

1. Romance is optional even in BioWare games and should be treated as such.
2.. BioWare games are the only ones that fully develop character development based on friendship/rivalry/romance option in their games. No other games did that. Just look at  Final Fantasy. Can you influence anyone's character development like you influence Anders in DA 2? 
3. Do you see any romance in a FPS like Medal of Honor and Counter Strike?

So please don't be bias.  

MerinTB wrote...
See my above answer.  You skipping single player doesn't make single player linear or not linear.  It's like saying that since you didn't eat the lemon pie it's doesn't taste like lemon because you detected no lemon flavor in the no pie you ate.

No, There is no story in some FPS like Counter Strike. There is only multi-player version. 

MerinTB wrote...

I did say that you can find tons of forum lists where you can pretty much find ANY game listed as "most disappointing."  But you list 3 "most disappointing" as proof of how linear, horribly cinematic, or how "bad in general" Dead Island is?

So you want to me dig over 50 pages of links  which may or may not be relevant at all, when you can simply google it by yourself? I've already taken the liberty to filter those 3 websites from tons of forum list, blogs and polls. You've asked for the list of 10 most disappointing games of the year, and I have given you that list.
 It' is bad. cinematic approach. Refer to 10 most disappointing xbox360 games for 2011 from PlanetXbox360's below. 

MerinTB wrote...

(because you listed the site) - PlanetXbox360's review gives it a 9.1, users there gave it a 9.3 - http://www.planetxbo...d_Island_Review - "We were sitting around the office wondering, “So…what if the game
doesn’t live up to the hype?” Well, now that it’s arrived, that
collective sigh of relief is settling in. This game is damn good, and
more than lives up to the hype."

This is from PlanetXbox360 site, the link that I provided to you earlier,  

"5. Dead Island: Many of you might be a little surprised to find Dead Island on this list. After all, Dead Island is a great deal of fun and the RPG elements point this take on the zombie genre in a new direction. That being said Dead Island was plagued with numerous issues upon release, and these problems were not corrected nearly as fast as they should have been. Given that Dead Island was suffering from such an abundance of bugs, there is no way that the developers were unaware of the situation. Dead Island was basically an unfinished project when it hit store shelves in late August, and this should have been considered an insult for anybody who paid $60 for it on day one. Even with a day one patch that fixed 37 unique problems, Dead Island still played like a broken game. The game’s “Bloodbath” DLC was delayed for over two months, while the development team worked on fixing the core game first. Hopefully Dead Island will serve as an example for future titles, encouraging game-makers to delay the title until it is fixed rather than releasing it while it is still broken."

http://www.planetxbo...0_Games_of_2011

MerinTB wrote...



My point was all the "disappointment" in Dead Island stemmed from it having (like DA:O with Sacred Ashes) one of the best game trailers ever made, and the game being NOTHING like the game trailer. That's all.
Your personal experience with finding or not finding the DA:O trailer is irrelevant to my point.

Then I have no concern for your point.. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 juin 2012 - 08:19 .