177 réponses à ce sujet

[Rhiens VI]

Good analysis, OP, but the choice you are suggesting in the title is somewhat false. One can argue that Warden's story can be as personal as players decide it to be. By thinking their own motives into it, because Warden is a blank slate.

In my opinion, a more correct choice would be: "I affect the world as an ultimate instrument of fate" versus "The world affects me and my story, while remaining less affected by my actions". The first, "chosen one" kind of story is geting really, really, really old for me. I wholeheartedly vote for the second.

Modifié par Rhiens VI, 14 février 2013 - 08:46 .

[Foolsfolly]

Wulfram wrote...

What's personal about Hawke's story? Mum dies, Hawke looks sad for a couple of minutes. Then back to Qunari/Mage-Templar stuff that has nothing to do with you really.

At least the Warden's personality and character is occasionally relevant because they make meaningful choices.

In neither case is the the personal story particularly prominent, but what there is, is better in DA:O.

Doing a really personal story would require a pre-defined character, which I'd rather not have.

Exactly. Just because the game's scope is smaller than Origins doesn't make it a personal story.

For one the more personal story you go in games the more on-rails you end up. When I think of personal stories I think of games like The Walking Dead, Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto 4, and even a few of the Assassin Creed games all tell stories of a single person on a set course to the end of their story. And they have rather mundane goals that are usually "Help my friends" and "stay alive."

I'm positive you can do a personal story RPG and it be fantastic (TWD shows choices about things like who gets what meager rations can be tougher than most of the Big World Changing Choices RPGs allow) but Dragon Age 2 isn't a personal story.

There's a few reasons why it isn't. It was close to being one but what really shanks that idea in the back is the fact that there's nothing 'real' there.

Let's look at one of the more common elements in DA2's storyline that many people could relate to. There's the immigrant story at the beginning. A small war torn family arrives in a strange city knowing next to no one there. This is relatable to many and we can't go 2 years without seeing exoduses of refugees from some damn where in the world.

BioWare did not set up a world where we can watch and enjoy and make choices within the struggles of being alone in a new city. About finding where the next meal was coming from. About hiding from authorities while we break into store fronts so mom can eat something. In fact the entire "Refugee" part of the story took place off camera. The game jumps over it like it jumps over many other aspects of the story.

Yeah Hawke has a mom but so did most Wardens'. Yeah Hawke's mom dies but so did most Wardens'.

What did the game say about Hawke? What did the game have to say about Kirkwall? About the Chantry? About the Qunari?

Nothing.

It's just three chapters which end in Hawke having to go into the Deep Roads, having to end the Qunari attack, and having to kill Orsino and Meredith. These things have to happen and Hawke either growls about it, makes a funny face, or tries to be noble about everything inbetween.

[bEVEsthda]

[quote]Megakoresh wrote...

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...
Straight out of her head: She wanted to find her brother.
[/quote]

Ah, you figured it out, didn't you. Yet the game did not allow you to do that, did it? And besides, didn't you argue that the problem with DA2 was that it was BioWare's character, the Hawk?
[/quote]

I somewhat described the process earlier. You have to consolidate things. It's usually possible. Remember my word "enough"? Think I underscored it too.
Anyway, the game did allow it. If you make for Redcliff to be the best clue, lead, to her brother. Which it might be. The point is she instinctively seeks help from other, allied nobles. To find her brother too.

One of the things that make it work, is that you can read through all the possible responses at your own leisure. During this time, there is a mental process which synchronizes your character with one choice. Makes that choice the character's. It's not just a choice, there is also some adaption. It's all in the head (it always is, for you too, even when you watch a movie, it's all in the head, only difference is the amount of suggestion.). Sometime it takes a long time, one has to sit at the computer a long time before something comes together.

It works fine, whatever argument you and others make.

DA2's system plays all kinds of hell with this. First because the actual choice or dialogue frequently is a total surprise. Secondly because the lines are delivered with a tone & mood that is totally inappropriate. Third, the voice (the least problem). It's brutally obvious that Hawke is someone else's character.


[quote]If the point is in what your Warden wants and not you, than what is wrong with Hawk wanting something other than you yourself do? Because the only difference is in that Hawk is allowed to pursue his own agenda in DA2 and the Warden isn't (for the most part, anyway). I even kept whining about this to Winny: "Yadda, yadda, I never have a choice, sadface.grffn"[/quote]

Because I decide what the Warden wants. I play these games to do this roleplaying I tried to describe. Not to follow a protagonists adventures, in the style of reading a novel or watching a movie. That my character in some regards have little choice, is not a problem, since the game presents compelling reasons. It's not much different from my real life. Various compelling reasons "force" me to do most things that I do, leaving me little true, free choice.
 I like Bioware's traditional games (pre-DA2) even if they are story-driven. The ideal is of course ES's total freedom. But I've enjoyed BG almost as much as Morrowind, and DA:O almost as much as Skyrim.  Different flavors. I want both. Bethesda can't replace Bioware.


[quote]I like that in games like Dragon Age 2 or Witcher series you are actually allowed to ultimately pursue something other than this "Oh this Big Bad Black thing that's gonna kill everyone, so it's your sole purpose to kill it!". I want to define my purpose on my own, thank you very much.[/quote]

Well, first, my perception is that there is actually less choice in DA2. That's how I experience it. My attention is drawn to that there are few compelling reasons, which drive Hawke's actions. I don't perceive that as "defining my purpose on my own", while, of course, that is what Hawke do, and is the background. You take this in your stride, because you've accepted from the start that you're following Hawke's adventures, with some interactive choices and action on the way.
I, otoh, just sit there frustrated and experience Hawke just doing this, and just not doing that, all in conflict with the Hawke I wanted to create and play.
I hope this makes sense to you. I assume you relate to Hawke somewhat in the same way as you relate to the protagonist in a novel or movie? That's how I try to understand you.
I don't do that. That's your key to understand me. My way of relating to an wRPG, has more in common with writing fanfiction than reading a novel, if that makes sense to you.
 
Secondly, I think you're in danger of mixing up these things with the different kinds of stories, just as I mixed up the word "personal" at the start of our discussion.

[/quote]

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 15 février 2013 - 06:32 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Megakoresh wrote...
..
Please think in terms of the following:
For personal story what games made you care most about stuff that is important for the main character and the main character him or herself.
For saving the world think what games made you care most about things not directly related to the main character like the world, newly met characters, locations and epic scale battles.

By that definition Dragon Age 2 comes more in the "saving the world" category for me
with the Elder Scrolls series as personal stories

[Malsumis]

I prefer a personal story myself, it's just that DA2 execution of it was poor. While DA:O save the world was done well.

IMO a 'personal story' done well, will always be superior to a 'save the world' story done well.

Would be quite happy to see bio try and attempt this again.

[Megakoresh]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...
..
Please think in terms of the following:
For personal story what games made you care most about stuff that is important for the main character and the main character him or herself.
For saving the world think what games made you care most about things not directly related to the main character like the world, newly met characters, locations and epic scale battles.

By that definition Dragon Age 2 comes more in the "saving the world" category for me
with the Elder Scrolls series as personal stories

That doesn't make any sense 

How is all the crap you get involved with in ES games related to the PC?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Megakoresh wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...
..
Please think in terms of the following:
For personal story what games made you care most about stuff that is important for the main character and the main character him or herself.
For saving the world think what games made you care most about things not directly related to the main character like the world, newly met characters, locations and epic scale battles.

By that definition Dragon Age 2 comes more in the "saving the world" category for me
with the Elder Scrolls series as personal stories

That doesn't make any sense 

How is all the crap you get involved with in ES games related to the PC?

First person roleplaying? IN ES, You are the PC and that makes everything you do is personal. Whle in DA2, you are not Hawke and the story make you less concern about the stuff that is important for Hawke. For me, it's due to not relatable to Hawke by narrative design.

[LTD]

I like your OP, OP.

In my books, it doesn't really count all that much wether story is omg save the world hero or omg change the world to your own image, hero. In both cases we are dealing with " ooompaah giants throwing mountains at eachother" type of a scale. It'd be grand to, for once, have a Bioware RPG where you play a character living his life amongst grass root levels on slopes of these mountains that get tossed about!

It is some sort of belittlement of gamer community to assume people stop wanting to play your games if you stop giving them pre-teen power fantasy super heroes who need to save or change everything lest world explodes.

For once, it'd be so refreshing to see a fantasy RPG with a storyline that isn't all about SAVE THE WORLD or YOU ARE AN ALPHA HERO AMONG HEROES AND MUST PREVENT MASSIVE TURMOIL OR ELSE. It'd be nice to have more minimalistic approach focusing on characters and their down-to-earth motivations, rather than on saving or changing the world once more.

Think of Walking Dead the game. Entire story is about survival and responsibilities of a (foster) parent. You don't try to save the world from Zombie Plague. You are not leader of some pioneering colony leading peers to new, better life. You try to protect a person you care about. You try to stay alive. that is all. In this environ,ent, the game packs characters and dialogue that are infinitely stronger than anything any RPG has had anywhere ever.

When we consider environent the writers have to work in, rift between dialogue wheeled BioWare RPG and Walking Dead really isn't all that big at all. Still, it isn't entirely fair to compare and RPG to a game that has freedom to  sacrifce everything on altar of story and it's flow as Walking Dead does.

When did gamers and devs forget player char in story driven gamedoesn't always have to be a super hero? I wager this is a remnant from some 8/16 bit console era when games were largely made and consumed by 12 year old boys. I imagine it is very dififcult to write a dialogue for a super hero.  Imagine you are having a dinner with Batman and Superman. Awkward silences.  It would suck.

Modifié par LTD, 17 février 2013 - 12:13 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Megakoresh wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...
..
Please think in terms of the following:
For personal story what games made you care most about stuff that is important for the main character and the main character him or herself.
For saving the world think what games made you care most about things not directly related to the main character like the world, newly met characters, locations and epic scale battles.

By that definition Dragon Age 2 comes more in the "saving the world" category for me
with the Elder Scrolls series as personal stories

That doesn't make any sense 

How is all the crap you get involved with in ES games related to the PC?

The ES games are ALL about the PC doing whatever the PC wants to do.  There is a plot but the player is free to ignore it and do (pretty much) as he or she likes.
Therefore, the game is all about the character and what is important to the character - by YOUR definition that makes the game personal.

[cindercatz]

Small scale, intimate style vs. epic, world shaking event style is irrelevent to me. I love both, and I'd love to see both the intimate, personal story and the epic world events happening around me story at the same time. There's no reason for any DA game to be exclusively one or the other. Ideally every DA game will progressively get better at telling the personal story and presenting that sense of personal progression, and the overarching plot will also have an epic sense to it, whether that plot on the surface involves taking sides in a momentous war or just growing up and making a life for your character (which is something I'd love to do in DA, but they haven't really attempted yet).

What is important is scale and bredth. Dragon Age games are long, huge things, that you're typically going to spend a lot of time with (hopefully), so whether the story happens within a town or two, or across continents, you just have to cut down on narrative and environmental repetition. Things have to either be new whole cloth, or they have to noticeably, meaningfully change regularly over time as you move through the story. Not just in terms of your narrative position, your character's status and relationships and all that, but visually, tonally, the narrative pace and momentum.

Then there's the execution, just how well you can identify with and direct your character's internal motivations, and how well the world around you (the game in general) reflects the choices you make and the character you build, in ways both big and small. That doesn't mean it needs to give us the hero's journey or that we need to play demigods, but we need to be able to inhabit our character's skin in the narrative a lot better than we could in DA2, and preferrably progressively better as the franchise moves along. I thought DA:O was very good at this, but a lot of people didn't, I know.

There's still a lot of room for improvement. They've done some great games to this point that I love, but I don't think BioWare has come even close to what's possible with their storytelling style just yet, but it's difficult. They just have to keep stretching against those limitations with each iteration, rather than accepting a tradeoff of a more or less pre-set character.

People keep mentioning The Walking Dead as more of a set character, for instance, but I disagree. TWD was far more successful than DA2 both in allowing me to inhabit my character internally and in reflecting my character and his choices back to me, but it's also a smaller game with less demands on the budget. Still, it's a better realization of the same storytelling style. Heavy Rain is even better, the best so far imo, even playing multiple characters, but it's an entirely different animal in terms of gameplay. So it's not a question of narrative style, really. They just have to keep pushing those boundaries. Don't accept the more/less character agency compromise like DA2 did.

Modifié par cindercatz, 17 février 2013 - 12:00 .

[Get Magna Carter]

OdanUrr wrote...

What constitutes a personal story again?

There are a number of possible answers

1) a story which is centred on an individual's desires and on how the events change their lives.

2) a story which focusses on an individual with minimal direct consequence to anyone other than them and the people closest around them.

etc.

I belive both Dragon Age games could qualify for the first definition but neither qualify for the second - though these things are extremely subjective so other peoplemay feel differently.  A truly personal story would fit both definitions. 

[LTD]

If we go by the defination of RPG Bioware used during their press PR tour around release of ME2, Walking Dead is much more of an RPG than anything BW has done:l

Modifié par LTD, 17 février 2013 - 12:13 .

[Malsumis]

MoTB and PS:T are the best examples of personal stories in RPGs.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

cindercatz wrote...

Small scale, intimate style vs. epic, world shaking event style is irrelevent to me. I love both, and I'd love to see both the intimate, personal story and the epic world events happening around me story at the same time. There's no reason for any DA game to be exclusively one or the other. Ideally every DA game will progressively get better at telling the personal story and presenting that sense of personal progression, and the overarching plot will also have an epic sense to it, whether that plot on the surface involves taking sides in a momentous war or just growing up and making a life for your character (which is something I'd love to do in DA, but they haven't really attempted yet).

What is important is scale and bredth. Dragon Age games are long, huge things, that you're typically going to spend a lot of time with (hopefully), so whether the story happens within a town or two, or across continents, you just have to cut down on narrative and environmental repetition. Things have to either be new whole cloth, or they have to noticeably, meaningfully change regularly over time as you move through the story. Not just in terms of your narrative position, your character's status and relationships and all that, but visually, tonally, the narrative pace and momentum.

Then there's the execution, just how well you can identify with and direct your character's internal motivations, and how well the world around you (the game in general) reflects the choices you make and the character you build, in ways both big and small. That doesn't mean it needs to give us the hero's journey or that we need to play demigods, but we need to be able to inhabit our character's skin in the narrative a lot better than we could in DA2, and preferrably progressively better as the franchise moves along. I thought DA:O was very good at this, but a lot of people didn't, I know.

A lot of people don't inhabit their warden's skin. Instead they inhabit their own skin outside the story, sitting on their comfortable sofa in their living room, much like JRPG fans did with FF series. The PC is not them or at least they prented to be the PC INSIDE the story. Thus, they would never understand anything internal about the PC because everything has to be externally shown. If it's not visually shown or expressed than it doesn't exist. That's the problem and will always be the main problem.

cindercatz wrote...

There's still a lot of room for improvement. They've done some great games to this point that I love, but I don't think BioWare has come even close to what's possible with their storytelling style just yet, but it's difficult. They just have to keep stretching against those limitations with each iteration, rather than accepting a tradeoff of a more or less pre-set character.

It's more like they will have to use pre-set character sooner or later. It's the only proper way for them to tell their story in third person perspective and cinematic experience.  

cindercatz wrote...

People keep mentioning The Walking Dead as more of a set character, for instance, but I disagree. TWD was far more successful than DA2 both in allowing me to inhabit my character internally and in reflecting my character and his choices back to me, but it's also a smaller game with less demands on the budget. Still, it's a better realization of the same storytelling style. Heavy Rain is even better, the best so far imo, even playing multiple characters, but it's an entirely different animal in terms of gameplay. So it's not a question of narrative style, really. They just have to keep pushing those boundaries.

Like I said those people don't inhabit their character internally. They want BioWare to do that, while they just watch it reflected externally through their so called character. And that's the problem. As long as this problem persist, we could never agree what constitues RPG and what constitue personal story. For some, Barrack Obama's diary maybe his personal story. But for others, what does Barrack Obama's personal story has to do with player in question? What Hawke's personal story has to do with player? Just because BioWare claim Hawke is the PC? Doesn't seem to be so to me. 

cindercatz wrote...

Don't accept the more/less character agency compromise like DA2 did.

Until the day BioWare's story finally succumb to pre-set protagonists no matter whether the protagonist is female or male, I will never accept any more/less character agency compromise like DA 2 did. My character belong to me. And my roleplay is my total control. There will never be any compromisation to surrender such rights to Bioware's story. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 17 février 2013 - 01:27 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Small scale, intimate style vs. epic, world shaking event style is irrelevent to me. I love both, and I'd love to see both the intimate, personal story and the epic world events happening around me story at the same time. There's no reason for any DA game to be exclusively one or the other. Ideally every DA game will progressively get better at telling the personal story and presenting that sense of personal progression, and the overarching plot will also have an epic sense to it, whether that plot on the surface involves taking sides in a momentous war or just growing up and making a life for your character (which is something I'd love to do in DA, but they haven't really attempted yet).

What is important is scale and bredth. Dragon Age games are long, huge things, that you're typically going to spend a lot of time with (hopefully), so whether the story happens within a town or two, or across continents, you just have to cut down on narrative and environmental repetition. Things have to either be new whole cloth, or they have to noticeably, meaningfully change regularly over time as you move through the story. Not just in terms of your narrative position, your character's status and relationships and all that, but visually, tonally, the narrative pace and momentum.

Then there's the execution, just how well you can identify with and direct your character's internal motivations, and how well the world around you (the game in general) reflects the choices you make and the character you build, in ways both big and small. That doesn't mean it needs to give us the hero's journey or that we need to play demigods, but we need to be able to inhabit our character's skin in the narrative a lot better than we could in DA2, and preferrably progressively better as the franchise moves along. I thought DA:O was very good at this, but a lot of people didn't, I know.

A lot of people don't inhabit their warden's skin. Instead they inhabit their own skin outside the story, sitting on their comfortable sofa in their living room, much like JRPG fans did with FF series. The PC is not them or at least they prented to be the PC INSIDE the story. Thus, they would never understand anything internal about the PC because everything has to be externally shown. If it's not visually shown or expressed than it doesn't exist. That's the problem and will always be the main problem.

Thats not a problem at all, thats just a perception and point of view of the developers. And its also something they always did. The Warden is not fully you, Hawke is not fully you. the Spirit Monk and Reven are not fully you. Hell, I still argue that the Bhaalspawn is not fully you either, nor is the Nameless one or other 1990s Computer RPGs. 

Either face that fact and get over it, or don't and scream at the rooftops on how you don't like it. But you are basically hypocritical to the mechanical design of the games then if you truely believe that the PC was always designed to fit into how you act in-character. 

Also, stop using the term JRPG please, it's a BS term to begin with. 

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Thats not a problem at all, thats just a perception and point of view of the developers. And its also something they always did. The Warden is not fully you, Hawke is not fully you. the Spirit Monk and Reven are not fully you. Hell, I still argue that the Bhaalspawn is not fully you either, nor is the Nameless one or other 1990s Computer RPGs. 

Either face that fact and get over it, or don't and scream at the rooftops on how you don't like it. But you are basically hypocritical to the mechanical design of the games then if you truely believe that the PC was always designed to fit into how you act in-character. 

Also, stop using the term JRPG please, it's a BS term to begin with. 

Your arguments, which I've seen you pursue on this many times, doesn't matter. What you claim is the mechanics of the game doesn't matter. What you claim is the developers intent doesn't matter. Not even what is the developers intent matter. At all.

The only thing that matters is how people play it. (Bioware should have learned that lesson with DA2., If they didn't, they will learn it again with DA3).

And jRPG is not a BS term. I know you want it to be. But there is that difference, jRPG presents and follows a character with readymade personality, while in a wRPG that is entirely up to the player. Thus DA2 is a jRPG and DA:O is a wRPG. Where the game is developed doesn't matter, neither does the developer, neither does the developer's intent. Only how the game can be played.
And for people who play wRPGs, this is a colossal difference. Not a minor irrelevant detail.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 février 2013 - 11:42 .

[Warden Commander David]

simfamSP wrote...

For me, Dragon Age: Origins was more than just about "saving the world." In fact, its entire Archdemon thing was -- in my humble opinion -- a backdrop for a more personal story. A journey in which the character can grow and become what he is at the end.

All narratives function in a similar way within the RPG genre. They are there for *our* benefit, to make decisions and live with them. Every RPG with the liberty to make a character your own is a personal journey. Saving the world is just part of that archetype.

Could not agree more.

DA:O was indeed a personal story in my opinion.

Yes, the over-arching story was about saving Ferelden from the Blight...but it was my characters personal journey.

simfamSP wrote...

This is why I hate it when I see people restricting themselves with their role-playing. They either go for the goody-two-shoes (paragon) or the evil puppy killer (renegade) when there is *so* much more to explore and experiment with. They fail to accomplish complexity.

I see people always mention this...but I never understand why.

For me...I always play my characters as myself within that setting...and I make the choices I would make (within the choices given of course).

It just so happens that nearly all the choices I would actually make are "paragon" choices.

I'm not making them because they are prelabeled as "paragon choices"...I'm making them because I would actually make those choices.

If you want to murder this person...but let that person live just to "accomplish complexity"...then by all means do so...

...but to get upset or say they are "failing"  because people let both live or kill both is ridiculous.

I much prefer to play and pick my choices as my character actually would...instead of picking different choices just because there is "so much much more to explore and experiment with".

Modifié par Warden Commander David, 19 février 2013 - 09:03 .

[Sharn01]

LTD wrote...

If we go by the defination of RPG Bioware used during their press PR tour around release of ME2, Walking Dead is much more of an RPG than anything BW has done:l

If you go by the various definitions seen just on this forum there is not a single video game in existence that can't be labeled an RPG.  RPG's do have a loose definition, and games can be labeled as such or excluded, but because the definition is not very specific you wont have much luck convincing people they are wrong.

Modifié par Sharn01, 19 février 2013 - 09:15 .

[Warden Commander David]

Also...how can DA2 be more of a personal story when it skips ahead years?

That alone shows that it is not personal and more about the conflicts that happen during the playing time.

Modifié par Warden Commander David, 19 février 2013 - 09:15 .

[Ghost43]

Think of it as Small, Local Story vs Save the World.

[Nefla]

I honestly don't care what type of story a game has as long as it's done well, and IMO DA2's story was not done well at all. You can have a story about a peasant who really wants to open a hat shop and be the most successful hatmaker in town and if you give the character strong motivations (and show us) and great characters with a build, climax, and wind-down then even that story can be great. DA2 was a random mishmash. The characters in your party were great but NPCs were one dimensional and uninteresting, your character had no real motivation and there wasn't anything connecting you to what was going on.

Act 1: collect money! Ok...that should be something I do while I'm questing, it's not a plot. It doesn't give us a reason to want to collect that money and move to hightown other than "you get a fancier house " and Gamlen is somewhat annoying. You're just a leaf in the wind with no ambitions or career goals. None of the quests in act one really go together, I feel like I'm playing a less coherent and adorable version of Kiki's delivery service. Not to mention when you actually GET the money, you're just suddenly in a new house after a jarring "timeskip" where nothing changes including your clothes.

Act 2: Qunari- Now I'm doing tasks for the Arishock and the Viscount, why? I have all the money and influence I need and I don't give two ****s about the Qunari just sitting around looking threatening. Why should I? The game doesn't give me a reason to care. The quests are again disjointed and have nothing to do with the first act and all involve Hawke just blindly doing whatever he's told which is always "go to place X (that same cave or warehouse you've already seen 1,000 times) and kill some guys/Qunari/etc..." so eventually I have to beat the Qunari and I become the champion yay! So that means I have more power and I don't have to be everyone's **** right? Wrong.

Act 3: Meredith and Orsino-The shortest and most pointless act, I am now running errands for Meredith and Orsino instead of the Viscount and the Arishock...woohoo? I still have no reason to be doing this, and by now I may not even have any reason at all to be in Kirkwall. I run trivial tasks until Anders goes crazy and sparks Meredith and Orsino to go crazy and I kill all three just like the Arishock when he went crazy and tried to take over the city, or Bartrand when he went crazy and locked me in the thaig. I then walk off into the sunset to disappear forever with the warden and Revan and that's that. X_x

Just because there's nothing going on, doesn't make it a "personal story." You can have a save the world type plot that's a great personal story because of the character interactions, decisions, motivations, relationships, etc...I think one of the reasons people felt so betrayed by the ending of ME3 is that Mass Effect 1 and 2 did give you the feeling of a personal story with a save-the-world type backdrop.

[Sutekh]

Warden Commander David wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

This is why I hate it when I see people restricting themselves with their role-playing. They either go for the goody-two-shoes (paragon) or the evil puppy killer (renegade) when there is *so* much more to explore and experiment with. They fail to accomplish complexity.

I see people always mention this...but I never understand why.

For me...I always play my characters as myself within that setting...and I make the choices I would make (within the choices given of course).

It just so happens that nearly all the choices I would actually make are "paragon" choices.

Well, that's one way to roleplay. I, on the other hand, never do self-inserts. I'm more interested in donning different personalities and motivations and see where it leads me. For me, it's more interesting and provides much more opportunities for replay.

It's why (I think) I completely understand simfamSP's reasoning: if you invent a personality and always play the extreme, you end up with a very simplistic result, literally a one-dimensioned character, lacking nuances.

But if you play yourself, and act as yourself would, the point is moot: there's no discussing what yourself are (after all, you do know better).

I much prefer to play and pick my choices as my character actually would...instead of picking different choices just because there is "so much much more to explore and experiment with".

You're saying that as though people would randomly choose options for science, without any consistency. Fact is, [general]you can have a complex character in mind, one who would not always follow a straight line towards "paragon" or "renegade". This doesn't mean you wouldn't stay true to the character, just that the character is multi-faceted.

[Get Magna Carter]

I think one big difference between game types is the distinction between the "lone hero"-style game and the "team leader"-style game.
The "Lone hero" (e.g.s The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Fable) concerns a protagonist who mostly works alone. Companions can be present but will generally be either short-term or sub-ordinates who are loyal to the protagonist with no significant wants of their own.
The "Team Leader" (e.g.s most Bioware games including both Dragon Age games) has the player in charge of a group of characters each with their own individual personalities and motivations.

"Lone Hero" games can have any objective - as big or small as the designer wishes.

"Team Leader" games, however, need an objective to motivate the entire team. While personal elements can be present, the main goal must be one for the entire team and must be big enough to justify having a group of this level of ability working together and this generally means saving the "world" (where the "world" can be anything from a city up to the entirety of existence). Some team leader games have tried for different objectives and have ended up as bad as a result (with very few exceptions).

[Swoopdogg]

 I heard they're going to be combining elements from both games. So I'm guessing... DA2 combat + origins characters + origins epic themes + DA2 personal story? Hopefully anyway, with some added player agencey.  I have no worries about how this game will turn out, especially given the amount of time they've already spent on it, and the time they still have on it.

But I agree with everything you had to say, OP. I'm a huge fan of story-- deep, emotional, gripping. That's usually what gets me hooked to a game. The Dragon Age and Mass Effect series had some of the best stories of any games I've ever played. (Among those being the Witcher). I thoroughly enjoyed both games, but I was dissappointed by DA2. I do not feel that will happen with DA3.

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Thats not a problem at all, thats just a perception and point of view of the developers. And its also something they always did. The Warden is not fully you, Hawke is not fully you. the Spirit Monk and Reven are not fully you. Hell, I still argue that the Bhaalspawn is not fully you either, nor is the Nameless one or other 1990s Computer RPGs. 

Either face that fact and get over it, or don't and scream at the rooftops on how you don't like it. But you are basically hypocritical to the mechanical design of the games then if you truely believe that the PC was always designed to fit into how you act in-character. 

Also, stop using the term JRPG please, it's a BS term to begin with. 

Your arguments, which I've seen you pursue on this many times, doesn't matter. What you claim is the mechanics of the game doesn't matter. What you claim is the developers intent doesn't matter. Not even what is the developers intent matter. At all.

The only thing that matters is how people play it. (Bioware should have learned that lesson with DA2., If they didn't, they will learn it again with DA3).

And jRPG is not a BS term. I know you want it to be. But there is that difference, jRPG presents and follows a character with readymade personality, while in a wRPG that is entirely up to the player. Thus DA2 is a jRPG and DA:O is a wRPG. Where the game is developed doesn't matter, neither does the developer, neither does the developer's intent. Only how the game can be played.
And for people who play wRPGs, this is a colossal difference. Not a minor irrelevant detail.

WRPG is also a bull**** term as well. what you describe above is not the nuances of the mechanics at all. 

What I actually claim is the mechanics enforced the type of RPG being played. This is why these terms are huge misnomers, because they don't even correctly define the mechanics shown.  How people play it is at best, a byproduct and at worst, a mistake on the players part. This is why the games are restricted by what you can do; you can't jump in Dragon Age Origins, but there is no need to jump, because there is no danger from jumping, and no danger from falling off cliffs or ledges. In Skyrim, you jump too high off a ledge, you get hurt and die. 

That type of mechanic dictates behavior right there, it tells you to be worried about terrain around you because it could effectively kill or dictate your behavior in a combat or exploration situation. Origins is safe because the only instances where you can get hurt is through traps or enemies, not the actual terrain.

That is what I am talking about within the mechanics of how the game is played. Because story-driven games have a certain set of mechanics that provides them with a way for the story to take precedence, the entire foundation is vastly different from other games in the same genre. Dungeon crawlers is mostly due to combat, open world due to exploration and world interaction, story to simpler combat and character interaction, and so on and so forth. 

So maybe my arguments don't matter much to you, but ah well, my lack of caring what you feel is preventing me from going further on that subject.  Simply put, it really doesn't matter how you play the game because the intent of the mechanics is still more important in the end, since its what serves as the framework for how you actually play. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 février 2013 - 10:11 .