114 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

ElitePinecone wrote...

There might not even be much difference between the total content or amount of dialogue in DA2's prologue compared to, say, the Noble origin story - but qualitatively the latter just seemed so much more complete and deep.

Hm... I think this is a bit of an unfair comparison. The situation from the DA2 prologue and any of the DAO origins was completely different. DA2's is much shorter with only a limited area to move around in, in addition to the sense of urgency involved. In all of DAO's prologues/origins you could take your time, explore all of the areas, talk to various people at your leisure, do side quests and so forth.

The chief difference I think is that all of the DAO origins give you a taste of your character's life before joining the Wardens, whereas in DA2 you are just dropped into turmoil. Keeping with the human noble example, it would have been the same if that started on your character being awoken during the night when Howe was attacking the keep. The same disconnect with the family would have been there, I think.


Btw, I feel that I should add that I actually did like the concept of escaping from Lothering. I felt it was a great way to connect the two games, and take a sidestep from DAO into DA2. I'm hoping that DA3 (or whatever the next thing is called) will have a similar side step and we won't be propelled into Orlais (or "someplace French" as Mike called it) without some sort of connection to the previous game. While my Hawke is running from the Darkspawn, my Warden was working to find a cure for Arl Eamon .

Modifié par nightscrawl, 13 août 2012 - 12:24 .

[LTD]

Eh, I loved the idea. DA II has many things that ****** me off to no end. Time skips are not one of them. I love being able to sense/imagine all this..history I've missed. Storytelling without telling it! It's relatively little used in cRPGs.

Modifié par LTD, 13 août 2012 - 01:48 .

[ElitePinecone]

nightscrawl wrote...

The chief difference I think is that all of the DAO origins give you a taste of your character's life before joining the Wardens, whereas in DA2 you are just dropped into turmoil. Keeping with the human noble example, it would have been the same if that started on your character being awoken during the night when Howe was attacking the keep. The same disconnect with the family would have been there, I think.

Btw, I feel that I should add that I actually did like the concept of escaping from Lothering. I felt it was a great way to connect the two games, and take a sidestep from DAO into DA2. I'm hoping that DA3 (or whatever the next thing is called) will have a similar side step and we won't be propelled into Orlais (or "someplace French" as Mike called it) without some sort of connection to the previous game. While my Hawke is running from the Darkspawn, my Warden was working to find a cure for Arl Eamon .

Oh, certainly - I just think that trying to elicit sympathy from the player in the prologue is a lot harder in DA2's case than Origins', particularly when DA2 doesn't even have the comparison between the idyllic and the chaotic that DAO managed with many - all? - of its origins (where an ordinary day turns to disaster). 

The characterisation of even a few introductory scenes is the difference between "character [X] dies, and I feel sad, because I know their relationship and history with [player character], and we had this cool conversation, and other characters talked about them" and 'character [Y] died, and I barely know who that is, but the game has all these stirring violins and it's telling me I'm meant to be feeling sad now".

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't, but I realized that the game did such a fantastic job of letting me think choices were available that didn't actually exist, but then leading me along the way to choose the actual path the game went along.  Also going with the first playthrough, if the first playthrough isn't interesting, the chances of there being a second playthrough becomes significantly less.  All the creative reactivity in the world doesn't mean much of people don't feel compelled to give it another whirl.

I think for me, its about at least providing an illusion of choice in certain situations, even if a truly unique consequence to a varying choice isn't there. The Walking Dead games do a pretty good job of this- with a few exceptions, certain events happen no matter what, yet the game does a decent job of giving you the illusion of choice. Like in one case you have the choice to try and save or kill a character, yet no matter what, the character ends up dying. But despite the character dying no matter what, the game does a good job in the aftermath of this where your relationship with 2 characters can change depending on whether you opted to try and save this character or not.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The issue with the metagaming in question is why does this situation with the siblings really bother people.

I personally think it can be often be drilled down to "because I'd like more content" (which is what the player would get if the game properly delivered the ability to choose which sibling died).  Am I wrong with this?  Is there something else more fundamental that I am missing?

For me, I'd agree that you want the initial playthrough the best. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much unique content is tucked away if the game isn't enjoyable for replays. But I also want extra or unique content that doesn't feel generic or one size fits all. Because nowadays, you can easily just fire up youtube to see what the alternative is to a certain choice if you want. Or replaying the Bethany/Carver death, it would have been more interesting to me if even if they end up dying the same way no matter what, the game gave you some illusion of choice in maybe trying to save the one sibling that gets ogre slammed versus helping fight with the surviving sibling. Try to save the dying sibling (who'll still die no matter what) and from then on maybe Leandra views you more favorably, while your relationship with your other sibling takes a hit. And vice verse if you choose to fight with your sibling- then your mother maybe holds some resentment towards you for not trying to save your other sibling's life. Like The Walking Dead choice I mentioned earlier- its not just a dialogue choice, its an actual action that people will react to in the future.


Basically, I think its a reality that people will metagame or go to youtube to see the different consequences to choices. Maybe even in their initial playthough of  a game. And its when people see that extra content is one size fits all or generic (like ME2 and Ash/Kaiden sharing the exact same dialogue on Horizon) that it feels like your choices are cheapened going forward. You're not going "Oh I can't wait to play this again making different choices!" You're going "Eh...why am I bothering if all the choices end up in the same place with the same reactivity no matter what."

The player has to feel like the choices they're making are meaningful and with DA2 I rarely felt that way because you had too many instances where events were railroaded or choices ignored or swept aside. Yes, it would be nice if more games had huge amounts of unique content like The Witcher 2, but just providing a better and more convincing illusion of choice would be a good start.

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You're right that people don't immediately get amnesia, but I'm of the variety that the first playthrough is of paramount importance.  Deus Ex successfully convinced me that if I wanted to, I could have sided with UNATCO.  This helped contribute to me absolutely loving the game's story and considering it one of my favourite game experiences of all time. 

But if you'd really wanted to side with those UNATCO guys in that first playthrough, that would have been a problem, yes?

The illusion of choice is all very well, but it's a lot more fragile than providing actual choice.  It can actually be worse than more open railroading if the illusion is shattered - if you think a choice is being offered to you and then the game seems to snatch it away, that's more jarring than if you were never presented with the idea.

You also need to take into account that some peoples first playthroughs may not be their first complete playthrough.  Quite often I realise I don't particularly like this character and end up restarting.  When I do that I'll likely switch classes too.

[Allan Schumacher]

But if you'd really wanted to side with those UNATCO guys in that first playthrough, that would have been a problem, yes?

Given the circumstances that the game uses to still force you down the non-UNATCO path, probably not. I'll never know though.

[CaisLaochach]

I loved the idea of the time skips tbh.

I thought the execution would have benefited a lot from some degree of evolution to Kirkwall, new shops, districts changing, etc, not just that statue in the Docks.

As a concept it's more interesting than the (admittedly enjoyable) enemy attacking, tool up and off to war, play it through.

The idea of a developing character and city having multiple adventures rock.

[Karlone123]

I'm indifferent to the time skips. I have no positive or negative views on it.

[Korusus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The issue with the metagaming in question is why does this situation with the siblings really bother people.

I personally think it can be often be drilled down to "because I'd like more content" (which is what the player would get if the game properly delivered the ability to choose which sibling died).  Am I wrong with this?  Is there something else more fundamental that I am missing?

For the same reason that the other emotionally forced plot point introduced early on in ME3 that then becomes a major foundation for how the rest of the games story plays out is equally bothersome to people.  Why have emotionally forced plot points at all?  DA2 is particularly egregious, not just because of the early sibling death, but because of all the other emotionally forced plot points in the game.  After every time skip there's an emotional connection developed between Hawke and all the NPCs in the game that isn't reflected in how I feel as the player becuase guess what...I was never privy to any of it because of the time skips.  Hawke has formed those emotional attachments, not me as the player.  Compare that to the emotional attachments one develops with DA:O or BG2 companions that forms just as a result of playing with those characters and learning them and getting to know who they are as individuals.

It's the difference between how I feel as the player vs. how the character feels.  Part of the charm of that KOTOR moment is your visceral reaction as the player.  That has way more meaning.  

[nightscrawl]

Korusus wrote...

After every time skip there's an emotional connection developed between Hawke and all the NPCs in the game that isn't reflected in how I feel as the player becuase guess what...I was never privy to any of it because of the time skips.  Hawke has formed those emotional attachments, not me as the player.  Compare that to the emotional attachments one develops with DA:O or BG2 companions that forms just as a result of playing with those characters and learning them and getting to know who they are as individuals.

With the follower relationships specifically, I feel this has a dramatic impact. By the end of the game we have known these people for seven years (two three years skips + all of the combined playtime), or more, with Aveline being our longest friend. This is a significant  length of time, and it should be significant for the characters and myself, but it doesn't feel that way. There will be times where Anders or Fenris specifically (these two can be the most volatile) will say something and I will think "don't they know me at all after 4/7 years?"

I do feel an attachment to them, and I feel that I know them. But for the most part I don't feel that they know me. However, I think some of this might be a failing of the dialogue system interacting with the friend/rivalry system, and basing companion reactions on the f/r alone and not your actual actions/dialogue choices.

However, regarding the comparison to DAO, the significant difference was in the follower plots. As DG talked about them at PAX East...

Q: I was more curious about character interaction. It was way awesome in Origins, but so-so in Dragon Age II.

A David: The actual volume was the same, but how we divvied it up was quite different. A lot more interaction in DA2 was in the follower plots, the followers had like three big plots each in DA2. Meh... because you had the time jumps right? While DAO they had like one small quest, so more of the interaction was just talking to them at camp, that sort of thing. I think looking at the reactions to the two games, I think a lot, some players, felt they that didn't have agency over their interactions with the followers; because there was less of them and because we had this feature that "told you" when they had new dialogue. People felt like they weren't responsible for initiating that dialogue. So, OK, cool. Hearing that, it's like "OK, agency is important." So I think what we'd like to do is bring some of that interaction back into just talking to them at the camp, giving your follower a kiss if you want, and asking them questions; but also still having as much of the character arc growth for each follower that we got, that we did get in DA2. I think that there is actually a middle ground. And I just want to give the players a little bit more of a feeling that they are the ones in charge of their relationship.

In the end, while I do like to be able to strike up a conversation whenever I want, instead of just receiving an on-click generic line, I much prefer the more involved quests like we got in DA2.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 14 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[Rawgrim]

The timeskips didn`t sit well with me. It felt as if i was being dragged\\pushed along a storyline, and that left me feeling that it wasn`t "my" story at all. It did its bit to make me feel as if i was playing someone elses character. The fact that every single character wore the excact same clothes, and stood in the excact same spot (in Kirkwall) made it seem like nothing at all had happened in 7 years. Whatever the idea about the timeskipping was; it could have been executed better. Still...kudos for trying something new, i suppose.

[SirGladiator]

I'd say that time skips depend more on their execution, than a blanket 'they're good' or 'they're bad'. There were certain aspects of it that were good, and certain aspects that were really done poorly. The lack of meaningful impact on events is one of the things that I didn't like. For example, it really didn't matter what you did, not only was your sister kidnapped by the templars (obviously there is a worse alternative as well, which makes even less sense) but you arent allowed to make ANY effort to rescue her. No matter what you do down in those Thaigs, no matter what you find or don't find, you get the exact same amount of money for it, you have the exact same house, same furniture, etc. I want to have cooler, fancier furniture and more money if I find more rare stuff down there, I want to rescue my sister, etc. basicly I want the time jumps to have some kind of effect, based on how I played the game, rather than it being exactly the same every time, because then you really are just 'losing time', you're suddenly in a position that you did not control at all, you had no say whatsoever over it, everything 'just happened', regardless of everything you'd done up to that point. I did not like that. Make our choices meaningful, so that when the time jumps happen different things can happen, and I'll like that.

[Dessalines]

I enjoyed the time skips, and the use of times in games. It adds realism to the game, and makes it a bit more epic.
I think they can be done better. You only got a few lines of what you missed which in the time skips which made the conversation realistic, but as the player it made you feel cheated. I enjoy reading the codexes, but why not during the load screens have a one page mini comic book of an adventure you missed during the time jumps.
For romances, it just needs to be fine tune.
Time skips for romances snafus should be handled in Day One Dlc Date packs that people are always asking for, and willl never get. If you want to play virtual house, then you get to have that, and Bioware makes money. The extra scenes don't change the overall story, so no one should feel cheated by having to pay for them, especially since people ask to pay for them once a game comes out.

[Jamie9]

As a fan of the Assassin's Creed series, I do enjoy seeing characters grow over time.

It just needs to be better handled than it was in DA2. Improved, not removed.

[CarlSpackler]

Jamie9 wrote...

...I do enjoy seeing characters grow over time.

It just needs to be better handled than it was in DA2. Improved, not removed.

I'm little late to this discussion, but I very much agree with this.  Conceptually timeskips are great, they just need to handled carefully.