195 réponses à ce sujet

[weaselshep]

Well look at it this way, there were even lulls in the fighting during the world wars. It's not unreasonable for a major conflict to have quieter moments. In fact that's the norm. A lot of waiting with bits of chaos thrown in.

[DarthLaxian]

Plaintiff wrote...

If a plot is urgent, it should create a sense of urgency in the player. If, conversely, the goal of gameplay is to allow exploration, then the story should support that.

I think your fears are groundless. If anything, I'd say Inquisition is far more likely to follow the general Dragon Age trend so far, which is to have the story take place over a significant amount of time, perhaps more than is strictly necessary.

well, i would say that DA:O was "urgent" (there was a blight after all) but i agree that it didn't feel that way, because we were not reminded at every corner (they could have gone that road: just at market criers that tell us which village/town got destroyed by them while we were helping Sten look for his blade or get Alistair to see his sister (that b.itch) again etc. (ME3 had those news being on, people constantly talking about the war etc. while DA:O was more paced (it owes that to it being the "middle ages" more or less, where gathering an army (even for monsters like the darkspawn - which are spread out in the deep-roads etc.) takes TIME!) but thankfully they did not (which gave us the leisure to take in the scenery....add to that, that there was much more to take in, too and you have a well paced (and not rushing you onwards) game!)

greetings LAX
ps: I hope they keep Dragon Age this way (as the pace - amongst many other things (i don't want to write a list as the partial i did once kicked of a major depression!) - is what ruins ME3 IMHO (they could have avoided that, too, by not having the reapers show up at the start but somewhere mid-game (or even end-game!))

[Fast Jimmy]

weaselshep wrote...

Well look at it this way, there were even lulls in the fighting during the world wars. It's not unreasonable for a major conflict to have quieter moments. In fact that's the norm. A lot of waiting with bits of chaos thrown in.

What? That's not what every WW2 shooter has ever taught me!


To be entirely fair, the concept that crises of the worlds of video games hinge on how quickly or slowly the protagonist gets done with a set of tasks is pretty unbelievable. 

With that in mind, I'd be curious to see a game that incorporated not only some sort of timer that gave a ticking clock on when you had to have something done, but also on when certain next actions could even be taken. Dead Rising had a model similar to this, where side quests could only be completed during certain time frames (and you'd have to bust ass across the mall to complete them!) but also the main quest objectives only became available after certain time frames as well. So even if you had done everything the main plot required, the next stage of the main story was still hours/days away, leaving you time to do side quests/explore. 

Maybe this is something that could be looked at for a future RPG. 

[pmac_tk421]

The speed thing didn't really hurt ME3 in my opinion though since side quests weren't rescuing kittens. They weren't on the critical path but they still involved furthering the war effort.

[Maria Caliban]

weaselshep wrote...

Well look at it this way, there were even lulls in the fighting during the world wars. It's not unreasonable for a major conflict to have quieter moments. In fact that's the norm. A lot of waiting with bits of chaos thrown in.

I agree with this, though I'd say the previous Dragon Age games haven't conveyed this well.

[AllThatJazz]

pmac_tk421 wrote...

The speed thing didn't really hurt ME3 in my opinion though since side quests weren't rescuing kittens. They weren't on the critical path but they still involved furthering the war effort.

I agree with this. The little scanning quests were often in systems that you had to travel to/past anyway, and could otherwise be ignored since there was no story content there and the rewards were insignificant xp/money wise (and in any case added to the war effort so still linked to the main quest); and the big proper sidequests were all connected to the war, and often took place on the actual planet where you had to go on the critical path anyway (eg disarming the bomb on Tuchanka or rescuing Admiral Koris). I liked the feeling of being under a certain amount of pressure, I thought it suited the plot far better than the pacing in DA:O suited the plot of that game.

The way it was done in Deus Ex, as pointed out by Maria (baddies aren't here YET, so you have time to get all your stuff done or what have you), would be a good way forward in a more expansive title. I personally would not like a complete return to the DA:O formula ("The world is being torn apart as we speak! Woe! Doom! Oh, and btw can you go and get me a pair of shoes from this place you've already been to and is five weeks travel away? Don't worry, Evil will wait until I have new footwear! kthx!")

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 31 juillet 2013 - 08:58 .

[Das Tentakel]

Maria Caliban wrote...

weaselshep wrote...

Well look at it this way, there were even lulls in the fighting during the world wars. It's not unreasonable for a major conflict to have quieter moments. In fact that's the norm. A lot of waiting with bits of chaos thrown in.

I agree with this, though I'd say the previous Dragon Age games haven't conveyed this well.

Well…true in the sense that on a single front (modern warfare) or a single campaign (premodern and early modern wars with their dependence on the weather, roads and the season) there would be prolonged pauses in the fighting, at least locally. The conflicts are still going on, though, and there would be a ‘background buzz’: Sieges, raids, troop movements, other fronts that are more lively, etc.
A really prolonged period of widespread little to no action is actually unusual; that’s why Germans jokingly referred to the period from 6 october 1939 to 8 april 1940 as the ‘Sitzkrieg’ (‘sitting war’) as opposed to the ‘Blitzkrieg’ of the previous campaign in Poland.

To be honest, I am totally fuzzy about how much time DA:O actually occupied, or how big the distances were inside Ferelden. The game did give me a strong feeling of the Darkspawn politely waiting until everything was ready for them, rather than them actively ravaging half of Ferelden. Darkspawn may be evil, but apparently courteously evil.

When I think about it, I am not sure whether a war, civil war, evil horde invasion etc. is a really good background for a CRPG. In theory it makes for great drama, but in practice you either have to severely water down the experience so that people can actually enjoy the game’s content (including the gameworld) or hurry things along to make the story somewhat credible. The latter does work well with linear action games (or strategy games) with a strong narrative though. I still get an adrenaline rush when I think of parts of Halo, Half-life II and some of my favourite games ever, Freespace I and II (shameless little plug for Freespace and the Freespace modder community:www.youtube.com/watch )

CRPG’s? Not so much. I always want to smell the roses…but then again, I’m an Explorer type according to the Bartle test (www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology ; note it is meant for players of MMORPG’s and has some applicability to CRPG’s, but not action games).

[Sylvius the Mad]

ME was a lot like BG in this respect. It's not really clear to the PC exactly what's happening for much of the first half of the game, so almost any activity could be justified as being potentially plot relevant.

As for why events don't rush forward despite our inaction, that's all happening off-screen, so there's no way for us to know how quickly things are moving or why.

[pmac_tk421]

AllThatJazz wrote...

pmac_tk421 wrote...

The speed thing didn't really hurt ME3 in my opinion though since side quests weren't rescuing kittens. They weren't on the critical path but they still involved furthering the war effort.

I agree with this. The little scanning quests were often in systems that you had to travel to/past anyway, and could otherwise be ignored since there was no story content there and the rewards were insignificant xp/money wise (and in any case added to the war effort so still linked to the main quest); and the big proper sidequests were all connected to the war, and often took place on the actual planet where you had to go on the critical path anyway (eg disarming the bomb on Tuchanka or rescuing Admiral Koris). I liked the feeling of being under a certain amount of pressure, I thought it suited the plot far better than the pacing in DA:O suited the plot of that game.

The way it was done in Deus Ex, as pointed out by Maria (baddies aren't here YET, so you have time to get all your stuff done or what have you), would be a good way forward in a more expansive title. I personally would not like a complete return to the DA:O formula ("The world is being torn apart as we speak! Woe! Doom! Oh, and btw can you go and get me a pair of shoes from this place you've already been to and is five weeks travel away? Don't worry, Evil will wait until I have new footwear! kthx!")

My idea was to start out with just the mage rebellion so that in the beginning things are bad but the world isn't falling apart. This would allow you to do some non related side quests early on. Save the sky opening up for later in the game where the side quests become more ME3 like where they aren't on the critical plot but are still involved in stopping the main threat.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

If the leaked survey can be believed (which, even if it could at the time, may still be highly inaccurate due to changes over time, but let's just assume), the beginning of the game will be the explosion/attack on the peace summit with demons pouring out.

I feel like that could be a bit too much at once, though, unless there is an intro scene that let's us get to know our character/get a feel for things before demons start attacking.

Also, I'd really hate for demons to be cannon fodder in this game. I'd rather thyy present a true and difficult challenge in combat, so that an early player would not be able to walk in and slay twenty of them on Level 3. So if we begin the game with them pouring out of the Fade, it would be nice if you felt you were actually running for your life from such an encounter... but that's just my own two cents.

[Nightwriter]

There are a lot of valid criticisms for ME3, but that isn't one.

I get the "don't give me leisure quests when there's a main quest that seems time sensitive" thing, though.

[XGrlGamerX]

EntropicAngel wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

I see where you are coming from, but weren't people also complaining that there was no urgency behind DA2's plot, and no over-arching evil to vanquish?
I'm personally hoping the veil isn't torn from the get go. Although since we already know it will happen, that would take away from the effect if it happens partway through the game.

I personally liked the lack of urgency in DA ]['s plot.

But you know what, I bet they'd have been a LOT more okay with the lack of urgency if the game didn't restrict us to a single city. If we were allowed to explore the world a bit, like DA:O, I believe DA ][ would have been a bit better received.

And I agree with you on the second paragraph. ME3 had two games to build up to the Reapers--we don't have a clue how any sort of Fade-ripping could even happen. It should happen later on, when we can understand it.

I'll agree with the city part. I felt like I was fighting for more of a cause in the first game because I got to interact with both the land and people that my Warden was fighting for. Even to this day I couldn't care less about Kirkwall. Which is sad to admit because I really wanted to like that city, but after being stuck in it forever I just can't make myself even like it. 

I also agree with hoping that DAI doesn't "jump" into a conflict and has a slower pace.. While I wasn't really phased by it in ME3, I do know that I enjoyed the idea of "yes, we have to hurry, but it's better to prepare and be ready before we jump in" ideal, which I think DAO did an amazing job of. 

[In Exile]

I don't get how you can feel that DA:O meant you were fighting for a cause, when all we did was run errands for political actors. I mean, yes, that's typically what working for a cause IRL amounts to... but I find it very hard to feel heroic when I'm essentially an errand-boy. Which is, of course, the D&D quest model that Bioware's been using since BG1.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

I don't get how you can feel that DA:O meant you were fighting for a cause, when all we did was run errands for political actors. I mean, yes, that's typically what working for a cause IRL amounts to... but I find it very hard to feel heroic when I'm essentially an errand-boy. Which is, of course, the D&D quest model that Bioware's been using since BG1.

It certainly had more that feel than DA2. DA2 if there was a cause you even wanted to join, like Anders underground or a pro-Qunari stance, you couldn't. 

I'd take DA:O giving me the ability to determine the fate of kings, dragons, souls and ancient artifacts over some of the non-choices in DA2. Just a personal preference. 

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There are a lot of valid criticisms for ME3, but that isn't one.

I get the "don't give me leisure quests when there's a main quest that seems time sensitive" thing, though.

Well I felt it was one! *crosses arms*

But really, the point I was mainly going for and kind of failed to elucidate was--in the midst of all this, it's tough to do milieu. Bioware makes milieu games, that's their specialty. ME2 was a marvelous, marvelous milieu game. ME1 was a decent one, but it was somewhat hindered by a plot that depended somewhat on the speed of Shepard (artificially, anyway).

A slower plot allows the game to better be a milieu game without breaking the plot.

As a game player, I am pretty open to either.  Some games work well with a more directed, faster crit plot.  Others work well with one that is slower.  The variety keeps things fresh, IMO.

If *all* games were one or the other, I think that that would be suboptimal for me.

[fchopin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

But really, the point I was mainly going for and kind of failed to elucidate was--in the midst of all this, it's tough to do milieu. Bioware makes milieu games, that's their specialty. ME2 was a marvelous, marvelous milieu game. ME1 was a decent one, but it was somewhat hindered by a plot that depended somewhat on the speed of Shepard (artificially, anyway).

A slower plot allows the game to better be a milieu game without breaking the plot.

I completely disagree with you on the ME2 point that it had a slow plot that you could take your time.
What you should have said is that there was no plot in ME2 that was relevant to Mass Effect so you could take all year to play the game as it was a pointless game.
Mass Effect is better if you play ME1 and then go to ME3 without playing the idiotic ME2.
 
If you prefer to play games that have no plot or just a game that has only companions and companion interaction that is fine but they would have no plot.
 
I do agree with you that games where you have time to breath and take it easy are better than being forced to continue with the plot but ME3 was a special case.

[XGrlGamerX]

In Exile wrote...

I don't get how you can feel that DA:O meant you were fighting for a cause, when all we did was run errands for political actors. I mean, yes, that's typically what working for a cause IRL amounts to... but I find it very hard to feel heroic when I'm essentially an errand-boy. Which is, of course, the D&D quest model that Bioware's been using since BG1.

You're fighting against a blight and gathering people together, which if you hadn't, would have cost you the last fight. In DA2, you are literally running around doing errands, not really able to make a "stand" against something, and becoming Champion of your city. 

I understand that people might prefer that more or find that cause worthy, but I still will find the epicness of traveling from the Deep Roads to retrieving Andraste's ashes, to be one of the most epic and cause-worthy titles/adventures out there. 

[Maria Caliban]

You could take your time if you were comfortable with human colonies being abducted, but the game assumed Shepard didn't like the idea of hundreds of thousands of people being kidnapped for an unknown purpose by a group of aliens that seem to be connected to the Reapers.

If you're going to use metagame information then, sure, you can take all year. That's true for everyone of BioWare's games and any game that doesn't have an explicit clock.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could take your time if you were comfortable with human colonies being abducted, but the game assumed Shepard didn't like the idea of hundreds of thousands of people being kidnapped for an unknown purpose by a group of aliens that seem to be connected to the Reapers.

If you're going to use metagame information then, sure, you can take all year. That's true for everyone of BioWare's games and any game that doesn't have an explicit clock.

Well, starting out (and, indeed, at almost every interval of ME2), there was no crisis at hand. Sure, you had to recruit people, but you had no leads on how to enter the Omega relay, so it wasn't like there was any time crunch on having someone join your band of merry aliens?

[Maria Caliban]

I agree.

[Navasha]

I guess as a VERY long time game player, I realize that games typically proceed at the 'speed of plot'. So even though there is a war going on and Earth is under the gun, in the back of my mind, I know it will wait for me to get there.

As a completionist I go everywhere and do everything I can in a game. One of the biggest shocks I have ever had was in Deus Ex: Revolution when I realized that if I had just been quicker, the bomb might not have went off. I was literally shocked that something didn't wait for me to get there on my own time.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

With that in mind, I'd be curious to see a game that incorporated not only some sort of timer that gave a ticking clock on when you had to have something done, but also on when certain next actions could even be taken. Dead Rising had a model similar to this, where side quests could only be completed during certain time frames (and you'd have to bust ass across the mall to complete them!) but also the main quest objectives only became available after certain time frames as well. So even if you had done everything the main plot required, the next stage of the main story was still hours/days away, leaving you time to do side quests/explore. 

If Fallout is any indication, gamers loathe timers, even back in the more hardcore heydays. 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'd take DA:O giving me the ability to determine the fate of kings, dragons, souls and ancient artifacts over some of the non-choices in DA2. Just a personal preference. 

Arishok = King. Bone pit dragons = Dragons. Souls = Fenryeil. Ancient artifacts = piece of the red lyrium idol and Varric. 

Nope, looks pretty identical to me.