236 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Not to burst your bubble but..

The "magical writing" is gone and will stay gone.

The cycle has repeated over and over..

In the beginning many small devs that are serving niches attempt-often successfully-to use good writing as a substitute for the material they do not have the resources or experience to provide. The material being substituted is generally graphics, gameplay mechanics, etc. When they grow large enough to provide entertaining mechanics or good graphics, writing eventually takes a nosedive. It has become a side attraction due to the better graphics, enjoyable mechanics, multiplayer, etc. and no longer warrants the emphasis it had before. 

Basically, when you have good mechanics, good graphics, multiplayer, and all those other good things, they will replace writing as the main attraction and by extension the develpor's priority. When you don't have good mechanics or graphics, you can use writing to cover it in part. 

[Dutchess]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

renjility wrote...

A while back I believed Bioware had learned its lesson and that DA3 would be great. I believed them when they said "we are listening". Then came the announcement that we would only have a human protagonist (and no playable origins either) and the excitement I had was gone.
So, yeah, my expectations are pretty low. I'm not convinced Bioware is listening anymore. They still refuse to admit many flaws of DA2, only get so far to say that the waves in combat and the recycled environments were bad. But DA2's biggest fault was the story, and I dont think I'll ever see mr. Gaider admitting that his writing was sub par when it came to plot ("perhaps we had too many themes" haha, no, that was not the problem).

But who knows, there's still a small chance Bioware will surprise me and make me eat my words. I hope they will, but for now: *starts Skyrim*

I think they're getting rid of wave combat and have stated that recycled environments won't be happening again.

I know. That's why I said I've only seen those aspects mentioned by devs as flaws of DA2.

As for the story, I wouldn't call it subpar. Skyrim and just anything else made by Bethesda features subpar, lazy writing of the sort that comes from people who proudly don't give a s*** about story.

With the civil war in Skyrim, Bethesda effectively created two "grey", ambiguous parties, both with up- and downsides to them. Their respective leaders had their motivations and ideas about what was best for Skyrim/the world. DA2 gave us two lunatics, leading a faction of insane blood mages and abominations and a faction of abusers and rapists. Yay. Faction quests in Skyrim had their own storyline with problems, mysteries and conflicts. Many dungeons had their own little story, that couldbe discovered by finding diaries, notes or letters. DA2 threw crazy person after crazy person your way to slay in the same old cave. The codex entries of the Enigma of Kirkwall offered a spark of hope, suggesting a grander mystery that could be uncovered, only to turn out to be added to give some sort of explanation for the insane amount of blood mages, demons and abominations you get to fight.
The only writing aspect Bioware wins is the companion characters. Otherwise, DA2 gets its ass kicked by Skyrim, and is slaughtered by The Witcher 2. I don't understand how you can accuse Bethesda of lazy writing if you want to applaud Bioware for its effort in DA2.   

Remarks like "haha, no, that was not the problem" makes you sound like a spoiled, arrogant, entitled fanbrat. Maybe that is what David Gaider genuinely sees as the problem with his writing in DA2. It can be difficult for an artist to admit that something they've created is flawed and the fact that he's given us such a statement at all is already something. 

Oh, there is the entitlement card again. Always nice to see that one show up. Whether I watch a tv show or a movie, read a book or play a game, I expect a good product, with a good story. DA2 thoroughly disapointed me in this, and I expect the creators of the product to admit what went wrong, and offer ideas of how they think to improve upon made mistakes in the future. Am I entitled for expecting quality when I pay for something? 
I understand that it can be difficult to admit that something you created is flawed and had problems. I really do. But if you want to improve and prevent making the same mistakes in the future, you will have to face it and actively try to get better. Not try to shove it on the fans that they didn't like it due to DA2 not being DAO2, or that maybe they had "too many themes?". The problem was not the amount of themes, it was the lack of development adn attention those themes received. Family could have been a compelling theme, but it remained far too underused and therefore failed to create that connection with the Hawke family the game expected of you. The Qunari theme was by far the most interesting the game had to offer and seemed to have received the most attention of all, but even this plot depended on bouts of craziness to be moved forward (crazy elf steals the poisonous gas, Arishok has a nervous breakdown due to being homesick) and therefore had its more awkward moments. 
I'd say DA2's main problem was too many crazy people, not necessarily too many themes. There must be other possible motives for antagonists to oppose Hawke and get in his/her way. I think that's partially what made the Arishok the most interesting antagonist DA2 offered. Despite his temporary attack of crazy, he came across as mostly sane and rational (as far as that's possible within the doctrine of the Qun). I hope the writing team realizes that, but I've never seen the slightest mention of the problem that Kirkwall apparently is an asylum. 

[Plaintiff]

renjility wrote...
Whether I watch a tv show or a movie, read a book or play a game, I expect a good product, with a good story. DA2 thoroughly disapointed me in this, and I expect the creators of the product to admit what went wrong, and offer ideas of how they think to improve upon made mistakes in the future. Am I entitled for expecting quality when I pay for something?

You're not entitled to say that anyone who disagrees with you is a filthy rotten liar, which you basically are.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I don't think I said this here, but I thought it yesterday.

I think the only people creating a "high bar" for DA I are the people that want it to fail.

or they are probably genuinely disappointed with DA2's flaws, and for some reason believe that DA's team could do better?

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

"Do better" is not the same as "Bioware better not screw this up! This is their last chance!"

thanks for the clarification.

[n7stormrunner]

with this fan base? define "live up to" do exactly what one person wants? make a game that appeals to the masses? a generic game with nothing about that stands out? a super "innovative" that trys to make everything new and exciting? where is the "bar" set?

[Sir JK]

Sometimes I get a feeling that Bioware's greatest "competitor" is their previous games. It's not enough for them to make good games, they actually have to make games just as good as KotOR, DAO or BG2 or "it's no acceptable". They don't have to beat the other games released the same year... they have to beat pure nostalgia.

Personally, I honestly believe we'll never see another DAO or BG2. That they'll never ever make games that loved again. And I've accepted that. I hope they'll prove me wrong, of course. But I don't sit and wait for it. If they make a game I like: Great. If not... *shrug*.
As long as I can gauge that prior to purchase, I am good.

[Althix]

no one asking for another dao or bg2. but presence of logically connected dialogues in the game would be nice for starters.

[Gabbenator8787]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I don't think I said this here, but I thought it yesterday.

I think the only people creating a "high bar" for DA I are the people that want it to fail.

Believe me when I say that I truly want them to succed with the game since DA:O is one of my favourite RPG games
of all time. Bioware used to deliever on making high quality games with great stories and characters you truely cared about, basically helping to make video games become an effective medium for the art of narrative story-telling. 

However if DA:I proves to be just as rushed, subpar and disapointing as DA 2, then its hard to see them escape the downward trajectory spiral since restoring consumer confidence is often times really hard to do for a companey. 

[n7stormrunner]

secretsandlies wrote...

no one asking for another dao or bg2. but presence of logically connected dialogues in the game would be nice for starters.

... uuummm please read the forum again?

[XX-Pyro]

secretsandlies wrote...

no one asking for another dao or bg2. but presence of logically connected dialogues in the game would be nice for starters.

Half the BSN is asking for DAO:2, are we on the same forum?

[Maverick827]

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

However if DA:I proves to be just as rushed, subpar and disapointing as DA 2, then its hard to see them escape the downward trajectory spiral since restoring consumer confidence is often times really hard to do for a companey. 

What downward trajectory?

[Steppenwolf]

Sejborg wrote...
Huh? I think most people would agree that the majority of ME3 was pretty damn good. It was only the ending of ME3 that was very badly received. While DA2 on the other hand was badly received in its entirity - not just the ending. 

Have you been to the ME3 forums? A solid segment of the users there think that the entire plot of ME3 is weak. And I agree with that.
"Hey Shepard, we found a Reaper off-switch!" It was lazy writing, topped off by one of the worst endings to any series I've ever played.

[ScotGaymer]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
Huh? I think most people would agree that the majority of ME3 was pretty damn good. It was only the ending of ME3 that was very badly received. While DA2 on the other hand was badly received in its entirity - not just the ending. 

Have you been to the ME3 forums? A solid segment of the users there think that the entire plot of ME3 is weak. And I agree with that.
"Hey Shepard, we found a Reaper off-switch!" It was lazy writing, topped off by one of the worst endings to any series I've ever played.

While I agree that ME3 was a thoroughly mediocre game with a terrible ending (and a horrible intro) perhaps you should qualify that statement man.
ME3 has its good points.

The combat is a good mix of ME1 and ME2 (not perfect like but good).
Some of the story moments were some of the best Bioware has ever put out.
And the characterisation of the companions is probably the best of any Bioware game.

The whole thing is unfortunately plagued by bugs, plot holes, and incoherency sadly. But its not the worst game ever like some would claim.
It's worth a solid 6.5 out of 10 IMO.
And DA2 was worth a better 7.5 out of 10 if only because the ending make sense for the most part even if it does suck.

[Lemrick]

Plaintiff wrote...
I'm overstating my case because on Bioware forums the most hyperbolic argument wins.

Origins is fine. It's not anything special. It's standard fantasy fare, it ticks all the boxes of every previous Bioware game. People like it because it's safe and familiar, but with just enough twists to make it interesting to people who have an extremely narrow view of the Fantasy genre and how it should be, which is probably most people.

DA2 is also fine. It's not the same kind of story as Origins, however, and that is largely why people complain. They wanted the same kind of story as Origins.

This.

Yes, there were design flaws and technical problems with DA2. Fair enough. But there are numerous varieties of these same issues in DA:O (and Mass Effect, while we're at it). The story decided to take some interesting aspects about this new fantasy universe that BioWare had created and wanted to focus and expand on these themes. I personally find DA2's story much more compelling and unique than DA:O. DA:O was good, but in many ways, it played it safe with it's over all story-arch.

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote...

Origins is fine. It's not anything special. It's standard fantasy fare, it ticks all the boxes of every previous Bioware game. People like it because it's safe and familiar, but with just enough twists to make it interesting to people who have an extremely narrow view of the Fantasy genre and how it should be, which is probably most people.

DA2 is also fine. It's not the same kind of story as Origins, however, and that is largely why people complain. They wanted the same kind of story as Origins.

As much as I love DA:O, I admit that the story isn't, on its own, anything spectacular. But it's the way it's told that makes it something special to me. I think that a story can be compelling even if it has a lot of elements that have been arguably over-used, as long as it has evocative writing and strong characters.

As for it being safe and familiar, I wouldn't say that's what appeals to me as such about Origins. I love fantasy stories and settings that don't start from the Tolkienesque model and that really take advantage of the freedom and flexibility that the genre has to offer. Origins doesn't really do that, and it does tend to stick to the safe and familiar, but it does it well enough that it makes those old, familiar elements feel fresh to me. In short, I enjoy both familiar fantasy stories and more innovative fantasy stories, for different reasons.

To me, DA:O is also more than just a story - it's a playground that inspires me to use my imagination to create characters that fit into the story and to give them vivid personalities. It hits that sweet spot for the kind of role-playing I really enjoy, by offering characters with strong personalities for my characters to interact with while giving me the freedom to imagine lots of little nuances in terms of how my character delivers his or her lines.

That said, I understand that some people don't value being able to imagine things like the main character's demeanour and tone of voice - they don't find that nearly as satisfying as being able to see their character's body language and hear the way they express themselves, and I can appreciate that.

Although I've never quite been sucked in to DA2 the way I have Origins, I actually like the premise of DA2's story a lot. I really like the idea of deconstructing the Hero archetype by showing the gap between how the rest of the world sees Hawke (as a key player in earth-shattering events) and how Hawke experiences the events of the story - trying to create a comfortable and happy life for his or her family, but being helplessly caught up in events and powerless when confronted with loss.

My difficulty was that I wasn't always sure what Hawke was supposed to be feeling - there were times when I had the sense that I was supposed to see Hawke as feeling powerless, saddened, or frustrated, but it didn't quite come through in the writing or the performance. And that's a problem, because if we don't get to fully experience Hawke's point of view and perspective on events, the idea of showing the gap between Hawke's perception of events and other people's perception of Hawke doesn't really work.

If felt to me as though Hawke's personality was meant to be, to a large extent, up to the player to define, and while I love that approach to a silent protagonist, I don't think it works as well with a voiced protagonist. With a voiced protagonist, I feel that the character really needs a strongly pre-established personality, and that the player's role should be to determine how the character grows or changes as a person because of the choices he or she makes. I think that Mass Effect 1 does this well, but I find that DA2 tries to give Hawke more variability at the expense of character-building details and nuance, and it doesn't quite work.

That said, I'm glad that BioWare recognize that while DA2 fell short in execution, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to experiment with different kinds of stories in the future. I think it would be a mistake for them to simply throw out everything new they tried in DA2.

Modifié par jillabender, 05 mai 2013 - 03:36 .

[Steppenwolf]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

ME3 has its good points.

The combat is a good mix of ME1 and ME2 (not perfect like but good).

I wasn't playing ME for combat. If I was I never would have finished ME1.

Some of the story moments were some of the best Bioware has ever put out.

Such as? The only moments that had any weight IMO were on Tuchanka. And they only stand out because the rest of the game falls so flat.

And the characterisation of the companions is probably the best of any Bioware game.

I completely disagree. They butchered so many ME2 characters and aside from Javik I didn't care much for any of the new characters. EDI's design was offensively bad and her inclusion as a squadmate was a waste IMO. James was boring compared to pretty much every other squadmate in the series besides Jacob. The 2 love interests on the Normandy were just meh and felt like they were there just to give more romance options.

[ScotGaymer]

@BasilKarlo

Fortunately the ME2 cast were not companions in ME3 for the most part, so it wasn't them I was talking about dude.

So disagree all you like, because your disagreement has nothing to do with what I said.

All the ME2 LI companions sucked in varying ways. The only interesting characters in ME2 were the ones you couldn't romance. Garrus and Tali were somewhat interesting but mostly because of the combination of who they were portrayed as in ME1 and who they became in ME2 not because of ME2 on its own.
And weirdly the fanbases "favourite" ME2 characters are Mordin, Samara, and Kasumi. Funny that?

Obviously I was only speaking from my own viewpoint and opinion regarding ME3; but it would be hyperbolic in the extreme to say it was the worst thing ever. It wasn't.

It wasn't great don't get me wrong, and has all sorts of problems throughout; but one can acknowledge both good parts and bad parts of a game. It doesn't have to be all hate all the time.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 23 avril 2013 - 07:59 .

[Gewehr_fr]

Since we haven't seen anything about DA3 yet, because I actually enjoyed DA2 very much (although least than DAO in many ways), and David Gaider who seems to know what he's doing; I'm rather confident about DA3 at the moment.

Skyrim chooses to sacrifice writing quality and characters for exploration, accessibility and general epic-ness, but I don't believe the Bioware team to be heading that way.

[Althix]

XX-Pyro wrote...
Half the BSN is asking for DAO:2, are we on the same forum?

if something is not evolving, it remains stagnant. stagnation leads to many things one of those is death.

However-however-however, when somebody is trying to show stagnation as evolution... well it is a different story isn't it?

Brand must evolve. New mechanics, new ideas. Otherwise... otherwise i will go and play Dark Souls 2 i can invade there and kill other players, instead of solving yet another problem yet another companion or yet another LI.

[In Exile]

BasilKarlo wrote...

"Hey Shepard, we found a Reaper off-switch!" It was lazy writing, topped off by one of the worst endings to any series I've ever played.

It wasn't any different than the magic off switch Shepard found in ME1.

[In Exile]

jillabender wrote...
If felt to me as though Hawke's personality was meant to be, to a large extent, up to the player to define, and while I love that approach to a silent protagonist, I don't think it works as well with a voiced protagonist. With a voiced protagonist, I feel that the character really needs a strongly pre-established personality, and that the player's role should be to determine how the character grows or changes as a person because of the changes he or she makes. I think that Mass Effect 1 does this well, but I find that DA2 tries to give Hawke more variability at the expense of character-building details and nuance, and it doesn't quite work.

I actually don't think a silent protagonist allows the player to define the character at all, because the player is effectively a cut-off brick from the rest of the game-world. You have a very narrow set of options which you get to actually express in-game in terms of reactivity, and otherwise there isn't a difference between pretending your character is a wrecked by PTSD from their first battle to being a shapeshifting alien whose looking to lay a clutch of eggs inside human skulls.

[archangel1996]

Nope

Modifié par archangel1996, 24 avril 2013 - 05:54 .