154 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

EntropicAngel wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm fine with the games I play being purely for fun. If they're engaging and thought-provoking (as DA has been) all the better --- but I'm not interested in games moving to educate or enlighten me. As EntropicAngel pointed out, there are books for that.

Weird how some of the gaming community expects their games to be of a high intellectual caliber akin to Plato or Tolstoy, while another percentage of us is clamoring for it to become pure smut. Can't it just be an entertaining and engaging piece of well-done entertainment?

Why can't it be entertaining and thought-provoking?

Anna Karenina is a deeply, deeply thoughtful book. Yet I also enjoyed it immensely.

By trying to be just "action," or "romance," or basically any genre that sells itself not on intelligence and insight but rather on stroking the emotions, you lose any...greater purpose for the work. Tolstoy isn't know for how enjoyable his books are to read--though they are. He's known for them making you think.

And, these things ARE called "classics," you know. All of the action, romance, etc. from the days of Tolstoy and Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson and so on has long since been forgotten. But works with a higher purpose still live.

I'm not by any means saying that I'd enjoy DA more if it was less intelligent -- but I am saying that it is what it is, and it's entertainment. It's okay for it to just be entertaining. It's okay for it to be what the developers mean for it to be.

There's just a subtle sense of snobbery that comes of asking video games to, as you said, be

about telling something, conveying some emotion or general idea, not just "fun."

Why does it need to be more than fun? Fun can be smart. Fun can be valuable in its own right. Hundreds of years from now, it's likely that no one will be quoting SNL or the Simpsons, but they were and are valuable simply as entertainment. Jobs are created, expression is happening, smiles are achieved.

History can't even be properly taught in a fantasy universe, and I'm not super interested in being moralized to by a video game company. Nor am I interested in stifling their integrity. But they know that what they make is for fun, even if it has the secondary benefit of being clever.

Long story short? If the people like romances and the writers like to write them, let there be romances and let them be entertaining for entertainment's sake if need be. There's no harm in giving the people what they payed for if it also serves the developers' needs.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:12 .

[Xilizhra]

EntropicAngel wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm fine with the games I play being purely for fun. If they're engaging and thought-provoking (as DA has been) all the better --- but I'm not interested in games moving to educate or enlighten me. As EntropicAngel pointed out, there are books for that.

Weird how some of the gaming community expects their games to be of a high intellectual caliber akin to Plato or Tolstoy, while another percentage of us is clamoring for it to become pure smut. Can't it just be an entertaining and engaging piece of well-done entertainment?

Why can't it be entertaining and thought-provoking?

Anna Karenina is a deeply, deeply thoughtful book. Yet I also enjoyed it immensely.

By trying to be just "action," or "romance," or basically any genre that sells itself not on intelligence and insight but rather on stroking the emotions, you lose any...greater purpose for the work. Tolstoy isn't know for how enjoyable his books are to read--though they are. He's known for them making you think.

And, these things ARE called "classics," you know. All of the action, romance, etc. from the days of Tolstoy and Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson and so on has long since been forgotten. But works with a higher purpose still live.

Edit: I realize, amusingly, I have chosen Anna Karenina. This raises a point about that story.

The entire story of Anna Karenina is, basically, about a woman who falls in love with a young man and ditches her older husband for him.

Yet, no one would tell you that Anna Karenina is a "romance story." This is how you do it: by making not the actual physical happenings the important part, or the "I lub u" dialogs a priority, but developing the people as characters. Anna Karenina is nothing more than an adulterer, to put it in ancient terms. But Tolstoy focuses so much more on her (and on the other characters) as a person that her story is more than her simply falling in love and running off with the younger guy. (can't remember his names as it's been several years since I last read it)

How can much of this be done when it's combined with having people choose their own characters and decisions, meaning that there's no particularly deep singular plot and character to choose from?

[Newschmoo]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like the romances, although they're not a centerpoint to me. It adds character and soul to the games. Something many RPGs are slowly lacking these days. What's the alternative? Simply pew-pew-pewing through dungeon crawls? That's why I don't care for Diablo and TES as much as Bioware stuff.

I am a relative newcomer to the DA games.  I agree, I really like the romance side to the games.  I haven't played a game with that kind of aspect before.  I personally felt it added to the story of both games.  Don't most stories tend to have an aspect of love (in some form) to them?  

Fable 2 and 3 allowed the Hero to flirt and marry another pixel but that really added nothing to the game/story apart from receiving gifts.  I don't know why I bothered really!

By the way I haven't played Mass Effect yet.  Terrible I know.

[brushyourteeth]

EntropicAngel wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

*snip*

That's a valid way to look at it; I suppose we'll have to simply disagree on this one. But I will repeat--you even said it yourself--that the common entertainment of today will not last.

You got me. Agreed. 

That said, though, I do think that the Dragon Age series (and Origins especially) is a work of excellence that may stand the test of time. The Mario Bros. games are pure fun and zero intellect, and they may stand the test of time simply for being an innovative new kind of "fun." But DA set a completely new bar in my opinion for being thought-provoking and haunting as well as entertaining. I was mostly just making the point that not everything in the game (like romances) needs to be deep in order for it to have value. 

[brushyourteeth]

EntropicAngel wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm all for telling an important message, but no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Everything (well, almost) can be done at once.

Sometimes "depth" is mistaken for being cynical and bleak though. A lot of game writers have been trying to say something "deep" in some games lately, and they end up pissing me off. Not because I'm not ready for it. It's just that there's a place for optimism and depth together. This is all beside the point though, but what was mentioned above about Assassin's Creed reminded me. Even DA2 suffered from some of this lack of idealism.

Um...DA ][ has both optimism & depth. Same as ME3. AC3 is another story.

In DA, you go from a refugee to "The Champion of Kirkwall:" the most influential person in arguably one of the most important cities in the Free Marches. That's optimism, any way you want to cut it.

In ME, you defeat the sentient spaceships that have been plaguing the galaxy for MILLENIA.

Thousands.

And thousands.

Of years. That's more optimism than possibly any other game I've ever played.

This is a pretty much perfect example of what D-Gaid's was saying recently on his tumblr. 

"that’s not to say that all those endings are exactly the same. There are as many variations in bittersweet’s flavor as there are types of gelato in an ice cream store. I guess it depends on what you think “bittersweet” actually means. To me, it’s important that there be some “sweet” in there… some victory amidst the ashes, so to speak, whether it’s being able to walk off into the sunset with your loved one or having won the day or what have you.
Have we always accomplished this? I imagine it depends on what the individual player considers an important victory. To some, winning the day is irrelevant next to knowing what happens to their character or their romance. To others, it’s the opposite. Which is inevitable— people will react more strongly to the bitter depending on what they were expecting, and ideally they have some kind of choice regarding what they consider personally important."

[BBK4114]

brushyourteeth wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm fine with the games I play being purely for fun. If they're engaging and thought-provoking (as DA has been) all the better --- but I'm not interested in games moving to educate or enlighten me. As EntropicAngel pointed out, there are books for that.

Weird how some of the gaming community expects their games to be of a high intellectual caliber akin to Plato or Tolstoy, while another percentage of us is clamoring for it to become pure smut. Can't it just be an entertaining and engaging piece of well-done entertainment?

Why can't it be entertaining and thought-provoking?

Anna Karenina is a deeply, deeply thoughtful book. Yet I also enjoyed it immensely.

By trying to be just "action," or "romance," or basically any genre that sells itself not on intelligence and insight but rather on stroking the emotions, you lose any...greater purpose for the work. Tolstoy isn't know for how enjoyable his books are to read--though they are. He's known for them making you think.

And, these things ARE called "classics," you know. All of the action, romance, etc. from the days of Tolstoy and Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson and so on has long since been forgotten. But works with a higher purpose still live.

I'm not by any means saying that I'd enjoy DA more if it was less intelligent -- but I am saying that it is what it is, and it's entertainment. It's okay for it to just be entertaining. It's okay for it to be what the developers mean for it to be.

There's just a subtle sense of snobbery that comes of asking video games to, as you said, be

about telling something, conveying some emotion or general idea, not just "fun."

Why does it need to be more than fun? Fun can be smart. Fun can be valuable in its own right. Hundreds of years from now, it's likely that no one will be quoting SNL or the Simpsons, but they were and are valuable simply as entertainment. Jobs are created, expression is happening, smiles are achieved.

History can't even be properly taught in a fantasy universe, and I'm not super interested in being moralized to by a video game company. Nor am I interested in stifling their integrity. But they know that what they make is for fun, even if it has the secondary benefit of being clever.

Long story short? If the people like romances and the writers like to write them, let there be romances and let them be entertaining for entertainment's sake if need be. There's no harm in giving the people what they payed for if it also serves the developers' needs.

I like this. If I want deep insights I read books. When I want fun/relaxation I turn to games. If devs are going to make these interactive "world" lessons- like futility of war? duh! - then they need to lable it "Interactive Soap Box" not "game" so that I can choose not to spend my money on it.  

[brushyourteeth]

EntropicAngel wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

This is a pretty much perfect example of what D-Gaid's was saying recently on his tumblr. 

"that’s not to say that all those endings are exactly the same. There are as many variations in bittersweet’s flavor as there are types of gelato in an ice cream store. I guess it depends on what you think “bittersweet” actually means. To me, it’s important that there be some “sweet” in there… some victory amidst the ashes, so to speak, whether it’s being able to walk off into the sunset with your loved one or having won the day or what have you.
Have we always accomplished this? I imagine it depends on what the individual player considers an important victory. To some, winning the day is irrelevant next to knowing what happens to their character or their romance. To others, it’s the opposite. Which is inevitable— people will react more strongly to the bitter depending on what they were expecting, and ideally they have some kind of choice regarding what they consider personally important."

Indeed. And it's a bit of a problem with this kind of thing: while a story may truly have a bittersweet ending, some people can't appreciate the sweet because it's less important to them than the bitter. And visa versa.

Agree. The most beautiful game ending I've ever experienced (and the only one that's ever made me cry like a patsy) was the DA:O ending where Alistair sacrificed himself for my Warden. Would I have been happier riding off with him into the sunset? Maybe, but the lack of sacrifice would have kind of cheapened the entire journey. The sense of loss made the victory more deeply felt.

In that sense, I was able to appreciate ME3's ending/s.

[rapscallioness]

I like the romances in BW games. And I also like boss fights in video games. Thought provoking is wonderful, but I also want to have fun. It is a game. Games should be challenging, thought provoking and fun.

For me, the romance sub plots make the game more fun. And depending on how the romance ties in to the main story--thought provoking.

[brushyourteeth]

rapscallioness wrote...

I like the romances in BW games. And I also like boss fights in video games. Thought provoking is wonderful, but I also want to have fun. It is a game. Games should be challenging, thought provoking and fun.

For me, the romance sub plots make the game more fun. And depending on how the romance ties in to the main story--thought provoking.

Good point!

[Pedrak]

Romance on Bio games gets exactly the attention it deserves, as a minor, skippable, amusing game feature, sometimes done well, sometimes done poorly.

On the BSN, on the other hand, the emphasis on it can be creepy and hard to believe.

I suspect if one approached Bio games with no access to the Web and no knowledge of the fandom surrounding them, the "LOL BioWare games are all about romance!" meme would seem quite odd and excessive to him. But shippers and fans and threads on thousands of pages about the looks of an alien fictional character and the dozens of topics begging the devs to let the player romance the PC's sister just make the amount of romance seem a lot bigger - and sillier - than it actually is in the games.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 novembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

But then people will complain even more about romance being necessary for content.

They didn't complain when Morrigan and Alistair (which I'd say were  were more important to the narrative than Leliana or Zevran, it was just extra ways to explore a character which tied back to the main plot and making them relevant.

Whim-satisfying (otherwise known as "fun")

is really the only thing romance is equipped to safely do in an RPG when you have numerous choices.

Except Bioware isn't the only people who make RPGs, branch out and play other games and you'd see otherwise.

[Xilizhra]

They didn't complain when Morrigan and Alistair (which I'd say were were more important to the narrative than Leliana or Zevran, it was just extra ways to explore a character which tied back to the main plot and making them relevant.

So you would say that all romanceable companions should have specific narrative ties that would be bolstered by romancing them?

Except Bioware isn't the only people who make RPGs, branch out and play other games and you'd see otherwise.

Please do tell if there are other RPG companies making plot-significant romances that actually match my sexual preferences in a way that I would find enjoyable.

[Sylvanpyxie]

The friendships, the romances, the rivalries, the subtle things to change their disposition, the funny moments when they cut you off for a stupid question... All of these things would be gone if romance was gone. It's all part of the same dynamic.

How's that now?

How is romance the be all end all of character interaction? Seriously. Explain it to me, I'm quite dense.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Back when I was first making the transition from table top RPGs to CRPG's, the "romances" had little interest/attraction. I think there was too much of "me" in the characters I was used to playing and therefore, it felt a little like "cheating" on my spouse.

As Bioware continued to evolve into a more cinematic, type game, I felt less and less personal investment in the PC's - more like I was directing a character rather than role playing one.

And at that point, the "romances" actually became something to explore - sort of like a romance subplot in a book or movie. In no way, was this character anything at all like "me" anymore, just an interesting person, placed in difficult situations, meeting fascinating people in order to achieve some worthy goal. At that point, some romances actually seemed to flesh out the world and the relationships.

As much as I enjoy playing Skyrim, and the freedom it provides to play anyway you want, the downside is the lack of meaningful relationships in game - hence the reason why none of my characters have ever "married" any of the available options in game. DA however, has given us such rich, and interesting characters, that it feels almost a disservice to the game not to have my PC develop some kind of romantic involvement.

However, I have to agree with what others have said, the fans here on BSN sometimes are just a little too enthusiastic about real and potential LI's for my tastes - but hey - people are different.