764 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You have to set canon. 

For each game, I agree.

I do not think that canon needs to be consistent across multiple games, however.

[DiegoRaphael]

If they want to appeal to broader audience, i hope the way they to do is by simple doing A BIG RECAP in the begining of the game. A 10min storytelling of the default settings in DA:O and DA2 to let the new player knows whats going on. More then this and they risk ruin the game.

Just that would be enough.

[Realmzmaster]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The choices are just for effect. 

I fundamentally disagree - I think that the consistency of story choices and (the illusion of?) a persistent universe are what make Bioware's games unique. Even if they're executed with a fair degree of restriction, like in ME3, it makes for a compelling experience when events and decisions are referenced later on precisely *because* we made them. 

You took the statement out of context. I was responding to a comment made by Dakota Strider. He commented on the example of choices I made that Bioware could make canon. He was stating that he did not like my particular choices as canon. I was saying I pick that particualr playthrough choices for effect. Bioware can decide what it wants to make canon.

[Allan Schumacher]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Those are good points, though I think any usage of the terms "accessibility" in this thread are more referring to "how appealing" a game is for a variety of people.

The COD games (since they get brought up a lot) aren't particularly "accessible" but based on their sales are evidently quite appealing.

No. That's a false deduction. A couple of CoD games were really good. But I wouldn't say that CoD games of late has been particularly appealing. I regard quite a number of other games much more appealing. But I still buy (and play) every CoD game, because I have a pretty good idea of what I'll be getting.  But not even that is the true reason I buy them. It's become a habit. It's like I have all the others, - why shouldn't I have the next?

They have achieved that. The automatic customer. Bethesda has achieved the same. I, of course, have bought every game since Morrowind, but I now mean they have achieved that on a wider scale, just like CoD.

The only false deduction occurring here is that when I say "the games are quite appealing" I mean for everyone.  Obviously the games are not appealing to you.  They aren't appealing to me either (last one I played was COD 4).

The mere fact that the game sells a lot is evidence enough that the game is appealing to people.  People wouldn't by the game unless it appealed to them in some capacity.  The fact that you and I may not care for the game doesn't mean that the game is not a popular game.

[Allan Schumacher]

wsandista wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A study conducted for PopCap shows 1 in 5 casual gamers are physically or mentally challenged.

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-disabled-gamers-comprise-20-of-casual-video-games-audience-57442172.html

Oh god. Realmzmaster I think you just gave some of the extreme hard-core gamers a talking point that will be used over and over to bash casual gamers.

Any "hardcore gamers" would be wise to not use this as ammunition in their arguments.  At least when I happen to be on.

[Fallstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You have to set canon. 

For each game, I agree.

I do not think that canon needs to be consistent across multiple games, however.

I have to disagree here. I think that ideally we would be able to import every single plot flag from Origins into DA2 into DA3 etc, but that's just not practical.

The solution to that is to set a canon for the earlier games, but I think that canon should be consistent. For example if they decide Alistair being king and Anora Queen is canon for DA3, it should also be canon for DA4 etc. If it isn't consistent across multiple games, then they lose some of the impact your choices have.

For example you make a choice in DA3 in which Alistair + Anora being on the throne somehow influences your decision. But if in DA4 they decide to change it so that Alistair didn't become king and Anora ruled alone, then that might negate the reason you made that decision in DA3. Now you might argue that doesn't matter to your PC in DA3, as far as he's concerned his reasoning is still intact. But what if people in DA4 look back to that decision in DA3 and go "Wow, that decision had terrible consequences, why on earth would he do that?" And the answer is that at the time, the world state was different, Alistair was also ruling (this could be anything, just using it as an example.)

If they do set a canon, making that canon vary between games would create too many problems.

[Vilegrim]

wsandista wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A study conducted for PopCap shows 1 in 5 casual gamers are physically or mentally challenged.

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-disabled-gamers-comprise-20-of-casual-video-games-audience-57442172.html

Oh god. Realmzmaster I think you just gave some of the extreme hard-core gamers a talking point that will be used over and over to bash casual gamers.

That makes alot of sense actaully.  Not in an 'intelligence' way, but in an ease of play way, someone who has a physical difficulty playing using standard control methods would naturally be drawn to a more easily controlled game (tho I do know some EVE_O players with physical disabilites, you can play that game with just a mouse, and no one can accuse it of being casual, the controls are simple, the game really really isn't)

Modifié par Vilegrim, 25 juin 2012 - 07:46 .

[Fredward]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A study conducted for PopCap shows 1 in 5 casual gamers are physically or mentally challenged.

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-disabled-gamers-comprise-20-of-casual-video-games-audience-57442172.html

Oh god. Realmzmaster I think you just gave some of the extreme hard-core gamers a talking point that will be used over and over to bash casual gamers.

Any "hardcore gamers" would be wise to not use this as ammunition in their arguments.  At least when I happen to be on.

Eh. Not to be presumptuous but as someone with a physical disability may I suggest slowly backing away from this topic? Rarely have I seen a topic like this go anywhere good. Actually I don't think I have EVER seen a topic like this go anywhere good.

As for canon, if it will ever be implemented, I also vote for a consistent one over multiple games. Also it's been mentioned a while back but Fallout doesn't really set a canon that's very obvious, they just move the following game to a place that whatever choices you might have made previously no longer matter. At least it seemed that way from the two I played. I don't think I like this idea for Dragon Age though.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 25 juin 2012 - 07:53 .

[svenus97]

I just want to know if it was worth it. Did DA2 + DLCs sell more than DA:O + Awakening + DLCs?

[Fallstar]

svenus97 wrote...

I just want to know if it was worth it. Did DA2 + DLCs sell more than DA:O + Awakening + DLCs?

I'm pretty sure they didn't sell more, but that's a very simple way of deciding whether or not it was 'worth it.' You also have to consider that DA2 had a far shorter development cycle than DAO. It also allowed Bioware to show EA that they can meet their requirements on a short development cycle. As far as I'm aware the relationship between them goes something like EA gives Bioware X money to make a game, and they have to make at least Y money from the game, in Z development time. I imagine since X and Z were relatively small for DA2 (Speculation! Speculation everywhere!)  that they were successful. So now EA hopefully is trusting Bioware to make DA3 with a higher X and Z, but with a higher Y requirement to boot.

Overall I think it was probably worth it for them. Not that I have the faintest idea really.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 25 juin 2012 - 08:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

DuskWarden wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You have to set canon. 

For each game, I agree.

I do not think that canon needs to be consistent across multiple games, however.

I have to disagree here. I think that ideally we would be able to import every single plot flag from Origins into DA2 into DA3 etc, but that's just not practical.

The solution to that is to set a canon for the earlier games, but I think that canon should be consistent. For example if they decide Alistair being king and Anora Queen is canon for DA3, it should also be canon for DA4 etc. If it isn't consistent across multiple games, then they lose some of the impact your choices have.

For example you make a choice in DA3 in which Alistair + Anora being on the throne somehow influences your decision. But if in DA4 they decide to change it so that Alistair didn't become king and Anora ruled alone, then that might negate the reason you made that decision in DA3. Now you might argue that doesn't matter to your PC in DA3, as far as he's concerned his reasoning is still intact. But what if people in DA4 look back to that decision in DA3 and go "Wow, that decision had terrible consequences, why on earth would he do that?" And the answer is that at the time, the world state was different, Alistair was also ruling (this could be anything, just using it as an example.)

If they do set a canon, making that canon vary between games would create too many problems.

Certainly if they were carrying over player decisions from one game to another, they would need a consistent canon.

Though I've explicitly called on them not to bother importing player decisions from one game to another.  Like the consistent canon, I think the need to accommodate those player choices unnecessarily constrains the design.

I think they should abandon both importing and the idea of a consistent canon across multiple games in the interests of making each game better.

[bEVEsthda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The only false deduction occurring here is that when I say "the games are quite appealing" I mean for everyone.  Obviously the games are not appealing to you.  They aren't appealing to me either (last one I played was COD 4).

The mere fact that the game sells a lot is evidence enough that the game is appealing to people.  People wouldn't by the game unless it appealed to them in some capacity.  The fact that you and I may not care for the game doesn't mean that the game is not a popular game.

Actually, what I tried to suggest here, is that CoD no more achieves all its sales due to just merit, but because of buyers habits. This is true of me and everyone I know who buy CoD games, except one.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 25 juin 2012 - 09:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You have to set canon. 

After the mountains of text I wrote on the previous page's post, this is what it is distilled down to. LOL I love the brevity.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

For each game, I agree.

I do not think that canon needs to be consistent across multiple games, however.

I have to disagree here. I think that ideally we would be able to import every single plot flag from Origins into DA2 into DA3 etc, but that's just not practical.

The solution to that is to set a canon for the earlier games, but I think that canon should be consistent. For example if they decide Alistair being king and Anora Queen is canon for DA3, it should also be canon for DA4 etc. If it isn't consistent across multiple games, then they lose some of the impact your choices have.

For example you make a choice in DA3 in which Alistair + Anora being on the throne somehow influences your decision. But if in DA4 they decide to change it so that Alistair didn't become king and Anora ruled alone, then that might negate the reason you made that decision in DA3. Now you might argue that doesn't matter to your PC in DA3, as far as he's concerned his reasoning is still intact. But what if people in DA4 look back to that decision in DA3 and go "Wow, that decision had terrible consequences, why on earth would he do that?" And the answer is that at the time, the world state was different, Alistair was also ruling (this could be anything, just using it as an example.)

If they do set a canon, making that canon vary between games would create too many problems.

Certainly if they were carrying over player decisions from one game to another, they would need a consistent canon.

Though I've explicitly called on them not to bother importing player decisions from one game to another.  Like the consistent canon, I think the need to accommodate those player choices unnecessarily constrains the design.

I think they should abandon both importing and the idea of a consistent canon across multiple games in the interests of making each game better.

While I passionately advocated doing away with import flags and developing a consistent canon, I shudder at the thought of inconsistent canon across multiple games. How would you track the history? If Bhelen can be king in DA3, but then Harrowmont in DA4... how would anything be considered managebale from a lore point of view?

Foopydoopydoo wrote... 

As for canon, if it will ever be implemented, I also vote for a consistent one over multiple games. Also it's been mentioned a while back but Fallout doesn't really set a canon that's very obvious, they just move the following game to a place that whatever choices you might have made previously no longer matter. At least it seemed that way from the two I played. I don't think I like this idea for Dragon Age though. 

 

Just because its not obvious and in your face doesn't mean it wasn't done. Shady Sands, the most obvious example, is canon through and through. As is having Dogmeat, as is recruiting Harold, as is fathering a child in New Reno. 

I'm not stating that every decision has to be explained and referenced to appease all previous choices... but at the same time, the team would be free to use previous plot lines, characters and outcomes as they please, without having a list of things they have to pay lip service to that they can't allow to interfere with the overall story, since others might have chosen differently.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 juin 2012 - 10:22 .

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

We've discussed this before in this thread.

Suffice it to say that although I agree that there's a fundamental tension between the demands that save-importing create and their impacts on the story's narrative branching, it's not insurmountable. Good writing and a degree of foresight can prevent the dissonance that occurs when decisions are trivialised a few games down the line (the point being that, at least for Mass Effect, there was no forward planning for the *main* plot, let alone the smaller threads).

But even if future titles need to diminish past ones' importance or limit the potential for huge branching stories with a location/protagonist switch ("we've heard rumours of a god-baby in [far off country x], but it's a long way from us!"), I don't care as long as there are enough small details to remind me that the setting really is responding to events and decisions of previous games.

Case-in-point: I was disappointed with the way the rachni plotline turned out. But it absolutely pales into comparison beside the avalanche of other fantastic ME3 references to ME/ME2, or the decisions in ME3 that have a chain of dependencies and variables stretching right back to the first game - I'm thinking of Rannoch, Tuchanka, Conrad Verner's sidequest bonanza, Balak, squadmate cameos...

Maintaining a consistent universe and creating situations, dialogue and characters that react to past player choices across games is something Bioware does almost uniquely, and they do it to a generally high standard.

To my mind the benefits of those references - however small - in engaging and immersing the player in the gameworld far outweigh the required restrictions in narrative. Where it works well, a three-game character or plot arc is immensely more powerful than a single narrative branch in a single game that is never mentioned again.

That doesn't mean some sort of 'setting reset', or disregarding player choices entirely by moving to a totally separate area, won't be required someday - and in that respect I'd support it if juggling player choices becomes impossibly difficult. But offering story variability in games with a persistent setting on the one hand, and setting 'canon' afterwards with the other, seems to me to be self-defeating.

We did discuss this earlier, but I refuse to accept the premise.

ME3 was not a good example of choice management. SPOILERS AGAIN.

Tuchanka and Rannoch were good quests, and had great stories. But their choice management was weak. 

Had a character killed or they died because of a previous choice? Doesn't matter - they are replaced by a less-awesome clone. Destroyed the cure or rewrite the Geth to not work with the Reapers anymore? Don't worry... the cure will automatically be generated and the Geth will side with the Reapers. 

Let the Council die in ME1, for either the good of the attack or the supremacy of the human race? Irrelevant. They will only show up for two seconds in ME2 and then completely ignored and replaced by new people in ME3. 

Saved the Collector Base to advance human techonology, or destroyed it to prevent Cereberus from devolving into less-than-human monsters? Doesn't matter and doesn't stop it.

And then the end - the end is a perfect example of poor choice management, seen throughout the whole game, AND bad story-telling.

If they can't handle choices within an encapsulated, set trilogy, where they stated their mission statement was to go all out on the third game and be able to do custom content for big choices but STILL failed... what hope does the DA franchise have, with a smaller fanbase, more nuanced choices and no set end or over-arching problem or enemy... what hope do they have?

[Fallstar]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

We did discuss this earlier, but I refuse to accept the premise.

ME3 was not a good example of choice management. SPOILERS AGAIN.

Tuchanka and Rannoch were good quests, and had great stories. But their choice management was weak. 

Had a character killed or they died because of a previous choice? Doesn't matter - they are replaced by a less-awesome clone. Destroyed the cure or rewrite the Geth to not work with the Reapers anymore? Don't worry... the cure will automatically be generated and the Geth will side with the Reapers. 

Let the Council die in ME1, for either the good of the attack or the supremacy of the human race? Irrelevant. They will only show up for two seconds in ME2 and then completely ignored and replaced by new people in ME3. 

Saved the Collector Base to advance human techonology, or destroyed it to prevent Cereberus from devolving into less-than-human monsters? Doesn't matter and doesn't stop it.

And then the end - the end is a perfect example of poor choice management, seen throughout the whole game, AND bad story-telling.

If they can't handle choices within an encapsulated, set trilogy, where they stated their mission statement was to go all out on the third game and be able to do custom content for big choices but STILL failed... what hope does the DA franchise have, with a smaller fanbase, more nuanced choices and no set end or over-arching problem or enemy... what hope do they have?

Our dev team is more bad ass. 

Seriously though, I really do hope they continue to import things. Its those little references that make the story feel more personal. Now I know DA isn't supposed to be a personal story, its about showing us what happens to the world of Thedas during the Dragon Age. But that doesn't mean they can't tailor that world to you. It's not always the big obvious things either, like whether your companions show up and give you a side quest that felt like its sole purpose was as a cameo. 

In MotA, when you're at the feast and talking to the guests, I was thrilled when I saw Bann Teagan standing over there and rushed over to talk to him. I also noticed the lack of Isolde, which wasn't particularly surprising considering she sacrificed herself about 7 years ago . What surprised me was that they had bothered to check the plot flags for a fairly minor character in a dlc. Now it's not like Isolde was the focal point of the dlc and getting the flags wrong would have spoilt it *cough* Witch hunt *cough*, so it surprised me that they bothered.

I'm OK with them showing us the world of Thedas rather than focussing on one character, but at least they can show us our Thedas, where the choices we made as previous protagonists have changed that world somehow. 

And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.

[David Gaider]

And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.

Correct. The question is not whether we will, but how we will.

[Firky]

^ That's cool news.

Not that I'd be too worried if import flags weren't extensive, but lots of import possibilities from DA2 and Origins spring to mind. Especially subtle moments. How would they be referenced in the context of the new game/setting/content? I'll just daydream about that for the rest of the day.

[LobselVith8]

svenus97 wrote...

I just want to know if it was worth it. Did DA2 + DLCs sell more than DA:O + Awakening + DLCs?

DAII hasn't sold as much as DA:O, and the negative reaction to DAII could hurt sales for DAIII.

[Fast Jimmy]

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.

Correct. The question is not whether we will, but how we will.

Well, for what it's worth DG, you'd have my support to scrap the import flags. 

Even scrapping most of the thorny plot points, and leaving a few choices that can easily managed would be acceptable. 

For... you know, what it's worth. 

[ElitePinecone]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The only false deduction occurring here is that when I say "the games are quite appealing" I mean for everyone.  Obviously the games are not appealing to you.  They aren't appealing to me either (last one I played was COD 4).

The mere fact that the game sells a lot is evidence enough that the game is appealing to people.  People wouldn't by the game unless it appealed to them in some capacity.  The fact that you and I may not care for the game doesn't mean that the game is not a popular game.

Actually, what I tried to suggest here, is that CoD no more achieves all its sales due to just merit, but because of buyers habits. This is true of me and everyone I know who buy CoD games, except one.

How on earth can you use "me and all my friends" as any sort of basis for sales trends? It might be habit for you and people you know, but extending that to the other, I don't know, ten - fifteen? twenty? - million people who buy CoD games is a little crazy.

The games are appealing, by definition, for the very fact that people buy them in insane numbers. Each successive game might be very similar to the last, but individually they are clearly attractive enough that customers are prepared to shell out their money. I *don't* think fans are so reckless that they'd, en masse, spend vast sums of money on a game without some judgement of its merits first. 

To suggest people buy sequels just out of habit doesn't seem to hold up - just look at the example of DA2. Word of mouth and value judgements do play an enormous role. 

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.

Correct. The question is not whether we will, but how we will.

Well, for what it's worth DG, you'd have my support to scrap the import flags. 

Even scrapping most of the thorny plot points, and leaving a few choices that can easily managed would be acceptable. 

For... you know, what it's worth. 

DEV DREAM CRUNCH PUNCH!!!!!!

I'm sorry, I had to.

Anywhoo since I have no strong feelings either way I wish the Dev team the best with whatever they decide. I would wish yuz guys could make everyone happy with whatever decision you make, but since this is the internet and that's impossible I'll just stick to vague well wishes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

While I passionately advocated doing away with import flags and developing a consistent canon, I shudder at the thought of inconsistent canon across multiple games. How would you track the history? If Bhelen can be king in DA3, but then Harrowmont in DA4... how would anything be considered managebale from a lore point of view?

Game-by-game.  Each game's lore stands alone.

If BioWare is serious about making each game as good as it can be, then they should be willing to entertain inconsistent canon wherever that would improve one particular game.

If DA3 needs someone other than Hawke to have been the Champion of Kirkwall, then that's what should be true in DA3's lore.  Compromising DA3 to satisfy the needs of DA2 is an abrogation of the best-game-possible design goal.

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.

Correct. The question is not whether we will, but how we will.

Well, for what it's worth DG, you'd have my support to scrap the import flags. 

Even scrapping most of the thorny plot points, and leaving a few choices that can easily managed would be acceptable. 

For... you know, what it's worth. 

DEV DREAM CRUNCH PUNCH!!!!!!

I'm sorry, I had to.

Anywhoo since I have no strong feelings either way I wish the Dev team the best with whatever they decide. I would wish yuz guys could make everyone happy with whatever decision you make, but since this is the internet and that's impossible I'll just stick to vague well wishes.

LOL Right in the naughty bits!

No, I don't have a dream about Bioware doing away with import flags, but I can only see it being a hinderance to them making a good story. If DG and company want to tackle that bear, more power to them. I just don't think its possible to please the prior choices of fans when there are so many variables to account for. 

Its going to either railroad everyone in the same conclusion, regardless of their choice, or its going to not be a large enough impact (a cameo or side quest) for how big prior choices were made out to be. I can't see any other outcome, based on how Bioware has handled these import flags before.

As a side note, I'm willing to bet DA3 gives this one last hurrah and, if there are anymore DA games or Bioware develops a new IP, we won't be seeing this in future installments. The reason why is the new generation of consoles - it will be a perfect opportunity for them to sweep the whole mess under the rug, even if you can import your save games from a previous console or there are choices still saved on the hard drives of PC players.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

While I passionately advocated doing away with import flags and developing a consistent canon, I shudder at the thought of inconsistent canon across multiple games. How would you track the history? If Bhelen can be king in DA3, but then Harrowmont in DA4... how would anything be considered managebale from a lore point of view?

Game-by-game.  Each game's lore stands alone.

If BioWare is serious about making each game as good as it can be, then they should be willing to entertain inconsistent canon wherever that would improve one particular game.

If DA3 needs someone other than Hawke to have been the Champion of Kirkwall, then that's what should be true in DA3's lore.  Compromising DA3 to satisfy the needs of DA2 is an abrogation of the best-game-possible design goal.

LOL And people wonder why they call you Sylvius the Mad.

I agree that the team should have every opportunity to tell the best story possible, but cannibalizing the story of an entire previous game is... a little extreme. People crave solid narrative structure. Its an innate craving our brains are wired for, sequential event data storage, things building off another in an order that can be digested. To disturb the already defined order of events to this extreme is dangerous. The primates will come out of the woodwork, throwing feces and beating their chests.

[Xewaka]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I agree that the team should have every opportunity to tell the best story possible, but cannibalizing the story of an entire previous game is... a little extreme. People crave solid narrative structure. Its an innate craving our brains are wired for, sequential event data storage, things building off another in an order that can be digested. To disturb the already defined order of events to this extreme is dangerous. The primates will come out of the woodwork, throwing feces and beating their chests.

The only thing that was imported from Baldur's Gate 1 to Baldur's Gate 2 was your character. That didn't seem to harm either.

Modifié par Xewaka, 26 juin 2012 - 02:22 .