141 réponses à ce sujet

[Roujinx94]

JCAP wrote...
Maybe we should make a petition like the one they are doing for GTA 5 to come to pc.:happy:

I'm supporting you so hard right now. When do we get our 100+ page thread and our banners?

[ElMuchu]

On my side, I found ME3 is a good well balanced game. We can discuss endings but the ideas were good ones: with more various endings cinematics, choices could have had a deep impact due to EMS and main plot is really good. I want this kind of game.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Just be like DAO with the choices and I'll be happy.

[elvici]

Roujinx94 wrote...

JCAP wrote...
Maybe we should make a petition like the one they are doing for GTA 5 to come to pc.:happy:

I'm supporting you so hard right now. When do we get our 100+ page thread and our banners?

Count me in! We can do the whole Occupy Edmonton bit. You get to work on those banners; I'll mod a range of slogan-heavy protest shirts for Hawke and co... 

(Sorry - please feel free to return to original point of thread) 

Modifié par elvici, 29 juillet 2013 - 06:07 .

[D1ck1e]

I want both.

[Plaintiff]

Roujinx94 wrote...

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.

Lol, nothing sexist about the fact that being a witcher just happens to make you an irresistable sex god.

[JCAP]

Plaintiff wrote...

Roujinx94 wrote...

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.

Lol, nothing sexist about the fact that being a witcher just happens to make you an irresistable sex god.

Omigod you made my day XD

[Plaintiff]

King Cousland wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Don't care.

Don't comment.

I'll comment where I please. I'm allowed to express my opinion, even if it's an opinion of ambivalence. Who died and made you the fascist dictator of the internet?

[Angrywolves]

Didn't they cut/leave stuff out of ME3 ?
If so, how could it have been well balanced ?
shrugs. Shouldn't have to give up one for the other.

[legbamel]

Any game that is planned to have a direct sequel can offer you a limited number of options or you won't get to the starting point of the next game.  You can have a hundred shallow choices that get nods later but they big events have to be scripted without your input because they're hardly going to write a game for each possible outcome when choices that lead to a significantly different world state forces the writers to either retcon outright or to invent convoluted reasoning to explain why you were offered a choice but, gee, sorry, it didn't "take".

Thus I prefer a series give me as much character depth as possible--but if I can eat my cake, too, I do love those superficial choices that get recognized farther down the line.  Nathaniel and Harrowmont's relatives say "hi" on that score. 

[OLDIRTYBARON]

I saw some bull**** in this thread about how The Witcher had less choice than a Dragon Age game or something so I'm just going to respond to that.

It totally has more choices than a Dragon Age game. Even Origins. From beginning to end, The Witcher (and most definitely Witcher 2) allowed me to choose what I did, how I did it, and I chose my motivation for doing it. Witcher 2 for example. I didn't care about "clearing my name" or protecting the kingdom or any of that standard fantasy jazz. My motivation was finding my girlfriend and getting the hell out of dodge. The Witcher 2 totally accounted for that decision, that motivation, and even structured an entire second act -around- that choice. The Witcher not only allowed me to decide my own reasons for my own actions, it allowed me to express those reasons within the context of the game world. To put it simply, Geralt of Rivia was the closest thing I've had to complete creative freedom in "choice" in a video game. You can't get closer than Witcher 2 got without saying to hell with video games and just playing a pen and paper RPG where choice is truly limitless.

That's all I wanted to say, really. More choice, less choice, it doesn't matter to me. I don't care about changing the world or "leaving my mark" on it. So long as the game I'm playing allows me to decide my own motivation and express that motivation, I'm a happy gamer.

[In Exile]

A reactive story is very different from a detailed story or deep story. Take Alpha Protocol, for example. It's not a long game, it doesn't have companions, it doesn't have particularly open levels, but man, when it comes to small scale choice and consequence it's absolutely phenomenal. TW2 is a similar game.

What both AP and TW2 offer is quite a lot of options in the context of branching political story. There's no reason - other than cost - why Micheal Thorton had to be a dude in AP, and design-wise there isn't anything special about Geralt being a man (though obviously he's an iconic character from the books).

CDProjeckt could easily create a game identical to TW2 with gender choice. It would be somewhat costlier, the game might be a slight bit shorter... but there's nothing preventing them from offering the exact same design structure.

And depending on how TW3 turns out, they might even drive a stake into the heart of this idea that somehow an open-world game can't have deep or branching content. Just because TES can't do exclusive content worth a damn and just because Bioware's level design and plot design are linear doesn't mean that somehow these two things are metaphysically exclusive.

[Volus Warlord]

Plaintiff wrote...
Lol, nothing sexist about the fact that being a witcher just happens to make you an irresistable sex god.

I don't see how that's much different than the ability to romance everything. 

[AresKeith]

Plaintiff wrote...

King Cousland wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Don't care.

Don't comment.

I'll comment where I please. I'm allowed to express my opinion, even if it's an opinion of ambivalence. Who died and made you the fascist dictator of the internet?

So you do care about the topic 

[Sebby]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Lol, nothing sexist about the fact that being a witcher just happens to make you an irresistable sex god.

I don't see how that's much different than the ability to romance everything. 

Bioware romances are so deep, my PC just has to have a pulse and the bang is on!

[Ravensword]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Lol, nothing sexist about the fact that being a witcher just happens to make you an irresistable sex god.

I don't see how that's much different than the ability to romance everything. 

Kinda reminds me of Shepard. And the Warden. And Hawke. Is BW sexist for making their PC's irresistable sex gods and godessess, or do they get a pass simply for being BW's characters?

Modifié par Ravensword, 30 juillet 2013 - 01:35 .

[Nightdragon8]

JCAP wrote...

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.

honestly I think that article if full of it. you can have alot of choices and still have a deep story. it ALL depends on how long the writers have to work on the game. so the only real factor is time and money.

[Dabrikishaw]

JackumsD wrote...

Whatever you would classify DA:O as.

[Pauravi]

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.
....
Personally, I found Skyrim's open world and infinite quests very immersive

Heh, personally I have precisely the opposite opinion.

More options generally means that it is impossible for your actions to have as deep an impact on the game world.  In Skyrim, nothing I did, no matter how seemingly monumental it was, seemed to have any deeper an effect on the game than to replace one inconsequential NPC with another, or add a stupid line to the city guards' repertoire.  That was simply not satisfying.

I would much rather have a quest that is designed such that my choices
are restricted, in a realistic way, to 2 or 3 options, each of which has
deeper and more varied consequences that are more tightly entertwined with the story. 
We have to live with the fact that a computer RPG can never have an
infinite breadth of choices; there is not, and never will be a game
that can accomodate every course of action that a player can want or
imagine.  That being the case, at least make sure that the choices we
DO have will actually feel impactful within the game world.

Sure, we can all use our imaginations to dream up consequences that the
game itself doesn't actually deliver.  But then, why are you even
playing?  At that point the game is just getting in the way of your
imagination and you should really just go write a fanfic or something.  A
game is more like reading a book than writing one - you're
playing it to experience someone elses story, and your imagination isn't
"canon".  Imagining consequences to choices in a game is like writing
in the margins of a book and pretending that it's part of the story.


To address the Skyrim reference, I really can't see why it is being used as an example of an RPG that offers lots of choice or flexibility in questing.  Skyrim doesn't actually offer much choice at all.  For most quests the only choice is to do them or not.  For many others the choices only amounted to what order you wanted to complete the objectives in.  Even the more complex ones simply amounted to one or two binary choices: Either help Villager X get his stuff back or make a deal with Villain Y for cash instead of helping, or perhaps help NPC W instead of the mutually exclusive NPC Z .

Even more galling was the fact that quest lines that actually seemed to matter -- such as the Thieves Guild quests -- had basically NO choice.  The only choice amounted to either doing the quests or not.  There weren't even "good guy" and "bad guy" quest arcs.  I mean, can you help Mjoll take down her hated thieves guild from the inside?  Or expose Maven and end the corruption in Riften by bringing evidence to the Jarl and helping her root out the Guild?  No, you can't do any of those things.  You either join the thieves guild and do the quests or you do nothing and simply miss out on the content entirely.  Mjoll doesn't even get angry when you take her along on the quests to help perpetuate the corruption she seemingly hates so much.  That's what I call joltingly unrealistic and restrictive: not only is there no choice, but the quest is so poorly written and designed that it didn't even try to hide glaring plot holes or explain your lack of ability to pursue other options.  Total garbage.

[JCAP]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

bla bla bla

honestly I think that article if full of it. you can have alot of choices and still have a deep story. it ALL depends on how long the writers have to work on the game. so the only real factor is time and money.

But they have limited time and money.

Some people are not aware of the implications of this question: more choices means more different scenarios, and more different scenarios means less time available for each.

Let's think about this:

multiple choices game: we have 3 origin choices, and at some point we are requested to face our past. That means 3 different scenarios. And if they offer even more choices during that quest, we have even more different scenarios. That would consume the time of the entire team even of the voice actors (I am not sure, but I think the more they talk the more Bioware has to pay them) [and this is a simple example, if they do DAI like DAO they are dealing with many more scenarios]


In a linear story, they can focus all their efforts in that particular situation and that means more rich details in animation, world design, etc. For example, compare GTA conversations to Dragon Age or even witcher. All cutscenes where our protagonist is talking to someone they have no re-used animation, while in most RPG's they have a setting of animations and are constantly re-using them.

[Dave of Canada]

More reactivity at the cost of a shorter game.

Re-doing 3-4 playthroughs and still discovering things is fun, doing two playthroughs and discovering everything except for who I can sleep with's dialogue.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 juillet 2013 - 02:27 .

[Plaintiff]

Volus Warlord wrote...
I don't see how that's much different than the ability to romance everything. 

No game has the ability to romance everything, but even if it did, that would at least be fair.

As it is, The Witcher apparently gives Geralt the power of being awesome at sex (which is relevant to his job or the story how?), and a significant number of the women he encounters are vapid bimbos who immediatly jump into bed with him because the only thing that was ever stopping them from throwing themselves at every man that came their way was the risk of disease?

I suppose having even that much awareness puts them ahead of the curve as far as female characters are concerned.

Mr.House wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Don't care.

You would care if it gave you more ****** material.

I don't "******" over videogames, if only because I need both hands for the controller, and also my console is in the living room, where anyone could just walk past.

And even if I did, I don't see how this is even remotely relevant. I think you are using the actual topic of this thread as a flimsy pretext to attack me over unrelated issues, when I have done nothing to provoke you.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juillet 2013 - 03:45 .

[XGrlGamerX]

I think Bioware has mostly done a great job of providing both, that's why they are well known for their games.

But if it came down to choosing either/or I would choose story over options any day.

[Sebby]

In Witcher I had to fight off rapists, demonic ghost dogs, break into somebody's house looking for the right liquor and then run across town for the rendezvous in time in order to get a bang.

And in DA/ME I just had to pick the upper right dialogue option.

It's clear which are the cheap fapbait games.