7 réponses à ce sujet

[hangmans tree]

... or something along the lines.
I couldnt find a proper topic in which aI wanted to rise the subject.

I think most of gamers tire from the never ending A-B-C schematic. A lot of BW games suffer from this illness. You have to go to camp/race/faction A to gain their support, do some trivial (or not) tasks for them, say bye, move on. Onto fafction B... And when you have them all, and in the darkness bind them... well, unify all the forces from close and afar, you can take on the arch enemy, your Kismet, tackle any problem that is left - ending a war or achiving a peace (whicch may not be the same thing), ending world hunger etc etc.

I hope future game/s wont adhere to the same plot drama we've seen countless times.

The same goes for Villains. Meaning "HaHaHaHa - I kill you!"
Seriously? When was the last time the villain was smart and logical? Or practical? Must they be the epitomy of all evil? maybe they dont care about being eivil but have some specific goals? Goals that only justify the means?

Another thing is the scope. Why is it that the protagonist MUST be the center of the universe? I mean, we have to save the world, right? Oh, come on! Wouldnt it be greater and much more fun to work behind the scenes and, lets say, watch over the real heroes who are to save the world? To make sure they do their job our PC will go throgh different kind of obstacles and bargains to deliver Frodo unahrmed to that bloody Mountain!

History events as a backdrop, a currnet that we swim in.
I always have troubles to imagine that one man/woman have enough pull to influence politics and affairs of whole kingdoms/countries. Smaller scale events - history moves on like a tank, you cant stop it, but you can change the road signs or move those crates from the road.
To illustrate. You cant change the fact that the armies are comin, they will engulf the little town. Nothing will change that. But what will happen? Will they maim and kill? maybe just station autside city walls satisfied with contribution? Are they looking for something specific? Show them the way, lead away from the little town!
Alas, most of the scenarios end  as Last Bastion of the good guys. You have to rally the citizens and, guess what, man the ramparts and take the hostile forces on.

You won.
Do we really need that theme? You won is not the same as fullfillment. World's history, other events, heros fate may go their separate ways and still be a BLOODY GOOD ENDING.  I dont have to resort to killing the Boss and every single living (or undead) being on that last level to feel like I've won. Seriously, I dont.

What do you think, can we change that? Maybe with small steps at a time please?

PS
I waned to write something on DA2 and its washed out personal story of the main character. But this post is already too long methinks.

Modifié par hangmans tree, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:24 .

[EricHVela]

I think one should have to find the right combination of allies to win with some combinations being impossible (such as never being able to get all factions to ally with your protagonist). Each one has their strengths and weaknesses and will best or succumb to the enemies (of which, there is more than one group and they are also seeking to gain allies -- making it a manner of time before the attacks begin, ready or not).

I would have it so that when a certain group acquires specific allies, they will try to press their advantage against someone else (possibly everyone, possibly one group with certain allies including the player's forces). If the player's protagonist has thwarted that group before their attack by successfully claiming an ally they needed to being their attack, their criteria for a preemptive strike changes and will vie for a different ally.

I would make it so abandoning an ally is also an option, from the enemy factions and the player's faction. That changes the criteria for gaining that ally after someone else abandoned them -- likely something more difficult, but likely no longer available to the faction that abandoned them. That could be part of the strategy -- taking an ally only to make it harder for others to gain their support and abandoning them for another ally that would not have joined with the abandoned ally.

I would have it so some allies would not join if the faction has specific allies that they vehemently oppose.

Of course, I would also not do this for the next Dragon Age. I would do this for the final Dragon Age.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[hexaligned]

Well that's exactly what they tried to do with DA2. I'd argue that one person can in fact have enough power/charisma to influence entire nations, but I won't here. I applaud the effort of trying different story techniques out, you have to keep in mind the limitations of the medium though. It's not like a novel that's limited only by the authors imagination/talent, and even movies are less limited in that games also have to be interactive. I imagine it's a relatively difficult thing to pull off competently.

For those reasons I don't really look to games to have any real depth Or at least I don't look to AAA titles for that. From what I gather trying something new story arc wise in DA2 was generally ill-received, Personally I haven't been able to stomach DA2 for long enough to make it past the middle-ish of ACT2, but that's for game mechanic related reasons, rather than story telling ones.

Modifié par relhart, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[hangmans tree]

I couldn't stand DA2 in general, there was just to much bad points to it. But the final straw was the unsatisfactory and meaningless ending. Finaly when I forced myself to finish the game my torment was not rewarded, the oposite. To me the good points ended with Arishok as far as I remember.

I was so angry that I sold the game, having it sold for a fraction of price I paid angered me even more.. So I dont have many fond memories of DA2.
All I may say in favor is that BW tried to be innovative and it was a good idea, but the shift, for me, went it the wrong dierection.
The thing I didnt like was combat. It was so damn boring, repetetive, shallow... It instantly reminded me of Diablo or some fantasy MMO. I didnt like the change at all.

But I didnt want to talk about DA2, rather about the cornerstones of each production. They more or less rely on the same dogmatic features which should change. If you build a magnificent tower on a weak fundament the construction will fall.

I dont know why is that the companies like BW do it over and over again. Is it some 'must win' formulae? A beurocratic table form with check boxes that must be checked?

Thedas is a wonderful place, its just asking the creators to push the boundries of storytelling. Rich world that can be filled with amazing tales and adventures. They may be brimming with life (and death). But all we get is some flashy moves and empty, unconvincing cities, lack ofdirection and motivation... nothing to care about. I couldnt find that driving force which should push my avatar forward. I found the title lacking in that aspect. No driving force of storytelling.

When they write a story/script with choices and consequences they should ask a foundametal question each time - "why"?
You have to gather allies - why?
Allies should follow you - why?
You have to rescue the princess - why?
Even ME3 fails at some points when you confront a script, problem/event with that simple question.

Modifié par hangmans tree, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[thats1evildude]

Who plays a video game to be a supporting cast member?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:54 .

[hangmans tree]

thats1evildude wrote...

Who plays a video game to be a supporting cast member?

you didnt get teh point. The main story would cover the 'support' cast with 'real' heroes in the background... Have you seen (or red) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead? That is what I'm talking about - the closest analogy to my idea that springs to mind.

[thats1evildude]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is only possible because Hamlet came first and the audience is aware of its plot. You can't tell the story of "the guy operating behind the scenes" without knowing what happened in the actual scene.

That'd be like Arkham City being based on the perspective of Catwoman alone, with Batman only being glimpsed running around in the foreground driving the plot. It's a novel concept, but most people are going to ask why they're controlling Catwoman through the 'B' story when Batman is RIGHT OVER THERE dealing with the actual villains of the story.

"Why did we spend all this time getting into a slapfight with Two-Face when we could have played as  Batman putting the boots to Hugo Strange and lovingly cradling chasing down the Joker?"

Modifié par thats1evildude, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[hangmans tree]

That is a place for narration to cover, to tell the story of the NPC heroes inbetween our cutscenes, acts or whatever. R&G are Dead was only example of the type of an idea, I do not propose the same corellation between the two stories.
To work hard behind the scenes and to further others mission can be an epic battling adversities in itself.
Lets say the council in Rivendell takes place and you watch it from the shadows, Frodo & co. leave for Mordor. Elrond calls for you and gives you a task - you are to move ahead of em to scout for danger and eliminate all possible threats on their way. Or to sow confusion... or draw attention to help Fellowship travel unnoticed...
That (vaguely) kind of thing.

Modifié par hangmans tree, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:20 .