366 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Things don't happen to people because they're in stories.

They're in stories because things happen to them.

There's an hypothetical infinite amount of worlds with an infinite amount of characters doing an infinite amount of things. And 'realistically,' maybe the overwhelming majority of those characters would lead unsatisfying lives or meet unsatisfying ends.

But we don't tell stories about them. We tell stories about the one that succeeds. That's why the story is about Shepard or about the Warden. In a universe of trillions or millions or thousands, the one that succeeds. And I haven't played DA 2, but that probably plays a great role in the relative dislike of Hawke. Because the narrative failed to uphold that justified expectation. That's why the player is rightfully justified in expecting certain characters to survive and for their choices and the protagonist's actions to matter.

That's what these ridiculous implications of angst being 'realistic' always fail to account for.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 12:09 .

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

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'?

Nope. At least with regards to the naive kiddy fiction bit. I've enjoyed quite a few stories which had few to no character deaths (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings) and they handled certain themes quite maturely. And I've enjoyed stories where the body count numbers in the dozens and they've handled certain other themes quite maturely. 

But stop guessing. You really suck at it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juin 2013 - 12:11 .

[David7204]

If you like fiction like Game of Thrones, that's absolutely your choice, and I wish you the best.

The problem is when you starting making silly accusations that such stories are fundamentally 'more mature' and 'more realistic' than more heroic stories. That has no legitimate basis.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 12:16 .

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

Things don't happen to people because they're in stories.

They're in stories because things happen to them.

And not every story in the world follows the same formula.

But we don't tell stories about them. We tell stories about the one that succeeds.

How limited are you in your literature, film and games? Again, not everything follows the same formula.

Stories about people failing, stories about people in their final moments, stories about people losing their entire life, people coming to terms with their upcoming deaths, people dealing with poverty, people dealing with spousal abuse, etc.

These are all basic story premises which exist and are popular in the media, they've seen print and film in countless different iterations and will always be successful. Tragedies are just as viable a story than any other, when there's finally something "good" which happens it contrasts with the dark and ends the tale on a lighter note.

That's why the story is about Shepard or about the Warden. In a universe of trillions or millions or thousands, the one that succeeds.

A protagonist doesn't succeed all the time just because they're a protagonist.

Maybe that's the type of story you like but don't act as if every story must be happy-go lucky to be successful.

And I haven't played DA 2, but that probably plays a great role in the relative dislike of Hawke.

Hawke's inability to do anything is why people usually dislike him, he sits around and does nothing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 juin 2013 - 12:19 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

And at the same time players shouldn't feel the need to bathe after making a given decision.

It's one thing to make the "light side" path a more difficult route to take.  A player may experience more setbacks, may have to settle for a lesser reward, find an alternate, perhaps harder route to take.  

But tthe player should not end up like Ned Stark for choosing to take a principled stand.  And absolutely shouldn't end up  with "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone else's"  "SO BE IT!!!!"

I have no problems with making a game more challenging for taking a particular route.  But I strenuously object to punishing a player for it.  That's no more fun than metagaming.

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

And at the same time players shouldn't feel the need to bathe after making a given decision.

They should when that's the feeling which the writer wants you to feel.

Example: Connor and Isolde without the Mage Circle choice, you'd always feel bad either way.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 juin 2013 - 12:20 .

[Jamesnew2]

"you’ll make your mark in an expansive, story-driven open world filled with complex characters, challenging combat and difficult decisions."

~Source: http://www.dragonage.com/

Another aspect i'm getting at is the lack of hard decisions, i really don't think I've been challenged by more than 2 decisions across the series, it would be a great opportunity to introduce these challenging decisions :/ I mean whats harder than choosing between severe consequences and saving say your LI (who most tend to care most about) or winning a battle for the greater good, saving lives but at the cost of you LI who you care the most about.

[PsychoticFox]

Death is a cheap way of creating a "dark" atmosphere.

Tell me a story instead. Show me suffering. Show me an enemy at the gates. If you have to kill somebody make it mean something to the story. Don't just kill of characters for shock value and to add drama. There are two reasons I hate Game of Thrones: it's a series about medieval political intrigue and people drop like flies or get maimed for the sake of adding drama or getting a shock reaction from the reader.

[Angrywolves]

This isn' Game of Thrones nor should the fans of that show try to insist that Bioware adopt its style.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

And at the same time players shouldn't feel the need to bathe after making a given decision.

They should when that's the feeling which the writer wants you to feel.

Example: Connor and Isolde without the Mage Circle choice, you'd always feel bad either way.

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

[David7204]

Dave of Canada wrote...

How limited are you in your literature, film and games? Again, not everything follows the same formula.

Stories about people failing, stories about people in their final moments, stories about people losing their entire life, people coming to terms with their upcoming deaths, people dealing with poverty, people dealing with spousal abuse, etc.

I meant to imply stories by BioWare. Perhaps I should have clarified that.

No, of course every story does not have to be like that. But this one does. They're firmly established that theme.

A (supposeadly) powerful and competent protagonist? Choices that matter? Clear implications of 'epic' events and dark and heroic actions?

It's very clear. This is a story with rich heroic themes. And the narrative needs to validate those themes instead of betray them.

If you want to tell a story about a helpless man dying, that's great. You do that. What's not great at all is building themes and failing to validate them.

Modifié par David7204, 11 juin 2013 - 12:29 .

[Faroth]

Dragon Age Origins could see the death of many of your party members.

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

I'd like to mention that The Walking Dead did far worse and still managed to sell over fifteen million copies, was well-regarded and won countless Game of the Year awards and praise the fact that players felt emotionally wrecked at the end.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 juin 2013 - 12:29 .

[Jamesnew2]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

I'd like to mention that The Walking Dead did far worse and still managed to sell over fifteen million copies, was well-regarded and won countless Game of the Year awards and praise the fact that players felt emotionally wrecked at the end.

A very good example

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

But tthe player should not end up like Ned Stark for choosing to take a principled stand.  And absolutely shouldn't end up  with "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone else's"  "SO BE IT!!!!"

Well, the real problem with the Ned Stark approach is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. Ned takes a stand...and gets stepped on. The lesson there is "Don't be a good person", which (without giving spoilers) happens again during the unspeakable incident.

I don't see this as a lesson against railroading character deaths (Thane, for example). I see that as a lesson to give players different costs/benefits for their choices. What you're suggesting above is as bad as the Suicide Mission/Redcliffe because there's a clear cut right and wrong; the game is telling you it's wrong to be noble.  

I have no problems with making a game more challenging for taking a particular route.  But I strenuously object to punishing a player for it.  That's no more fun than metagaming.

But isn't making the game more challenging pretty much the same as punishing the player? Take KotOR. Light side characters typically make it through the experience with barely half the funds of Dark Side players. This is due to their lack of willingness to steal, kill, etc, to get their way and that many light side quests involve donating to help the less fortunate. That could be considered punishing the player.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

I'd like to mention that The Walking Dead did far worse and still managed to sell over fifteen million copies, was well-regarded and won countless Game of the Year awards and praise the fact that players felt emotionally wrecked at the end.

Indeed it did.  I played it myself.

But it's not really a choice based game.  However you play.  You can't save any of the main cast.  If they're scheduled to die, they're gonna die.  It's the exact same illusion of choice you scorn at the very idea of allowing a brighter outcome.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

And at the same time players shouldn't feel the need to bathe after making a given decision.

They should when that's the feeling which the writer wants you to feel.

Example: Connor and Isolde without the Mage Circle choice, you'd always feel bad either way.

That is an excellent way to turn people off of your games.

That's fine, but then I'd recommend writers avoid contrived scenarios like Redcliffe altogether.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

That's fine, but then I'd recommend writers avoid contrived scenarios like Redcliffe altogether.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but that's an entirely separate issue.

[alex90c]

i've skipped almost every post in this thread just to read dave's replies

you guys are boring

[David7204]

David as in me?

[Tinu]

alex90c wrote...

i've skipped almost every post in this thread just to read dave's replies

you guys are boring

So are you. BUT don't worry about it.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

Well, the real problem with the Ned Stark approach is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. Ned takes a stand...and gets stepped on. The lesson there is "Don't be a good person", which (without giving spoilers) happens again during the unspeakable incident.

I don't see this as a lesson against railroading character deaths (Thane, for example). I see that as a lesson to give players different costs/benefits for their choices. What you're suggesting above is as bad as the Suicide Mission/Redcliffe because there's a clear cut right and wrong; the game is telling you it's wrong to be noble.  [/quote]

Well, the sentiment among some here seems to be that it is wrong to be noble.  That the player should be stepped on for "being a good person"  Which is what I object to.

[quote]
I have no problems with making a game more challenging for taking a particular route.  But I strenuously object to punishing a player for it.  That's no more fun than metagaming.
[/quote]

But isn't making the game more challenging pretty much the same as punishing the player? Take KotOR. Light side characters typically make it through the experience with barely half the funds of Dark Side players. This is due to their lack of willingness to steal, kill, etc, to get their way and that many light side quests involve donating to help the less fortunate. That could be considered punishing the player.
[/quote]

Not really.  Making a game more challenging is letting a player choose to take the hard route because the alternative is "dark side"  Punishing a player is when the player not only has to take the tougher route, but the character is made to suffer for it as well.   

[Jamesnew2]

TinuHawke wrote...

alex90c wrote...

i've skipped almost every post in this thread just to read dave's replies

you guys are boring

So are you. BUT don't worry about it.

Its our new initiative of our new forgiving nature...

We forgive you 

Modifié par Jamesnew2, 11 juin 2013 - 12:41 .

[archangel1996]

Just don't do a BITTERsweet ending again

Modifié par archangel1996, 11 juin 2013 - 12:51 .