491 réponses à ce sujet

[legbamel]

One of the things I quite like about SWTOR is finding a random datapad lying on the ground, with or without the usual dead guy beside it, and "bounty board" type consoles that give you side quests you can power past or spend time doing. Some of them are more story related than others but I like to do them all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

This is nonsense.  Of course Skyrim gives you tools.  You can approach basically anything in any way you would like.  That's a pretty big tool.

Yes, the game doesn't create unique content for you, but you do get to see things like townsfolks creaming "This can't be happening!" if you sneak through a town killing people.  The game does react to you actions.

It doesn't react to your motives, but then neither does the real world.

I would describe Skyrim as being more reactive than necessary.  It's a nice touch, but it isn't needed to facilitate roleplaying.

And does the game react to that? Does the game do anything at all that's different from my Shape****ing 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?

Why would you compare across realities like that?  I don't understand this complaint at all.  Within each playthrough, the reactions make sense.  The Nords are more than happy to have you killing their dragons, regardless of why you're doing it.  You're not claiming that they don't react to you killing their dragons, because they do react to that.  To what do you expect them to react?

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.

But you do.  That's what gives you descriptions bite - that you can do things that express that character design.

What's the biggest complaint (or one of) about DA2? That your actions have no consequences.

I don't think those complaints are particularly well defined.  What's a "consequence" in this context?

I think DA2's biggest failure is that the player isn't actually allowed to control Hawke's actions, so whether those actions have consequences is moot.  If I didn't get to dcide what it was Hawke did, why would I care at all about the 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.

Faction systems have significat problems.  How do members of any given faction know how they're supposed to feel about you?  What if you know you weren't observed?  Allowing secrecy is something Skyrim does extremely well, and faction systems typically don't.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

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? 

Pssssh. Shape shifting Zarbloxian character concepts are too mainstream.

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, in DA2, your character design also has little to no consequences. That is to say, if you tried to play anything other than the Hawke Bioware wrote for you, you will be blocked at many turns. Like, say, playing an atheist. Or an evil blood mage.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2012 - 08:10 .

[Talonfire]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Faction systems have significat problems.  How do members of any given faction know how they're supposed to feel about you?  What if you know you weren't observed?  Allowing secrecy is something Skyrim does extremely well, and faction systems typically don't.

Nothing you do in Skyrim seems to remain a secret, though. Everyone in the world seems to know who you are, what you've done and who you're affiliated with based on all of the one line commentaries in the game, they just don't care.

New Vegas' faction system wasn't perfect, I would have loved if your faction reputation reset to what it was before comitting an action if you got rid of all witnesses (similar to how bounties are handled in Skyrim), but it was far better than not having one at all. The system added some teriffic features to the game that wouldn't have been possible without it. I liked having Legionaires track me down and ambush me if I kept working against their interests.

Modifié par Talonfire, 31 décembre 2012 - 08:41 .

[PinkDiamondstl]

Skyrim should have been made in 2003...with the artstye and all . And story...gameplay...
This game was trash...

Modifié par PinkDiamondstl, 31 décembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is nonsense.  Of course Skyrim gives you tools.  You can approach basically anything in any way you would like.  That's a pretty big tool.

You're right. My favourite part was when my female Nord seduced Ulfric as the dragonborn, and became Queen of Skyrim. My next favourite part was when my male imperial walked right into his throne room, use unrelenting force to knock him down, and executed him to become King.

It was great how the game-world reacted to these choices, by recognizing them and their significance.

Yes, the game doesn't create unique content for you, but you do get to see things like townsfolks creaming "This can't be happening!" if you sneak through a town killing people.  The game does react to you actions.

No, it doens't. It reacts to a preset type of physical behaviours, and only through the pre-existing lense of the developers eyes, like every single video-game out there.

You can sneak and get dialogue because the developers want you to have sneak related dialogue. But you can't play hide and seek with the children.

It doesn't react to your motives, but then neither does the real world.

The real world doesn't need to, because my actions are not limited. I could start a third rebelion, or a cult centered around the dragonborn, or replace Ulfric and declare myself High King (and true Emperor). Stupid or not, the range of possible actions available to me are quite large.

But in a game this isn't possible. My actions are limited by the designers. Multiple motives might be consistent with one action, but the very next action I take is also defined by my motives. I can't know in advance what actions the game will allow me to have (in DA:O, I had a Cousland PC who wanted to end the Theirin line and rule alone, but that was just impossible) and this is why motive becomes central.

edit:

The game has to tell me if a motive is possible from the start, otherwise I've played for 20 hours believing the game will let me do something only to find out it's impossible, which is very frustrating. It breaks my character.

Why would you compare across realities like that? 

You misunderstand. My point is that the level of reactivity I get with my fantasy alien is the same level of reactivity someone has with a Reguard. That's my litmus test for reactivity: if we both use our imaginations, is there equal support for my shapeshifting alien concept as your [insert lore appropriate character]?

I don't understand this complaint at all.  Within each playthrough, the reactions make sense.  The Nords are more than happy to have you killing their dragons, regardless of why you're doing it.  You're not claiming that they don't react to you killing their dragons, because they do react to that.  To what do you expect them to react?

It's not a complaint - it's my point. If I can create two widely different characters, act with different aims and motivations, and the game doesn not even acknowledge that at all, then the game is not reactive.

edit:

I think I understand the problem, Sylvius. It comes down to our personalities. I am not a passive person. I always try to change the things around me, actively. Games that say they allow for "freedom" but don't allow me (as the player) to be an agent for change feel as restrictive as linear games with a preset protagonist - because the very choice that I would make (change the world) is the one choice that the game doesn't give you.

But you do.  That's what gives you descriptions bite - that you can do things that express that character design.

No. What gives the descriptions bite is that the game reacts to those choices as those choices.

I don't think those complaints are particularly well defined.  What's a "consequence" in this context?

That opposite choices (release or imprison X). made with opposite motivations, lead to the same result.

I think DA2's biggest failure is that the player isn't actually allowed to control Hawke's actions, so whether those actions have consequences is moot.  If I didn't get to dcide what it was Hawke did, why would I care at all about the consequences?

No game allows you to do that.

Faction systems have significat problems.  How do members of any given faction know how they're supposed to feel about you?  What if you know you weren't observed?  Allowing secrecy is something Skyrim does extremely well, and faction systems typically don't.

That's a very good point. I hadn't though of it that way before. I really like this point!

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2012 - 08:44 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To be fair, in DA2, your character design also has little to no consequences. That is to say, if you tried to play anything other than the Hawke Bioware wrote for you, you will be blocked at many turns. Like, say, playing an atheist. Or an evil blood mage.

I don't go for evil, so I can't comment, but I'm an atheist IRL, and never felt that DA2 had me play a character that was inconsistent with my values as an atheistc.

And in general, I couldn't play DA:O without playing the Warden Bioware wrote for me, so this is not very different.

[Fast Jimmy]

I inherently disagree, based off the Origins alone with DA:O. I could play five different types of Dalish elf off the top of my head, but my Hawke feels the same, sarcastic, aggressive, diplomatic, Mage, non-Mage, male, female... I never felt like I was acting as someone with a different mindset or ideals. Maybe I only feel that way because I don't feel I am rightly choosing my dialogue with the paraphrased wheel, but regardless - Hawke always felt the same. Each one of my Wardens was their own person. To me, that's a world of difference. Skyrim allows this as well, but gives a truly 'blank slate' character, which is so wide open that it does allow your example of the alien dragon killer.

I feel like the strict feel of Hawke and the empty openness of Skyrim can meet in the middle with DA:O's Warden, but that's my personal taste.

[Joy Divison]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Apparently you are letting your hate get the better of you.  I never said or claimed you defended Bioware.  You assumed that, which is something you really hate, right?  

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.

Yeah, you've got a real objective and insightful analysis there calling it "crap" and equating the practice of actually giving a player a multitide of different dungeons with actual stories with a company that recycles its enviornments. 

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.

That's fine, but it's not "crap." It is something which tells you about the game world.  There are many examples of expositions such as this which do give you legitimate quests where you interact with NPCs and make decisions.  In denigrating all of it pointless "crap" that does not add to the gameplay, you are not describing Skyrim.

Yeah, most of the puzzles in Skyrim are kind of lame.  Then again, I can't remeber the last interesting one I encountered in any RPG.

[happy_daiz]

Oh, Joy, sometimes I just want to hug you.

I'm with you, though. In addition to books being completely different than codex entries, books in the TES verse have a lot more flavor. For instance, you can read anything from 'Confessions of a Khajiit Fur Trader', to 'The Pig Children', to 'A Dance in Fire', to 'The Lusty Argonian Maid', etc., etc. Each book, and even letters and journals, reflect the personality of the person who wrote it. The inflection in itself can be something that tells a story.

When you can stumble upon a dungeon, find information about what's happened there in one of the mediums I've described, read about the general feeling of hopelessness, despair, etc., it can be quite moving. My guess is that those who make an assumption about Skyrim's 'lack of depth', aren't reading the books. You don't need a quest-giver to go on an adventure...do you?

Modifié par happy_daiz, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:16 .

[LPPrince]

In Exile wrote...

But you can't play hide and seek with the children.

Well, actually...

[The Hierophant]

LPPrince wrote...

In Exile wrote...

But you can't play hide and seek with the children.

Well, actually...

[The Hierophant]

happy_daiz wrote...

Oh, Joy, sometimes I just want to hug you.

I'm with you, though. In addition to books being completely different than codex entries, books in the TES verse have a lot more flavor. For instance, you can read anything from 'Confessions of a Khajiit Fur Trader', to 'The Pig Children', to 'A Dance in Fire', etc., etc. Each book, and even letters and journals, reflect the personality of the person who wrote it. The inflection in itself can be something that tells a story.

I'm disappointed in you Happy. How could you leave out The Lusty Argonian Maid?<_<

[happy_daiz]

Oh, crap, I'm sorry. I can add it if you'd like.

OK, fixed.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[The Hierophant]

happy_daiz wrote...

Oh, crap, I'm sorry. I can add it if you'd like.

OK, fixed.

 i wasn't serious at all, but it does add more diversity to the examples Skyrim's literature.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:20 .

[happy_daiz]

^ Oh, I know, I didn't think you were, but you're right. There is such a vast range of writings in Skyrim and subsequent DLCs that it would be impossible to do it any justice by summing it up in just a few examples.

Total sidenote - I have a Wolf Queen addiction. I pick every variant of that book up literally every single time I see one. I like the story, but I also think they look great on my bookshelves. Hehe.

Back on topic...

Modifié par happy_daiz, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:25 .

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To be fair, in DA2, your character design also has little to no consequences. That is to say, if you tried to play anything other than the Hawke Bioware wrote for you, you will be blocked at many turns. Like, say, playing an atheist. Or an evil blood mage. 

I don't go for evil, so I can't comment, but I'm an atheist IRL, and never felt that DA2 had me play a character that was inconsistent with my values as an atheistc.

And in general, I couldn't play DA:O without playing the Warden Bioware wrote for me, so this is not very different. 

I didn't see it that way. In Origins, I got to choose where my Surana protagonist was from, what fraternity he thought was correct, his view on blood magic, and whether he believed in the Maker or not. If I have these choices, how are we limited in the same way with playing religiously Andrastian Hawke, who follows a specific and linear path without the amount of freedom provided in Origins?

[The Hierophant]

@happy_daiz - True, especially when there's books like "Immortal Blood" that give history/background to the quests, and characters without it being your standard codex info dump.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 31 décembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...

Apparently you are letting your hate get the better of you.  I never said or claimed you defended Bioware.  You assumed that, which is something you really hate, right? 

Oh, please. After your "have you even played the game comment" you followed it up with:

"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."

There's no reason to bring up Bioware's own design, given that I'd never referenced it, unless you were trying to argue that Bioware's standard is even worse, as a rhetorical response to my point. At least own up to it.

Yeah, you've got a real objective and insightful analysis there calling it "crap" and equating the practice of actually giving a player a multitide of different dungeons with actual stories with a company that recycles its enviornments. 

And there you go again! You literally say, in the same post, that you've never implied that I compared Skyrim with DA2, and then outright say that I've compared Skyrim with DA2!

I didn't provide objective analysis - I provided completely biased analysis, stemming from my own POV on what I like and dislike in a game. That's the whole point.

That's fine, but it's not "crap."

Yes, it is. It's absolutely valueless content to me. I would like it all scrapped for content I like more, so that I get more value for the money that I pay. It's no different than someone clamoring for PC VO to get scrapped.

It is something which tells you about the game world.

Yes, codex entries. But now they have a weight limit.

There are many examples of expositions such as this which do give you legitimate quests where you interact with NPCs and make decisions.  In denigrating all of it pointless "crap" that does not add to the gameplay, you are not describing Skyrim.

Yes, I am. I am describing the value of those quests, to me. That you feel some special need to defend this game is your deal, not mine.

Yeah, most of the puzzles in Skyrim are kind of lame.  Then again, I can't remeber the last interesting one I encountered in any RPG.

Hence "crap".

[In Exile]

happy_daiz wrote...
When you can stumble upon a dungeon, find information about what's happened there in one of the mediums I've described, read about the general feeling of hopelessness, despair, etc., it can be quite moving. My guess is that those who make an assumption about Skyrim's 'lack of depth', aren't reading the books. You don't need a quest-giver to go on an adventure...do you?

I am. I especially loathe in-game books. I don't want to read a book about the setting when I play the game; if I did, I would want a book on the setting. I want to see and experience those moments. I don't want to find a corpse and read her journal about how bandits killed her. I want to intervene when the bandits are harassing her, and have a multide of ways to solve the quest.

You don't need a quest giver, but to make it a video-game you need more than text.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I could play five different types of Dalish elf off the top of my head, but my Hawke feels the same, sarcastic, aggressive, diplomatic, Mage, non-Mage, male, female... I never felt like I was acting as someone with a different mindset or ideals.

How so? I ask becuase I felt nothing more restrictie than playing an elf in DA:O, where most of the racism doesn't exist (in part because your party is a miracle of enlightened and progressive individuals, for whatever reason) and you're just going around as an armed elf all over the place, especially in Denerim where apparently as a CE that's punishable by death after the alienage riots, without anyone saying much of anything.

CE was by far my favourite origin, but the game reacts so little to it, it's also the most dissapointing one I've played.

Maybe I only feel that way because I don't feel I am rightly choosing my dialogue with the paraphrased wheel, but regardless - Hawke always felt the same. Each one of my Wardens was their own person. To me, that's a world of difference. Skyrim allows this as well, but gives a truly 'blank slate' character, which is so wide open that it does allow your example of the alien dragon killer.

Which is what absolutely makes it valueless (re: Skyrim). Insofar as DA:O is concerend, none of my Wardens got to be their own person - because they all shared their lines with the very same reaction, so no matter how much my CE Warden wanted to tell Alistair off (Royal Bastard), Alistair always plays it as a joke. 

And there are clear was you can tell someone to f-off, without making it at all ambiguous. So the non-VO absolutely breaks the dialogue system for me, because I never have any idea what consistent voice I'm trying to maintain because I have no feedback on how NPCs will react to my dialogue.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I could play five different types of Dalish elf off the top of my head, but my Hawke feels the same, sarcastic, aggressive, diplomatic, Mage, non-Mage, male, female... I never felt like I was acting as someone with a different mindset or ideals.

How so? I ask becuase I felt nothing more restrictie than playing an elf in DA:O, where most of the racism doesn't exist (in part because your party is a miracle of enlightened and progressive individuals, for whatever reason) and you're just going around as an armed elf all over the place, especially in Denerim where apparently as a CE that's punishable by death after the alienage riots, without anyone saying much of anything.

CE was by far my favourite origin, but the game reacts so little to it, it's also the most dissapointing one I've played.

I agree there could have been more reactivity, but moments where it did shine through were big for me, personally. You being able to tell King Cailain about your brutality, or saying you don't bow to a shem/surfacer king (if you are a Dalish or Dwarven commoner) brought some cool echoes. Zevran, Wynne and Leliana asking about being an elf, even for just one line, and letting me respond was huge. 

On the other hand, I simply choose "Diplomatic option" for Hawke and he can express religious statements. I can express "agreesive option" and have him say "Shut up with your stalling! Answer my question already!" when I was the one who just pressed for more Investigate dialogue. 

Maybe DA2 did give me enough chances to express my own feelings... but I never got to choose what feelings were said. So those instances solidified Hawke's character... they didn't let me choose my own. If that makes any sense.

Maybe I only feel that way because I don't feel I am rightly choosing my dialogue with the paraphrased wheel, but regardless - Hawke always felt the same. Each one of my Wardens was their own person. To me, that's a world of difference. Skyrim allows this as well, but gives a truly 'blank slate' character, which is so wide open that it does allow your example of the alien dragon killer.

Which is what absolutely makes it valueless (re: Skyrim). Insofar as DA:O is concerend, none of my Wardens got to be their own person - because they all shared their lines with the very same reaction, so no matter how much my CE Warden wanted to tell Alistair off (Royal Bastard), Alistair always plays it as a joke. 

And there are clear was you can tell someone to f-off, without making it at all ambiguous. So the non-VO absolutely breaks the dialogue system for me, because I never have any idea what consistent voice I'm trying to maintain because I have no feedback on how NPCs will react to my dialogue.

I've always played the devil's advocate and stated NPCs don't always react how we intend them to with our voice, but I can definitely understand this concern. I think a tone selector in DA:O would have helped just as much, even without a voiced PC, but your choices shouldn't be inherently tied to tone. I want to be able to refuse a quest in a diplomatic way, or attempt to bribe someone without making a joke of it, or tell someone I will rip them limb from limb with a calm, soothing, logical voice to make it all the more chilling.

The design process of DA2 allowed us the resources to do this with the dominant tone, so that all dialogue options were recorded with it, but it didn't allow us control of when it was used, which was a miss for me.

Still... I still prefer choosing my dialogue than choosing my tone. Deciding WHAT is said, not how my character says it. Because I want to be nice after an NPC just died doesn't mean I want my character to offer silent prayers to the Maker. Just because I want to add humor to lighten a rough situation doesn't mean I want to make an incredibly horrifyingly inappropriate comment. 

My characters are defined by words. If you take those words away, you take my character away. That's how I feel, at least.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

In Exile wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...
When you can stumble upon a dungeon, find information about what's happened there in one of the mediums I've described, read about the general feeling of hopelessness, despair, etc., it can be quite moving. My guess is that those who make an assumption about Skyrim's 'lack of depth', aren't reading the books. You don't need a quest-giver to go on an adventure...do you?

I am. I especially loathe in-game books. I don't want to read a book about the setting when I play the game; if I did, I would want a book on the setting. I want to see and experience those moments. I don't want to find a corpse and read her journal about how bandits killed her. I want to intervene when the bandits are harassing her, and have a multide of ways to solve the quest.

You don't need a quest giver, but to make it a video-game you need more than text.

I feel similarly, except replace books for cutscenes. I want to play, not watch a movie. BioWare has become too kuch walk here, press A, watch a movie.

[BouncyFrag]

In regards to books, Skyrim can very easily be a bit overwhelming for those who must 'collect all things!!' (especially if you have gone through the Dragonborn dlc. So. Many. Books.). I did find this guy on youtube who does a great job of reading them. This first one I watched is absolutely brilliant and if I run across a skill book or something that looks interesting, I see if he has given a rendering of it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUYJwrFawQA
I've stopped picking up books now. Fiddling with bookshelves and all that is just a pain and if I want to read some books, I can just go to the mage college. I love Skyrim but that inventory management.....

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

It was Ray Muzyka who first said they were looking at Skyrim for inspiration.  (edit- here)

Modifié par Addai67, 01 janvier 2013 - 12:57 .