141 réponses à ce sujet

[JCAP]

I was reading some articles about western rpg's and all talked about this topic: more options = less plot or vice versa.

2 excelent examples are The Witcher and The Elder Scrolls.

The witcher restrain us to one gender and one race and it has less decisions and choices compared to Dragon Age or Elder S., but as consequence, it has an excelent backstory, plot, immersion, etc.

Elder Scrolls it's much more open ended compared to Dragon Age, it let's us do things our way, doesn't restrain us in any way and we can complete quests the way we want; we almost have infinite choices. But as a consequence, the story isn't that impressive, even of the main quests. I am not saying it's bad, because it's not, but it is cliche.


So, Dragon Agers, what road would you prefer Dragon Age Inquisition should walk? Should it be more restrained but with more plot or more open ended but with less plot?



In my opinion, they should try to offer more options and choices. For example, I would like to see interruption choices like in Mass Effect, or choices to refuse to take one side or another. (I always wanted to say this to Orsino and Meredith: "kill yourselves, I don't care, I will make some popcorn while you're at it"


Edit:

I am not asking if Dragon Age should become exclusively this or that, I am asking if it should become a little more this or that.

Modifié par JCAP, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:09 .

[Challseus]

The former

[Felya87]

more options, the better. since the "profound story" resulted in DA2 that give little more freedom in character creation than Final Fantasy.

[Ziggeh]

JCAP wrote...

The witcher ... as consequence, it has an excelent backstory, plot, immersion, etc.

I'm still really confused by statements like that.

[Jackums]

Whatever you would classify DA:O as.

[Fredward]

Like with most things in my life I prefer the comfortable gray area between poles. Happily Bioware does this anyway.

[elvici]

I don't consider the two mutually exclusive; if the player has more options available to them, they are more likely to feel invested in the story, and will probably therefore find its outcome more satisfying. RPGs are usually pretty story-intensive anyway (just the nature of the beast), and fantasy gamers particularly tend to be an imaginative bunch. Personally, I found Skyrim's open world and infinite quests very immersive, because I projected my own motivations and back story onto the placeholder protagonist. 

[JCAP]

Ziggeh wrote...

JCAP wrote...

The witcher ... as consequence, it has an excelent backstory, plot, immersion, etc.

I'm still really confused by statements like that.

I really liked the way they handled the politics in Witcher 2 and the mistery behind Geralt past developing. Oh, did I mention that there aren't good or bad choices? That it's completely based on the person point of view?

[InfinitePaths]

There is so much wrong with this post to begin with.

"The witcher restrain us to one gender and one race and it has less decisions and choices compared to Dragon Age"

Both of the witcher games offer more meaningful choices than both of the dragon age games.Just because we are limited to a set backstory doesn't mean we can't shape the future of the game.The choices in both games can shape the way the game plays out,Dragon age Origins/Dragon age 2 always ends roughly the same.

And skyrim offers no meaningful choice in game whatsoever except for the character creation.People like it beacause it is open world and you can kill dragons with swords in a giant world.Yeah,most gamers don't care about investment in the game instead they want to just kill dragons with swords and magic.

Now that that is settled.

About the original question eh...both.It's not mutually exclusive.Look at the witcher *cough*.I'm sure Bioware has great writing so I'm not worried about that and they promised us more choices,so I have faith in Bioware that they will do both of those things just fine.

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 29 juillet 2013 - 01:36 .

[Cheylus]

I don't see the link between "less options = deeper story, etc" and "more options = less story" to be honest. In my opinion, all is related to game design choices and quality of the writing.

or choices to refuse to take one side or another. (I always wanted to say this to Orsino and Meredith: "kill yourselves, I don't care, I will make some popcorn while you're at it"

The game is fair with the amount of options you have to resolve conflicts, until this. This is maybe the first time you have to choose something which is almost forced to you because the writing doesn't treat that question with the complexity it deserved.

[JCAP]

elvici wrote...

I don't consider the two mutually exclusive; if the player has more options available to them, they are more likely to feel invested in the story, and will probably therefore find its outcome more satisfying. RPGs are usually pretty story-intensive anyway (just the nature of the beast), and fantasy gamers particularly tend to be an imaginative bunch. Personally, I found Skyrim's open world and infinite quests very immersive, because I projected my own motivations and back story onto the placeholder protagonist. 

I too found Skyrim immersive, the books and the creativity behind the design of the world is awesome. But sometimes npc's don't recognize you as a very important person.

For example, I defeated Alduin, one big mean badass dragon, that no one ever defeated. I was the only living person steping in Sovngard and come back, and the damn Galmar wants me to prove him that I can survive agains't one Ice Wraith and treats me like a common recruit. And the guards ****** me off, they sometimes don't show respect.

Open ended games can be immersive, but they can break it easily with bugs or plot holes.

Modifié par JCAP, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:06 .

[JCAP]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

There is so much wrong with this post to begin with.

"The witcher restrain us to one gender and one race and it has less decisions and choices compared to Dragon Age"

Both of the witcher games offer more meaningful choices than both of the dragon age games.Just because we are limited to a set backstory doesn't mean we can't shape the future of the game.The choices in both games can shape the way the game plays out,Dragon age Origins/Dragon age 2 always ends roughly the same.

You misunderstood, I didn't say Witcher doesn't have choices (it's a RPG after all), I said it has less compared to DA and TES.

And because they have less choices they made them meaningful. The NPC recognize your choices and they mention them, but they don't recognize your personality. For example, they don't remember if you were a s.o.b. with them before and treat you the same way.

In Dragon Age we have a choice in almost every conversation and the NPC's (or our companions) recognize your personality sometimes (bad/good relation in O and rivalry/friendly in 2).


Edit:

Witcher 2 has 3 chapters, each one with at least 1 major decision. If we throw away those decisions and stay with the less important ones, the game could be almost linear.

In DAO, if we throw away the major decisions (king orzamar, circle, redcliff, etc) and stay with the less important ones, the game would be almost linear too BUT we would still have the character development, the romances etc.

Are you understanding my point? 

I have difficulties to explain myself in English, it's not my native language.

Modifié par JCAP, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:00 .

[Catroi]

I don't care about gameplay choices but i want more story choices and a deeper story

[AllThatJazz]

 Depends. If we're talking about something along the lines of removing gender options and making a completely set protagonist, like in The Witcher, then I would prefer Bioware to stick with what they do currently. The majority of games I play already have me play as a guy, there are plenty of those games out there, and I don't particularly want Bioware going that route. Yes, I'm prepared to sacrifice a certain degree of depth of narrative to be offered that choice, because I feel that giving me such an option also offers depth, albeit of a different kind.

My feelings on other sorts of choices are more positive, indifferent, or occasionally ambivalent.  I would happily have a PC, for example,  who could only take one specialisation, if that specialisation came with a decent amount of reactivity in the game and perhaps a quest arc of its own, as long as I was able to choose from several specs in the first place. 

For me, Bio offers a middle ground experience - some customisation but not on the the level of, say, Skyrim; and some reactivity but not on the level of games like Alpha Protocol. And that's fine with me, it's a middle ground I enjoy. There are already extremes of both out there for those who want them

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:27 .

[Roujinx94]

I prefer the formula they used on DA:O. Give us dialogue options with little to no impact on the story for roleplaying purposes and a few major choices that have (or at least should have) major repercussions. No point in adding a bunch of minor choices to make it feel like we're doing something when they don't have any effect on things whatsoever, especially if that's going to get in the way of the plot.

[blod007]

\\whether playing as the PC or putting yourself as the bystander, there's got be reasons for actions and reactions, so plot line and deeper story for me.

[Plaintiff]

Don't care.

[Warden661]

I'm sure there is a good and reasonable in-between that'll make everyone happy......... Right?

[Wulfram]

Less options for the protagonist does make it easier to do a more protagonist focused story, but I don't think it inherently makes for a deeper one.

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:55 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

First TES isn't so open yeah we have open world and we can go where we want to but often we have only one way to resolve quest two if we have lucky , game doesn't allow us to create more than complete psychopath or anti-hero sometimes allow us to be hero but that cost 2/4 quest we can't resolve in good way.

I don't want witcher also (very deep universe where womans are ****s and mans drunken rapists at least 85 % ) whatever we choose that always end in bad way you can only choose if your hero will screw entirely or almost entirely i don't even mention "hero" who is walking disaster.

What i want is that i could create my character in many ways but also that he will have specific direction and goal (and why we are in it should depend on the players) but between that i could do other things and game have others side quest what aren't related to main quest but that was more than 3 minutes something like de'arnise keep. In baldurs gate 2 that was good we have goal but we could optionally other important quests not related to main quest from helping little girl to helping city .

You can hate me now.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:15 .

[Knight of Dane]

I don't see why we can't hope for both choices and deep story.

Modifié par Knight of Dane, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:12 .

[Nefla]

I care more about building my character and forming their personality and actions than the storyline itself. I did really like the choices in TW2 and how it really had an effect but the fixed protagonist meant I only played that game once. A fixed protagonist in DA would mean I would not buy the game.

[JCAP]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

First TES isn't so open yeah we have open world and we can go where we want to but often we have only one way to resolve quest two if we have lucky , game doesn't allow us to create more than complete psychopath or anti-hero sometimes allow us to be hero but that cost 2/4 quest we can't resolve in good way.

I don't want witcher also (very deep universe where womans are ****s and mans drunken rapists at least 85 % ) whatever we choose that always end in bad way you can only choose if your hero will screw entirely or almost entirely i don't even mention "hero" who is walking disaster.

What i want is that i could create my character in many ways but also that he will have specific direction and goal (and why we are in it should depend on the players) but between that i could do other things and game have others side quest what aren't related to main quest but that was more than 3 minutes something like de'arnise keep. In baldurs gate 2 that was good we have goal but we could optionally other important quests not related to main quest from helping little girl to helping city .

You can hate me now.

I will hate you forever!!!! lol

Witcher universe is indeed sexist, but it was designed to resemble mediaval Europe. Sorry to tell you, but mediaval Europe was really like that. Soldiers missed women and they raped every women in every village they conquered. Even in World War 2 soldiers raped women.

You can't say that the sexism in Witcher universe is a bad feature or insulting, it's just representing the reality that really existed in our world. (and Geralt condones rapists, he just opens a hole in Loredo rapist belly)

And Geralt isn't a hero (although compared to the normal folk he is a saint). That's one of best things of witcher, you make a choice and you do it because you thought it was the best choice at the moment. We already have to many heroes in gaming industry, there should be more normal protagonists.

Modifié par JCAP, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:29 .

[Roujinx94]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

I don't want witcher also (very deep universe where womans are ****s and mens drunken rapists at least 85 % ) whatever we choose that always end in bad way you can only choose if your hero will screw entirely or almost entirely i don't even mention "hero" who is walking disaster.

I know this board isn't about The Witcher but I just can't resist when you tease me like that.

Women are only ****s for witchers and it's for lore-related reasons, namely the fact that they're guaranteed to be disease-free since they can't get sick and that they're dogs, which means it's probably going to be a pleasant experience. Most peasants are uncultured (or drunken rapists, as you put it) but that's a pretty decent representation of the lower classes in medieval times (I'm just pulling this out of my ass, actually, history isn't my forte).

Things only end badly depending on your perspective, the game doesn't give you that one comfortable "third choice" that allows you to make everyone in the world happy instead of, you know, actually having to put some thought into it, I actually prefer it this way but this one is a matter of personal preference. And Geralt isn't really a hero, he was never meant to be. His job is to hunt monsters and stay neutral, he got involved in something bigger because someone was too greedy for their own good.

Anyway, I'll just let you guys get back on topic now.

Modifié par Roujinx94, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:30 .

[JCAP]

Roujinx94 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

bla bla bla

blabla bla
Anyway, I'll just let you guys get back on topic now.

I agree with all of your points.

But let's not unwrap this anymore. Or that terrible phrase will haunt this topic:

"End of the line"