38 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Now, however, we're seeing more content in the journal.  Quest details the player can't get anywhere else.  Notifications of quests of which the player would otherwise never know.  This is, I think, a misuse of the journal.  The journal can store information, but it shouldn't provide information.

Personally, I think they (meaining the DA devs) should seriously think about getting rid of the codex (and journal) altogether and focus *intensely* on how they convey information in-game.  This may not be the optimal situation, but thinking about it may help discover a better layout.  And this isn't to say that I don't *enjoy* reading the codex entries.  They can be really awesome and very well-written.  The thing is, that sometimes the game is missing important context that you only really pick up by reading the lore in the codex.  

For instance, it would have been nice to get the info that Kirkwall in particular has a lot of exceptional residual hatred for the Qunari because of the exceptionally brutal Qunari occupation during the war (and, in fact, freeing the city from the Qunari is how the position of Viscount WAS CREATED) but that information is ONLY in one of the lore books.  This is an important and interesting subtlety that would have added a LOT to the conflict, but it basically never comes up.  I was baffled at some of the people you run into who are really anti-Qunari, thinking, what, did you walk here all the way from Seheron?

Personally, I kind of like the books in Skyrim.  They're actual, physical in-game objects.  You can read them, pick them up, sell them, or store them on bookshelves in your house.  If you're a lore-fanatic, you can create your own library.  But it doesn't pull you out of the game when you go to look at them, into some sort of weird "journal-space" where everything you see and hear and read is meticulously copied down.

There are a lot of opportunities here.  For instance, I think it'd be neat if the journal/codex entries were written from a first-person perspective, as if the PC actually copied this information down.  They could treat the PC's journal as an actual physical in-game object: assign it an inventory space, have occasions where you're deprived of it, let you pull it out to show people.  They could have NPC's who keep their own journals (or maybe the journal-keeping person IS an NPC.

However, there is one major purpose that the journal serves that you can't really get around: the "what am I doing exactly?" function.  If you step away from the game for even a few days and then come back to it, without journal and quest markers, you're lost.  Some sort of system like this is also necessary in a non-linear game where you can have multiple objectives going at the same time.  You're inevitably going to forget what some of them are.

However, there are opportunities to challenge the common thinking even there.  Is it REALLY NECESSARY to put quest-giver and quest-resolution area so far apart that you're going to forget that you even HAVE a quest to do something before you get around to visiting that area?  Is this a GOOD way to design a game?  Or what about having NPC's (as in Gothic) who actually *escort you* to the place where they want you to do something?  Why don't these NPC's give specific instructions about what they need you to do?  Or, conversely, why don't they leave you clueless and let you figure it out on your own? The writer of the Tortured Hearts module for NwN did this and I really enjoyed it--you would often have to talk people into giving you tasks, and almost all the time they never told you where to go or what to do in order to complete it.  You just wandered around and talked to people, and people would have actually interesting characteristics which would realistically lead your character to conclude, hey, maybe this person can help me with X.  It was really well done.  Also, there was a noticeable LACK of pointless unnamed NPCs in the game.

All things to think about.

[ScotGaymer]

I entirely agree with Sylvius on this one.

The Journal is to provide a recap of information we the player already know, information the game gives us in game (not with the Codex).
And the Codex is to provide ancilliary background information for the universe, not for game critical information.

I find it ironic with DA2 the Devs relied too heavily on the journal. And in ME3 the devs rendered it pointless and useless.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 22 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[DarkDragon777]

Solution: Don't read the journal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

motomotogirl wrote...

I love the Journal; it tells me exactly what I need to do to keep the story rolling along This ain't frigging Portal, people; I don't wanna have to figure that crap out!

And as long as the journal isn't the only source of that information, that's fine.  Good, even.

TJX2045 wrote...

The information is not essential to your enjoyment of the story and to the main story itself.  It's extra info for people who are hardcore into the lore.

I love lore.  I just don't want the journal to do my problem-solving for me.  DA2 had quests you wouldn't know you had without consulting the journal, and even your known quests often didn't provide mission-critical information except in the journal.

So you want to possibly go into a completely different part of the game where you cannot go back and finish the other quests you have instead of knowing which ones are side quests and which ones are main?  That's the first time I've heard anyone ask that.

Absolutely.  If my in-character decisions make me miss content, then I want to miss that content.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Now I don't care how unrealistic it is. I don't want to to be talking to 200+people I want to know who the job is from and have directions to them. On top of there being 200+ people, they also have routines and wander about which would make them a pain in butt to track and remember who you had and had not spoken too.

That's exactly the sort of thing I would like recorded in the journal.  If you met this guy previously, then you should know who he is, so having that recorded in the journal is merely labour-saving so you don't have to keep your own notes.  That's good journal content.

But imagine if you haven't met this character previously, and some other NPC told you to find him.  If that NPC gave detailed directions, then I would support having those directions in the journal.  But if the NPC didn't give detailed directions, how are those directions in the journal?

[Sylvius the Mad]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Solution: Don't read the journal.

I tried that in DA2, and I couldn't get out of Act I.  I'd refused Javaris and had no idea that Blackpowder Promise was even an active quest, let alone a mandatory one.

[Dakota Strider]

I would be fine, if the Journal were to give us information, that the average resident of the area would easily know. That way, our character can be informed, even though as a player, we are ignorant of the facts.

"Journal entry VI: When in Orlais, it is considered rude to to suggest that somebody needs to bathe. Orlesians take regular baths once a year, unless they happen to fall in the water. And one never suggests that an Orlesian try a toiletry item such as soap or deodorant, since they regard these items with the same repugnance as they do turnips."

But to introduce information in the journal that would not be readily found elsewhere, goes against everything I have ever learned about role playing games. If your character has not heard it, read it, or seen it personally, it should not be in the journal.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 22 juin 2012 - 08:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dakota Strider wrote...

But to introduce information in the journal that would not be readily found elsewhere, goes against everything I have ever learned about role playing games. If your character has not heard it, read it, or seen it personally, it should not be in the journal.

Exactly.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Solution: Don't read the journal.

I tried that in DA2, and I couldn't get out of Act I.  I'd refused Javaris and had no idea that Blackpowder Promise was even an active quest, let alone a mandatory one.

Ugh, yes, that was problematic in the extreme.  I think you could run into precisely this same problem on other quests like Shepherding Wolves or the whole business with the serial killer.  I remember repeatedly being baffled to discover, wait, this is a MAIN PLOT quest?!  HOW?!  or, more for that matter, WHY?!?  It doesn't seem to have ANY relation to ANYTHING else that's going on.

Of course, later on you find out that, oh, okay, they were introducing a major plot element, but boy is that ever a bass ackwards way to do it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then, as a labour-saving device, the in-game journal was born.  This kept track of information automatically so the player wouldn't have to.  It typically stored quest descriptions or relevant pieces of dialogue.  This wasn't new information - this was all content the player first saw in the game proper - but saving it in the journal saved the player the trouble of keeping his own notes.

That is where I think the journal should stop.

Agreed.  The journal should function as a highlighter of moment from the game's past, so that if I get called in to work three weekends in a row, that fourth weekend when I fire the game back up, I should be able to pop open the journal and know who I have talked to and what their reaction was.  It should be the thirty second of a TV show where they say "Previously on..." 

Now, however, we're seeing more content in the journal.  Quest details the player can't get anywhere else.  Notifications of quests of which the player would otherwise never know.  This is, I think, a misuse of the journal.  The journal can store information, but it shouldn't provide information.

In a perfect world, there should never be any new quest details in the journal.  Things like letters waiting and companions wanting to talk should be marked out on the map.  The quest log... that I'm ok with using as a guide post, provided it is summary of remaining problems, not a summary of remaining solutions.

Is the journal supposed to represent a storehouse of information available to the PC?  Or is it for the player?  Is it merely keeping track of information the game has already provided, or is it providing brand new information that cannot be found elsewhere?

Not to take the cheap way out, buuuut...  It can be both for the player and a resource that collects the character's experiences.  I'd like the journal divided up into sections "Quest Log."  "Hawke's Notes."  "World History."  "Bestiary." 

The Quest log would be a dry listing of objectives accomplished and hints at what might come next.  This way I'll remember what I did in the game after three days and five shifts at work.

Hawke's Notes would be purely incharacter, as if Hawke himself had written them.  I would give bonus points for "autodialogue notes"  where parts of that section reflected the comments Hawke had made in the game.  For example, when Hawke first meets Lady Bigbodice, if he flirts with her and she reciprocates, then I'd like the journal to say something like "Lady Bigbodice -- I bumped into her in the palace... she didn't seem to mind and I certainly wouldn't mind doing that again."  Where as if Hawke chastised her for having her boobs half out on the very steps of the Chantry, the journal would say "Lady Bigbodice -- I nearly ran into this harlot strutting around on the Chantry stairs!"

"World History" and "Bestiary" would be written as exerpts from historical books.  Things Hawke might have copied out of books of torn as fragments from a scroll.  One of my absolute favorite parts of the Mass Effect games was listening to the codex entries.  That was great stuff, but it was also stuff Shepard knew.  I'm ok with that being presented to me directly.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Rojahar wrote...

I agree that Bioware has been abusing the journal and codex features.  It's part of their "tell, but don't show" storytelling problem.  An example of this is some of the codex entries on what happened in the time jumps in DA2.

I think the first time I winced at DA2 was when the time jumps were communicated as codex entries.  Those begged to be long ass cut scene montages, even if they weren't voiced.  That was very jarring.

Those entires were definetly a misuse of the journal, but one I'm sure (as you suggested) driven by a time and resource crunch.

[PsychoBlonde]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
That was great stuff, but it was also stuff Shepard knew.  I'm ok with that being presented to me directly.

Just as a side note, Shepard didn't ACT like he/she knew the stuff in the codex entries, such as during the first Rachni encounter, which is LONG after you get the first Rachni codex entry, yet Shepard's reaction is CLUELESS.

This is more of a problem with the HUGE MASSIVE UNSCALABLE WALL between gameplay and story than a problem with the codex/journal per se.  If they do a better job of integrating them, I'm fine with the journal even the way it was in DA2.  I'm just not sure they'll DO this without first giving the journal/codex the ol' heave-ho.  Not sure how much invention there will be without necessity, her mother.

[PsychoBlonde]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I think the first time I winced at DA2 was when the time jumps were communicated as codex entries.  Those begged to be long ass cut scene montages, even if they weren't voiced.  That was very jarring.

Did you accidentally hit escape and SKIP the longass cut scene montage where Varric talks to Cassandra and then narrates the pretty pictures?  CAUSE IT WAS THERE.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Did you accidentally hit escape and SKIP the longass cut scene montage where Varric talks to Cassandra and then narrates the pretty pictures?  CAUSE IT WAS THERE.

Those were no good.  That's not a montage, that's an illustration.

[TEWR]

I agree with Sylvius. Information in the journal should only be information the player and PC have been exposed to. If I'm going to have a "rumor" in my journal, then I should at least be able to talk to Varric about that specific rumor.

If I need to go on a quest because it's mandatory, I should be given an in-game reason why it's mandatory. For Blackpowder Promise, it could be that the Tal-Vashoth threaten the expedition's success on the way out of the Deep Roads.

For Shepherding Wolves, Petrice could blackmail me into helping her in such a way that killing her or refusing to do the quest are not options. I mean, you could say "Why can't I just do x instead?" to her, but she'd give you a good solid reason why you'd be a fool to do such a thing and as such you'd be forced to help her.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I think the first time I winced at DA2 was when the time jumps were communicated as codex entries.  Those begged to be long ass cut scene montages, even if they weren't voiced.  That was very jarring.

Did you accidentally hit escape and SKIP the longass cut scene montage where Varric talks to Cassandra and then narrates the pretty pictures?  CAUSE IT WAS THERE.

I think what Rinpoche is referring to deals with the fact that all of the information you gather on the companions in the interim years is shown to the player through the codex entries.

While I don't think a long cutscene montage would've worked for DAII to showcase that -- because some of them happened without Hawke, but Hawke is the focus of Varric's tale -- I think they could've made for interesting side quests/other things.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 juin 2012 - 12:45 .