591 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

>hasn't played any Dragon Age games
>came to the forum to tell the writers what they're doing wrong

aces

[Lotion Soronarr]

wwinters99 wrote...

For a novel, I can understand a character failing. You had no other choice. But for a game built on choice to suddenly take that away from you, why bother playing?

Even the most linear of games involves player choice. If you get a game over on the final boss, do you give up? Or do you continue to fight?

How many games, in which the protagonist dies at the end, involve the player actually pulling the trigger one last time? Or it it always handled in a cutscene? Because the player would fight.

The player always knows a better way out. How many people playing DAII thought, look at my level, look at my gear, I've killed dragons and mages and templars by the hundreds, I could storm the Gallows myself. Instead, a cutscene will tell us it is impossible. Tell us that we have to fail for the good of art.

Bollocks.
The idea that if you can't "win" that you don't have "coice". It's redicolous.

You dont' have choice about EVERYTHING, but then again, you never did.

Hawke had such massive character/plot shields one could spot them from a plane.
Personally.. if I were making a game, I'd make it so that dragon outright MURDER you.

You dont' have to suceed perfectly at everything. That is uttelry irrelevant.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

LOL @ all the people attacking the OP for making a valid point. There's nothing wrong with wanting a heroic story. Why play a story and a character for hundreds of hours only to see that the decisions you've made have NO consequence at all?

And there's nothing wrong with wanting a different story.
But the OP (and you) make it sound like that your idea of a good story is the ONLY story that should happen and htat matters.

Why? Why not just have a grand war scene where Shep fights alongside his friends and the troops he's gathered, making sacrifices and casualties, but defeating the Reapers in the long run? Isn't THAT what Mass Effect is all about?

no.

[David Gaider]

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are written by different teams. Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on who you ask. Mainly it means that we're going to do different things with our storytelling.

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game. I would edge towards a preference that the player must feel like they've accomplished something, even if they had to pay a heavy price for it, but that's not required for a good story. Whether or not that's required for a good game is slightly different, if not entirely divorced from the story which is told in the context of that game.

Whether or not you feel we've made a good game, or written a good story... well, that's what opinions are for. The day that someone can state objectively what makes for a good game or a good story, we may as well shut down the Internet and send everyone home. Seeing as that's never going to happen, I'll just state that DA2 was intentionally trying to do something quite different with its story from DAO (whether or not you think it accomplished that notwithstanding), and DA3 will likely try something different from both. Well-intended advice aside, there is no way to please everyone with whatever we do, so my team will simply do our best and leave the judgment to you guys.

[marshalleck]

David Gaider wrote...

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game.

It's probably obvious to anyone who has actually spent the time to play a Dragon Age game (unlike OP) but it's still reassuring to see you say this.

[silentassassin264]

Xilizhra wrote...

In WWI, Germany played by the rules for the most part (didn't do anything worse than Britain or France were doing) and for all intents and purposes were the "good" side. A terrorist killed the leader of their ally Austria and they demanded that the terrorist was turned over to face justice. The allies supported the terrorism and were quite literally prepared to go to war over it (and did). The straw that broke the good guy, Germany's, back was when they sank the Lusitania. The Lusitania was an American cruise ship which on first glance might have seen like it was dirty and cheap. On second glance, the US was flagrantly breaking neutrality laws by sending military provisions on a civilian ship to give to Britain and then crying foul (even though Germany had all of the civvies taken off the ship before it was sank so there were no casualties). The "good" guys in the war ended up losing and being forced to pay for all the damage and debt caused by the war. That is like the Taliban killing Queen Elizabeth, England going to war with them, and somehow losing and being forced to rebuilt (or after all this, just build) all of the Taliban's stuff.

So... what was the excuse for Belgium? And wasn't Austria-Hungary a fairly tyrannical occupying power? The point of WW1 was that it didn't really have a "good" side.

Tyrannical occupying power is subjective and relative.  The Allies had Britain which tyrannically occupied half the globe and France that was doing their best to catch up.  And well Belgium was trying in Africa but they didn't have much.  

[Iakus]

David Gaider wrote...

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are written by different teams. Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on who you ask. Mainly it means that we're going to do different things with our storytelling.

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game. I would edge towards a preference that the player must feel like they've accomplished something, even if they had to pay a heavy price for it, but that's not required for a good story. Whether or not that's required for a good game is slightly different, if not entirely divorced from the story which is told in the context of that game.

Whether or not you feel we've made a good game, or written a good story... well, that's what opinions are for. The day that someone can state objectively what makes for a good game or a good story, we may as well shut down the Internet and send everyone home. Seeing as that's never going to happen, I'll just state that DA2 was intentionally trying to do something quite different with its story from DAO (whether or not you think it accomplished that notwithstanding), and DA3 will likely try something different from both. Well-intended advice aside, there is no way to please everyone with whatever we do, so my team will simply do our best and leave the judgment to you guys.

A story certainly doesn't have to have a "happy ending" to be good.  However, this very thread proves that the amount of bitterness in a bittersweet ending people are willing to settle for is very much a sliding scale.  And in a Bioware game, people have over the years come to expect a degree of a say in how the ending turns out.  What with the "choices that matter" and all 

Dragon Age Origins did that very well.  You could have your tragic end, your bittersweet end, even a relatively "happy" end all based on the Warden's chocies.  DA2 was...less so.  But still good enough (If Hawke and at least most of the companions could survive, as well as the sibling.  I call that a win)

What people I think are worried about is the protagonist getting caught in a double bind.  Or a Kobyashi Maru scenerio, where no matter what you choose, things will suck royally.  The most obvious manifestation being the unavoidable death of the protagonist.

Note I said "unavoidable"

[Pzykozis]

iakus wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are written by different teams. Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on who you ask. Mainly it means that we're going to do different things with our storytelling.

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game. I would edge towards a preference that the player must feel like they've accomplished something, even if they had to pay a heavy price for it, but that's not required for a good story. Whether or not that's required for a good game is slightly different, if not entirely divorced from the story which is told in the context of that game.

Whether or not you feel we've made a good game, or written a good story... well, that's what opinions are for. The day that someone can state objectively what makes for a good game or a good story, we may as well shut down the Internet and send everyone home. Seeing as that's never going to happen, I'll just state that DA2 was intentionally trying to do something quite different with its story from DAO (whether or not you think it accomplished that notwithstanding), and DA3 will likely try something different from both. Well-intended advice aside, there is no way to please everyone with whatever we do, so my team will simply do our best and leave the judgment to you guys.

A story certainly doesn't have to have a "happy ending" to be good.  However, this very thread proves that the amount of bitterness in a bittersweet ending people are willing to settle for is very much a sliding scale.  And in a Bioware game, people have over the years come to expect a degree of a say in how the ending turns out.  What with the "choices that matter" and all 

Dragon Age Origins did that very well.  You could have your tragic end, your bittersweet end, even a relatively "happy" end all based on the Warden's chocies.  DA2 was...less so.  But still good enough (If Hawke and at least most of the companions could survive, as well as the sibling.  I call that a win)

What people I think are worried about is the protagonist getting caught in a double bind.  Or a Kobyashi Maru scenerio, where no matter what you choose, things will suck royally.  The most obvious manifestation being the unavoidable death of the protagonist.

Note I said "unavoidable"

But Kobyashi Maru / Sophie's and Catch - 22 choices are far and away the most interesting and besterest choices you can make.

The problem and I think Dave eh?! (racial humour ahoy!) said it earlier is presenting stuff like one side of what would be a catch - 22 just the damned part (oh wait!) and then having a happy choice just means you've got a success and fail state, because one is demonstratebly better than the other. Even if the failure is more dramatic more enjoyable noone (generalisation) without going out of their (as in not making a alternative for a character but as a player) way is going to go for the worse option. Losing people at the end of ME2 is far more emotional and dramatic and just gosh darned interesting than basically pulling a surgical strike and laughing your way home. But you literally have to sabotage yourself to actually get that outcome.

Maybe it's just me but though I like grimdark it's not like I want fail on purpose to attain it since that kinda defies the point.

[Rune-Chan]

David Gaider wrote...

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are written by different teams. Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on who you ask. Mainly it means that we're going to do different things with our storytelling.

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game. I would edge towards a preference that the player must feel like they've accomplished something, even if they had to pay a heavy price for it, but that's not required for a good story. Whether or not that's required for a good game is slightly different, if not entirely divorced from the story which is told in the context of that game.

Whether or not you feel we've made a good game, or written a good story... well, that's what opinions are for. The day that someone can state objectively what makes for a good game or a good story, we may as well shut down the Internet and send everyone home. Seeing as that's never going to happen, I'll just state that DA2 was intentionally trying to do something quite different with its story from DAO (whether or not you think it accomplished that notwithstanding), and DA3 will likely try something different from both. Well-intended advice aside, there is no way to please everyone with whatever we do, so my team will simply do our best and leave the judgment to you guys.

In all honesty, I quite liked the fact that DA2 moved away from the whole "One man/woman must rise up and save the world". Although Hawke was the main protagonist, they weren't exactly a hero who made all things better. The actual overall story and the way it was told through Varric was a very clever method of story telling in my opinion.

The only downside was that it was, simply put, rushed. I felt that there was a lot more that the team wanted to do with it, but did not have the time to expand upon. Some areas could have done with being longer, fleshed out and with more variation.

I am pleased that DA3 will not necessarily try and do what's been done before, but I sincerely hope you guys get given enough time with this one to make it the best that it can be.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 27 octobre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Il Divo]

Pzykozis wrote...

But Kobyashi Maru / Sophie's and Catch - 22 choices are far and away the most interesting and besterest choices you can make.

The problem and I think Dave eh?! (racial humour ahoy!) said it earlier is presenting stuff like one side of what would be a catch - 22 just the damned part (oh wait!) and then having a happy choice just means you've got a success and fail state, because one is demonstratebly better than the other. Even if the failure is more dramatic more enjoyable noone (generalisation) without going out of their (as in not making a alternative for a character but as a player) way is going to go for the worse option. Losing people at the end of ME2 is far more emotional and dramatic and just gosh darned interesting than basically pulling a surgical strike and laughing your way home. But you literally have to sabotage yourself to actually get that outcome.

Yeah, I agree with this as well. Simply put, choosing tragedy when a clearly superior course is available feels artificial.

It would be like if in Romeo and Juliet, Romeo somehow knew that Juliet was still alive, but chose to drank the poison anyway, resulting in the same set of actions. Tragedy doesn't really work when we have the ability to simply autocorrect the problem"Pick your poison" works better than "Pick if you want poison". It's why the ME2 suicide mission failed on subsequent playthroughs.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 octobre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Darth Krytie]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Absurd.

I was a hero. Heroism mattered. I saved the galaxy from the Reapers.

What happens to me doesn't matter.

Say it with me: "what happens to me doesn't matter."

if what happened to you mattered, you wouldn't be out defeating a big bad. Everything you're doing is for the sake of something bigger than yourself. Completing that makes you a "hero."

Saying you need to live for heroism to matter actually genuinely pains me. it's absurd.

This is exactly how I felt about it. The journey matters more than the ending cut scenes.

[frostajulie]

Dave of Canada wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

Every GOOD story is about the hero who succeeds god David I could stand up and applaud you fo that post because it was spot on.

I'd like to introduce you to most critically acclaimed literary work, film and games--you seem to have missed out on them.

And I will pass on them if they make me feel as ****ty as ME3 did.

[frostajulie]

Filament wrote...

I don't play videogames to fail, that's what life is for

This is what people fear and why threads like this are made.  This is my own biggest fear. 

Lets face it for myself there is no upward mobility in my career I chose to do something I enjoyed at the expense of making money but I go to work happy most days.  Video games let me unwind and break free of who I am to become someone I will most likely never be and sometimes would not want to be, its why prior to ME3 Bioware games were so addictive.  Selfishly maybe this is why I want them to return to what worked. I am currently branching out in video games but have not found anything to compare to a Bioware game nothing that even comes close.  Sadly maybe I have outgrown Bioware maybe even video games altogether.

But I really don't want that to be true I have high hopes for DA3 low expectations but high hopes.  But I will be very careful reviewing the wisdom of such a game purchase and I will definitely wait to see the ending(s) prior to purchase.

I also do not play video games to fail.  Thats what life is for.
I also do not play video games to feel like a helpless punching bag.  Thats what alcoholic brothers ae for.

[frostajulie]

EntropicAngel wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

And I will pass on them if they make me feel as ****ty as ME3 did.

And yet, it was a good story.

Guess what? Shepard succeeded!

That is your opinion. a legitimate one and you are entitled to it.  I completely disagree.  My opinion is also not wrong.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Darth Krytie wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Absurd.

I was a hero. Heroism mattered. I saved the galaxy from the Reapers.

What happens to me doesn't matter.

Say it with me: "what happens to me doesn't matter."

if what happened to you mattered, you wouldn't be out defeating a big bad. Everything you're doing is for the sake of something bigger than yourself. Completing that makes you a "hero."

Saying you need to live for heroism to matter actually genuinely pains me. it's absurd.

This is exactly how I felt about it. The journey matters more than the ending cut scenes.

I don't think that even not suceeding makes one any less of a hero.
To try, to fight, to attempt the impossible - that is heroic in of itself.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is mostly boiling down to the idea of escapist vs. interpretive literature. I tend to find the latter much more interesting, because I usually find them more thought provoking.

Escapism has its place, but it's something I seek less frequently.

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Absurd.

I was a hero. Heroism mattered. I saved the galaxy from the Reapers.

What happens to me doesn't matter.

Say it with me: "what happens to me doesn't matter."

if what happened to you mattered, you wouldn't be out defeating a big bad. Everything you're doing is for the sake of something bigger than yourself. Completing that makes you a "hero."

Saying you need to live for heroism to matter actually genuinely pains me. it's absurd.

That's just it though.

It doesn't matter to you  what happens to your character.   And that's fine.   It does matter to other people though.  And they might prefer to pay a different price.

[frostajulie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This is mostly boiling down to the idea of escapist vs. interpretive literature. I tend to find the latter much more interesting, because I usually find them more thought provoking.

Escapism has its place, but it's something I seek less frequently.

Now that is a very good point. I play video games as a form of escapism I have since I was 9 yr old playing A link to the Past side by side with my BFF the boy next door.  If it is Biowares new mission to create games that are not escapist by nature but instead interpretive then I do need to look elsewhere for my gaming needs.  However if that was always their intention then it is not my fault I got so hooked on them as they were really quite good at creating escapist styled video games.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

But Kobyashi Maru / Sophie's and Catch - 22 choices are far and away the most interesting and besterest choices you can make.

The problem and I think Dave eh?! (racial humour ahoy!) said it earlier is presenting stuff like one side of what would be a catch - 22 just the damned part (oh wait!) and then having a happy choice just means you've got a success and fail state, because one is demonstratebly better than the other. Even if the failure is more dramatic more enjoyable noone (generalisation) without going out of their (as in not making a alternative for a character but as a player) way is going to go for the worse option. Losing people at the end of ME2 is far more emotional and dramatic and just gosh darned interesting than basically pulling a surgical strike and laughing your way home. But you literally have to sabotage yourself to actually get that outcome.

Yeah, I agree with this as well. Simply put, choosing tragedy when a clearly superior course is available feels artificial.

It would be like if in Romeo and Juliet, Romeo somehow knew that Juliet was still alive, but chose to drank the poison anyway, resulting in the same set of actions. Tragedy doesn't really work when we have the ability to simply autocorrect the problem"Pick your poison" works better than "Pick if you want poison". It's why the ME2 suicide mission failed on subsequent playthroughs.

But it's not about choosing tragedy or a "superior" course.  It's about choosing different outcomes.  What one person finds tragic, andother might be indifferent over.  And what one might find happy another wouldn't.  

Comparing this to books, plays, movies, and so on doens't really work because in those forms of media the character and the story are fixewd.  They progress towards a linear narrative with a predestined outcome.  In an rpg with player agency and chocies that (should) matter, that nonlinearity should have different outcomes.  "Better" and "Worse" could factor into it, but different at any rate.

Thus why I'm not saying there should be a "best" choice" but a variety of choices that each of us can decide for ourselves which is "best"  

This is why DAO is held up as a model for that, and ME3 is ridiculed for failing at it.  In one, you choose what you must sacrifice while in the other, the sacrifice is always the same.