366 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Whedon does not work with video games, and thus does not have to concern himself with choices that matter.

BioWare does.

[JobacNoor]

David7204 wrote...

From what I've heard about Game of Thones, it's filled with rather pointless and gratuitous random murder and rape and unlikeable characters not worth caring about.

No.

[RandomSyhn]

David7204 wrote...

Whedon does not work with video games, and thus does not have to concern himself with choices that matter.

BioWare does.

True, but not everything is a choice. The ones you have the ability to make can matter. But a death can happen regardless of what you character wants or does. Sorta like real life.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

And people can and do roleplay those out.  I imagine some people played through DAO And DA2getting absolutely everyone they can killed, playing out tragic Wardens and Hawkes *snip*

But that's not roleplaying the character, that's roleplaying the world to fit a criteria which you've decided to fit. When I'm playing Dragon Age: Origins, I'm always ignoring the third choices which let me get away scot free but they're so goddamn stupid because they always rub it in that you're making the "wrong choice".

Congrats, you don't metagame.

When the choice is between happy and unhappy, that's not a choice. You're either going for dark or going for light, you're just auto-defaulting to the option which you've pre-determined without thinking of the actual consequences of your decisions and how they could impact the world around you.

Umm, a choice between happy and unhappy is a choice between happy and unhappy.  Dark or light, how do you want the story told?

Look at how many people cried fowl when they discovered Bhelen was the "good" choice when they thought Harrowmont was the "good" one, they didn't even bother thinking of the consequences of their decisions and just want a linear story where they "win" with the illusion of choice.

Bhelen wasn't the "good" choice any more than Harrowmont was.  Bhelen as king benefits Orzammar in the long run, but is an absolute scumbag.  Ther is no "right" or wrong" to whether you put him on the throne (well, maybe putting Harrowmont on the throne and leaving Branka with the Anvil ...)

It's like my one friend who praised Mass Effect's "choices" when his seven playthroughs had the same exact choices in all of them, what's the point? The player has to lose something to actually think about what they'd want to do. You shouldn't get a pass because you're the protagonist in a game.

And you shouldn't get railroaded because some people think "you're doing it wrong"

If you want to be rewarded for playing a ruthless SOB, that's fine.  There shouldn't be a "wrong" playstyle. 

[David7204]

RandomSyhn wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Whedon does not work with video games, and thus does not have to concern himself with choices that matter.

BioWare does.

True, but not everything is a choice. The ones you have the ability to make can matter. But a death can happen regardless of what you character wants or does. Sorta like real life.

The Theory of Narrative Causality far and away trumps 'what can happen in real life.'

You would never have an important squadmate permentantly killed by a random mook on a trivial side mission, for example.

[SeismicGravy]

Eterna5 wrote...

But then you'd have another ME3. This fanbase hates reality.

I can't drive a car in real life, but I'm pretty good at Forza.

Reality is irrelevant when it comes to video games.

[RandomSyhn]

David7204 wrote...

RandomSyhn wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Whedon does not work with video games, and thus does not have to concern himself with choices that matter.

BioWare does.

True, but not everything is a choice. The ones you have the ability to make can matter. But a death can happen regardless of what you character wants or does. Sorta like real life.

The Theory of Narrative Causality far and away trumps 'what can happen in real life.'

You would never have an important squadmate permentantly killed by a random mook on a trivial side mission, for example.

Generally no. Not in a random sidequest, but in an act of bravery or sacrifice, to motivate the PC, or to raise the stakes and allow for the uncertainty that maybe your characters and companions are not immortal. I'm not saying kill them all off for fun, but for narritive impact.

[Angrywolves]

In war of course squadmates get killed all the time So it could be tastefully done in DAI. But not darkness and killing just for its own sake to satisfy a few sadistic players.

[David7204]

Okay. Narrative impact. Fine.

Not shock value.

Not as hostages for the sole purpose of forcing 'moral ambiguity.'

Even then, it really needs to be limited. You really should not ever have a love interest killed without meaningful input from the player unless there's significant and through foreshadowing, as is the case with Thane.

Modifié par David7204, 10 juin 2013 - 11:28 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

And you shouldn't get railroaded because some people think "you're doing it wrong"

If you want to be rewarded for playing a ruthless SOB, that's fine.  There shouldn't be a "wrong" playstyle. 

Yeah, but here's the problem:

Bioware's alignment system underwent a fundamental change with the launch of Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

With Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Neverwinter Nights, and Closed Fist, the dichotomy was a very simplistic good vs. evil scale. Killing most characters was the result of the PC choosing to murder them and wasn't a question of competency. Your goal was to cause as much misery and woe as humanly possible.

Mass Effect introduces Paragon and Renegade, while Dragon Age forewent morality altogether. Renegade was meant to encompass an Ends Justify the Means approach, not simply slaughter for the sake of slaughter. This is why choosing to kill off your own companions is less enjoyable than in previous Bioware efforts. Characters dying on the Suicide Mission because I have to play Shepard as an idiot isn't fun. Characters dying because I have to avoid metagaming the Redcliffe Connor scenario, which should have consequences, isn't fun. These should be avoided at all costs.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juin 2013 - 11:29 .

[NRieh]

As if ME3 was not depressing enough?..

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

From what I've heard about Game of Thones, it's filled with rather pointless and gratuitous random murder and rape and unlikeable characters not worth caring about.

Is this what 'maturity' is?

Well, it's certainly no less mature than your "heroism mattering" line, which you've been throwing around for as long as I remember.

You're not into Game of Thrones? That's all well and good and there's some decent criticisms against it, but some actually enjoy the fact that it's a world which constantly reminds us how mortal everyone is, instead of treating the entire cast as untouchable. It's a series where actually revealing whether character X is in Book 5 or Season 3 can be considered a huge spoiler, because you're constantly wondering who will die on the next page.

Edit: And to make clear for all, this does not mean Dragon Age must turn into Game of Thrones.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juin 2013 - 11:35 .

[KiwiQuiche]

SeismicGravy wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

But then you'd have another ME3. This fanbase hates reality.

I can't drive a car in real life, but I'm pretty good at Forza.

Reality is irrelevant when it comes to video games.

+1

[KENNY4753]

Hawke being dead in that Varric scene would be okay. He was the one person who has a chance at stopping the war and he is dead.

the Warden on the other hand may still be out there

[Ryzaki]

Dave of Canada wrote...
For those situations, I'd recommend something along the lines of the Geth / Quarian solution. Certain decisions give +3 rebellion, etc. Reach a certain threshold and it's inevitable. Thus the true way of being legitimate is not being too heavy handed and not being too trusting, you have to be moderate and selective.

Then when the rebellion occurs, you've got tons of ways to try and repair your reputation like being even more heavy-handed and cementing your reputation or trying to make amends. Etc.

You "play" your character and deal with things as they occur, a "happy" route isn't one decision.

Geth/Quarian solution had its own issues. Shep simply didn't bring up the fact that the geth were about to come online and blow the Quarians to pieces if peace couldn't be achieved. It's a case of the player being forced to pick a dumb choice. (Either because the writers didn't see the neutral option being too close to the source matter or them not wanting to put in a decision train following it). DA2's ending has loads of that. Shep also completely ignored Xan nevermind that she of all people would be a threat to geth/quarian peace.

As for not being too trusting being too suspicious of people can often lead to disaster as well.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2013 - 11:47 .

[David7204]

Il Divo wrote...

You're not into Game of Thrones? That's all well and good and there's some decent criticisms against it, but some actually enjoy the fact that it's a world which constantly reminds us how mortal everyone is, instead of treating the entire cast as untouchable. It's a series where actually revealing whether character X is in Book 5 or Season 3 can be considered a huge spoiler, because you're constantly wondering who will die on the next page.

And let me guess. You consider 'treating the entire cast as untouchable' (In other words 99.99% of fiction in existence in some form or fashion) as some kind of naive kiddy fiction and castmembers dying as 'realistic'?

It isn't.

Modifié par David7204, 10 juin 2013 - 11:42 .

[Chiramu]

Death can quickly become overdone. Kill too many people and everyone will be unhappy. Dragon Age already has a lot of death in it.

[Jamie9]

I loved Mass Effect 3, and it's tone was fitting of an invasion that was going to cause extinction.

Since it seems Dragon Age: Inquisition is going the same route, I'd love to see a similar tone given, with happier companion moments to alleviate the darkness.

[Wulfram]

If you're writing a story about war, then characters should die. Including major characters. It doesn't need to be all pervasive, but it should happen,

What should be avoided is a sense that the writers are going "hey, this ending seems too happy. So the PC dies just because and also [insert race here]"

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

And let me guess. You consider 'treating the entire cast as untouchable' (In other words 99.99% of fiction in existence in some form or fashion) as some kind of naive kiddy fiction

It is.

and castmembers dying as 'realistic'?

If they're placed in a life or death situation, they should be able to die, yes.

It isn't.

People close to you don't die? Thank heavens, I was going to battle and was worried I'd potentially lose them but now I won't, thanks David.

[David7204]

You have a very crippled understanding of how stories work. How things like 'rising conflict' and 'foreshadowing' work. And most importantly, how Narrative Causality works.

A story is a collection of promises, and the storytellers needs to fulfill those promises. Everyone on this forum already expects a great deal of elements in DA:I (and indeed every BioWare game) whether they realize it or not.

We don't tell stories about people going to the bathroom because it happens in real life. We don't tell stories about unremarkable people sitting at their desk doing full paperwork because it happens in real life. And we don't tell stories where characters die meaninglessly and arbitraily just because it happens all the time in war in real life.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 12:00 .

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

You have a very crippled understanding of how stories work. How things like 'rising conflict' and 'foreshadowing' work.

Oh? Tell me more, I can't be a writer unless you're pleased.

[Kabraxal]

David7204 wrote...

You have a very crippled understanding of how stories work. How things like 'rising conflict' and 'foreshadowing' work. And most importantly, how Narrative Causality works.

A story is a collection of promises, and the storytellers needs to fulfill those promises.

Don't you get it man... only angst is art.  Only angst man.. I mean like really man.. people gotta die!

That's pretty much his argument.  Can't have choice to avoid it if you want.. o no.. that destroys the art!  

Seriously... almost no one here is arguing to remove the darkness from the series.  Just give the balance and choice to avoid it on some playthroughs instead of forcing it down people's throats because of some pedantic artistic view that somehow manages to cling to life.  True art doesn't have to be angsty.... in fact, forcing it is usually the worse way to create art.  It rarely works.

[legion 21]

it should be based on player choice

[Ryzaki]

Wulfram wrote...

If you're writing a story about war, then characters should die. Including major characters. It doesn't need to be all pervasive, but it should happen,

What should be avoided is a sense that the writers are going "hey, this ending seems too happy. So the PC dies just because and also [insert race here]"

Agreed. Mordin to me was fitting (and avoidable! Le gasp!). Legion felt stupid (and wasn't optional). (And let's not even get into starbrat).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 juin 2013 - 12:03 .