491 réponses à ce sujet

[H. Birdman]

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

[LobselVith8]

H. Birdman wrote...

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

The narrative addressed the return of Alduin and the dragons, and the schism between the Legion and the Stormcloaks was handled quite well - neither Tulluis nor Ulfric turned into some ridiculous mobster if they became an antagonist to the player. I wish Orsino and Meredith was handled in a similar fashion. Not to mention how both the Legion and the Stormcloaks have valid points without either one being cartoon villains.

[The Hierophant]

H. Birdman wrote...

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

Skyrim had a simple coherent story, and the characters had straight to the point dialogue and clear intentions as the game practically spells out their motivations for you. 

It was stated plainly that Ulfric Stormcloak rebelled against Imperial rule by killing the High King of Skyrim in open combat for the throne(treason), because of the latter's loyalty to the Imperials. Ulfric and his followers don't like the Imperials because during the conclusion of the Great War the Imperials signed a treaty with the Thalmor(the Nords mortal enemy) that included the banning of  Talos worship(Nords like him alot) across the Empire, and that the Thalmor were allowed to enter Nord homes and arrest anyone who they suspected as an active worshipper without a warrant. 

The Imperials obviously don't like treason nor instability so the civil war begins. All of this info is given to the player from their guides at Helgen Hadvar/Ralof, and their family Alvor/Gerdur in the beginning of the game if the player bothered to listen.

It was stated in a prophecy, and then reiterated by the Greybeards that the dragon who tried to kill the pc in the beginning was Alduin The World Eater. Alduin the evil incarnation of Akatosh(Elder god of the Aedric Pantheon), is stated to bring about a draconic apocalypse, but only the Dovahkiin(pc) can kill him as only a dragonborn can kill Alduin. 

After Helgen your guide and their family petition you to bring Alduin's destruction of Helgen to the Jarl of Whiterun's attention, and send them some guards for protection from future dragon attacks. After killing your first dragon the guards along with the housecarl comment on the significance of your powers as they make you a dragonborn. The Greybeards bring you up to speed on the prophecy dealing with you stopping Alduin, and train you before you meet their boss Paarthurnax who's Alduin's former righthand man before he sided with the humans. The undead heroes of Soverngarde even help you fight Alduin. Mind you not everyone among the common populace know of Alduin's existance in relation to Akatosh nor his threat to the world. 

Plus i can't believe you contrasted DA2 to Skyrim in npc responses as mage Hawke could twirl a staff, and  use magic infront of Templar npcs with no comment whatsoever outside of cutscenes dealing with Cullen, and Meredith.

Say what you will about the companion's lacking depth, romance, dialogue, ai, bugs, but the plot was cohesive, straight to the point, and the factions were written with sensible characters who's differing goals lead to conflict without them being overexaggerated for drama.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 31 décembre 2012 - 02:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

LobselVith8 wrote...

neither Tulluis nor Ulfric turned into some ridiculous mobster if they became an antagonist to the player.

LOL I know this was an innocent typo, but I'm know picturing Ulfric dressed in a 1920's mobster suit with a Tommy gun. It. Is. Awesome!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2012 - 02:59 .

[Faust1979]

I prefer the Bioware style of cinematic story telling like they've done with Star Wars Kotor through the Mass Effect games and Dragon Age, but I will wait and see how DA 3 turns out

[Azzanadra]

 They want it to be like Skyrim?

So basically they want clubnky combat, a 10 hour main story, and lots of bugs and glitches?

No please.

But seriously, Dragon Age was supposed to be a spiritual sucessor to Baldurs Gate, why not expand on that?

[TEWR]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

neither Tulluis nor Ulfric turned into some ridiculous mobster if they became an antagonist to the player.

LOL I know this was an innocent typo, but I'm know picturing Ulfric dressed in a 1920's mobster suit with a Tommy gun. It. Is. Awesome!

I second this motion! This gets the TEWR Seal of Approval!

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 31 décembre 2012 - 04:55 .

[HiroVoid]

Azzanadra wrote...

 They want it to be like Skyrim?

So basically they want clubnky combat, a 10 hour main story, and lots of bugs and glitches?

No please.

But seriously, Dragon Age was supposed to be a spiritual sucessor to Baldurs Gate, why not expand on that?

They were separating the comparisons the closer Dragon Age: Origins came to release, and they pretty much stopped claiming Dragon Age to be a throwback to games like Baldurs Gate in DA2's marketing.  I think the only statement I remember is a dev claiming DA2 was going to be as good as BG2.

[Joy Divison]

In Exile wrote...

I disagree completely - or rather, I agree that there's a lot of crap around if you just wander, but the operative element here is "crap". Most of the dungeons aren't particularly interesting - they're not particularly unique (with some exceptions, like one barrow where you run into two NPCs and explore with them) with similar puzzles (those stupid statues you flip around or reskinned dragon claws). And all of the lore is the same thing: books. 

The NPCs are, again,mostly not particularly interesting (though there are memorable encounters, like the jester with the cart, a really funny meeting before you start the brotherhood quests). 

I look at a post like this and I have difficulty determining whether or not you actually played the game.

Every single dungeon - and there are hundreds - in Skyrim has its own story.  Bioware doesn't no longer even has the decency to give us different dungeons designs, let alone put "crap" in them that might make them actually interesting to explore.

Was there any "crap" on the Wounded Coast that told me anything about Kirkwall, the Free Marches, or Thedas?  Or was it all sand, rocks, and poorly textured plants?  The 4th time I had to go there I was rather tired of seeing it.  I've played Skyrim nearly 1000 hours and there are still new interesting things I see that give me some perspective of the game world that I missed even though I traveled in the general area a dozen times.  In the Reach, you'll wander into a dead body floating in the water with a couple arrows in the back.  It might seem like unremarkable "crap," but if you take the time to look around a bit, examine her belongings on the shore, and read her journal it gives a new player who knows none of the lore of TES (like me) poignant exposition about the region I am traveling through.

It's the little touches like that, the "crap," that make the game world vibrant, interesting, and worth actually getting to know.  Bioware has a reputation for excellent storytelling, but after trudging through dull, lifeless, and static Kirwkall and the recycled surrounding areas, I think it's just that, a reputation. 

Modifié par Joy Divison, 31 décembre 2012 - 06:44 .

[Bfler]

artemis73 wrote...

If there is one thing I can say Dragon Age 2 did better than Skyrim was the voice acting. My God the voice acting in Skyrim was just horrible with the exception of Ulfric Stormcloak who had a great voice actor which is a shame because he was a wonderfully written character among really mediocre/awful ones. I was surprised to encounter such a great character in Skyrim after I met really boring ones with just bad voice acting. But then again I don't play Skyrim for its story and characters but for the combat and open world so I like the game anyway.

Ulfric is voiced by the guy who played e.g. Buliwyf in 13th Warrior, so I think he has some experience with nordic chars.

And I don't think voice acting in Skyrim is that bad. After all there are actors like Max von Sydow and Christopher Plummer, which are the Crème de la Crème of the movie industry . 

Modifié par Bfler, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:37 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

I hope DA3 is a lot more like Skyrim. It needs to be to be relevant and not be boring as heck.

[Addai]

Bioware former owner makes a throwaway marketing statement designed to capitalize on Skyrim's popularity by getting Dragon Age's name out there. People go on for pages and pages as if what he said actually means anything. There's someone who still takes Bioware marketing schlock seriously? Amazing.

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Bioware former owner makes a throwaway marketing statement designed to capitalize on Skyrim's popularity by getting Dragon Age's name out there. People go on for pages and pages as if what he said actually means anything. There's someone who still takes Bioware marketing schlock seriously? Amazing.

Ummmm... Aaron Flynn is not the former owner of anything. He is the manager of Bioware and pretty much the head honcho of the division now that the doctor's are gone. So for him to say ANYTHING about a Bioware game, it is going to analyzed, dissected and reviewed, especially when it is not the first time such a statement has been said before by Bioware's shot callers. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Hopefully this means there'll be ENB SERIES

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

H. Birdman wrote...

Sorry, DA2 was bad--no argument there--but it made an attempt at a coherent story. That's more than you can say for Skyrim. Bad dialogue and unclear motivations are one thing, and warrant criticism. But hardly anyone in Skyrim even acknowledged the existence of the massive existential threat that supposedly was driving the main story. It would be like if hundreds of 50 foot tall demons were attacking Kirkwall, but 75% of the population--including many major characters--was oblivious.

Right except everyone seems unaware that at night the entire town's population and then some turns into crazy murderers and "guard impersonators". Any onlooking guards won't even grab some popcorn. and then there's Mage Hawke tossing fireballs in Cullen's face.

Really? Comparing a believable coherent world to DA2? and that's before even taking into account the size and scope of things.

[Brockololly]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Hopefully this means there'll be ENB SERIES

Hopefully if DA3 is indeed next gen, then it would look good enough on a technical level to not need modding like ENB.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ummmm... Aaron Flynn is not  the former owner of anything. He is the manager of Bioware and pretty  much the head honcho of the division now that the doctor's are gone. So  for him to say ANYTHING about a Bioware game, it is going to analyzed,  dissected and reviewed, especially when it is not the first time such a statement has been said before by Bioware's shot callers. 

But its still a marketing shtick sort of statement at this juncture when they're not showing anything or saying much of anything. Name dropping that your game will be like Skyrim, a super popular and incredibly well selling game, doesn't mean much as of yet until they start showing the game. All its doing is having anyone that hears that statement go "Oh! I liked Skyrim, maybe I'll like this new Dragon Age thing!"

Modifié par Brockololly, 31 décembre 2012 - 06:28 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Frankly I think you naysayers should just be glad that Bioware is chasing Bethesda's droppings instead of COD's

[Iosev]

The major difference that I see between a Bethesda game and a Bioware game is that Bethesda tries to immerse players into a world, whereas Bioware tries to immerse players into a story. While both companies can try to do both, I think that emphasis in one aspect makes it difficult to do the other.

For example, focusing on a world usually means more freedom to do what you want, which in turn means freedom for the player to not pursue the main story. In contrast, focusing on a story usually means that a bit of freedom must be restricted in order to maintain a particular pacing and direction.

Bioware also puts an emphasis on companions, and that undoubtedly has to put limits on creating a massive, explorable world.  Obviously resources is one major limit, but having each companion chime in uniquely for quests (even small side quests) probably means that Bioware has to limit the places the player can visit (and in turn, quests that the player can undertake).

As someone who enjoys variety, I appreciate that each company has a different approach, rather than trying to create similar games.  When I'm in the mood for playing in a world and doing what I want, I'll play a Bethesda game.  When I'm in the mood to take part in a story alongside an ensemble of companions, I'll play a Bioware game.

Modifié par arcelonious, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:36 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
I look at a post like this and I have difficulty determining whether or not you actually played the game.

Ye gods, it's almost like people play video-games, like different things about them, and then reach different conclusions!

More importantly, I really hate it when someoen assumes that just because I think a feature is poor, I think that some other game did it better, or am defending that game. No. You're wrong.

Every single dungeon - and there are hundreds - in Skyrim has its own story.  Bioware doesn't no longer even has the decency to give us different dungeons designs, let alone put "crap" in them that might make them actually interesting to explore.

Their own "story" is usually bland, and you're getting it by reading a few codex entries books about it. That's not inspiring design. Kind of like what Bioware does in some of its own dungeons.

And Bioware's dungeon design is garbage - but it's almost like I never
even mentioned that once, and instead pointed out what I disliked about
Skyrim. But that would be absurd in a thread about Skyrim.

Edit:

More importantly, Bioware does "purpose for being there" quests. So it's like the first barrows quest - if there's actual lore there you sometimes get it  mostly via codex entries and sometimes via dialogue (cf. the Sacred Ashes Quest) but usually the story is the plot quest that brings you to the dungeon. Which is lame. The world should have more colour then that.

In the Reach, you'll wander into a dead body floating in the water with a couple arrows in the back.  It might seem like unremarkable "crap," but if you take the time to look around a bit, examine her belongings on the shore, and read her journal it gives a new player who knows none of the lore of TES (like me) poignant exposition about the region I am traveling through.

It's the little touches like that, the "crap," that make the game world vibrant, interesting, and worth actually getting to know.  Bioware has a reputation for excellent storytelling, but after trudging through dull, lifeless, and static Kirwkall and the recycled surrounding areas, I think it's just that, a reputation. 

That's because not everyone finds this kind of feature interesting, or apealing. I don't want to read a codex entry journal entry about a corpse. I want a legimate quest, where I interact with characters and make decisions. I like environmental puzzles. I like multiple paths instead of tunnels.

Great - you like finding this crap. Good for you. Not everyone does. There isn't some objective standard of what flavour someone should find appealing.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:50 .

[legbamel]

I definitely agree, arcelonius. The trouble with Skyrim is that, as someone new to the series, I don't know the lore. There's enough story to get rolling but after thr first couple of hours you're left hunting through this sprawling world for the next step. There's no sense of urgency and no one notices if you literally spend weeks wandering around in the wilderness killing sheep and fish or if you've been literally wading through tableware in some dungeon for days.

I wouldn't say the VAs were bad, just that there wasn't enough interaction or story to make me care about 99% of the people in that world. I was more upset at losing my pack horse when Lydia died than at losing a supposed friend. It got to the point where I didn't care who won the war and, in truth, I went so long between story quests that I rather forgot which side held what opinion.

[In Exile]

scyphozoa wrote...

One thing people don't seem to get in this thread is how Skyrim and Dragon Age are and will always be fundamentally different. Skyrim is designed to facilitate emergent narratives. Essentially, it is giving the player dozens of tools to roleplay with, but not forcing the player to participate in any of it. 

It's fan fiction. And not everyone likes restrictive fan fiction. I don't mind an emergent narrative - but Skyrim gives me absolutely no tools to do it. Because there is no meaningfully way to interact with the world and toys outside that box.

So while some people see an empty world or an empty character, I see a world that I have imagined and created a place for myself. My Redguard is an anti-thalmor spy who has infiltrated the Stormcloak Rebellion, and I will have spread anti-thalmor sentiments all across Tamriel.

And does the game react to that? Does the game do anything at all that's different from my Shape shifting Zarbloxian from the planet Xenu five that is there as a vehicle to capture dragon souls as a way to cure the energy shortage on its homeworld?

I can make up whatever narrative I want in Skyrim - even my insane alien plot. Because the game never reacts. It doesn't do anything that give my character descriptions actual bite.

What's the biggest complaint (or one of) about DA2? That your actions have no consequences. Well, Skyrim is a game where your character design has no consequences. There are scripted reactions to certain common player actions (like stealing or murder) but there isn't (say) even a faction mechanic like New Vegas.

To be fair, to really get into emergent narratives and the confines of a world like Skyrim, you really have to know a lot about the lore. I can say that much about my redguard, because I know that as of right now in TES lore, Hammerfell is the only country to successfully push-back the Thalmor. If you don't have a bit of knowledge and appreciation for the extensive TES lore, you're not going to value or care about the world that you are playing in. And yeah, most of the lore and history you learn in the game world does come in the form of reading books.

Not really. You can make up insane plots like that (the Zarbloxx alien). It's just that not everyone finds a lack of reactviity fun.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2012 - 07:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That's because not everyone finds this kind of feature interesting, or apealing. I don't want to read a codex entry journal entry about a corpse. I want a legimate quest, where I interact with characters and make decisions. I like environmental puzzles. I like multiple paths instead of tunnels.

To be fair, some of those discoveries can turn into quests if you find the right details.  It's a sort of environmental puzzle as quest-giver.  That would seem to create even more decision-making opportunities for you beyonf just having someone give you an explicit quest and then have you make decisions after you've been specifically told to do so.

That's something I think BioWare should absolutely tru to emulate - make the process of finding and accepting quests more of an active process by the PC, rather than a passive one.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
To be fair, some of those discoveries can turn into quests if you find the right details.  It's a sort of environmental puzzle as quest-giver.  That would seem to create even more decision-making opportunities for you beyonf just having someone give you an explicit quest and then have you make decisions after you've been specifically told to do so.

Oh, without a doubt. And items exist in the world without (at least usually, I think) the quest giving having to spawn them. Bestheda is leagues above Bioware in terms of quest design in this regard.

That's something I think BioWare should absolutely tru to emulate - make the process of finding and accepting quests more of an active process by the PC, rather than a passive one.

I think Bioware is too married to fixed cameras and long scripted scenes. It's not that those scenes (in my opinion) don't work well - they do, sometimes. But not all quests need just a conversation. In the same way that Bioware is talking about experiment with having the PC respond to party banter (or stay silent) they should experiment with differnt ways of giving quests.

One thing that's absolutely stagnated for Bioware over the last 10 years (and it really shows) is quest design. They're doing much the same thing the did in KoTOR.

[Iosev]

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, legbamel. Bioware's focus on immersing a player into a story usually provides a more focused approach, and for many players, that focus is not only a positive element, but it is an element that people appreciate and expect from a Bioware game.