Pauravi wrote...
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.
Fair points, but I think that's not the right way to see Skyrim "choice" system.
One thing I hated about Skyrim was exactly that example you gave about Mjoll, many npc's don't recognize your deeds (the lack of respect the guards and stormcloack/empire generals have for you even after completing the main quest is a really immersion killer). But, Skyrim is a huge world and you can complete the quests the way you want, so it's almost impossible for the developers predict how you are going to do them.
(and I was a bit disapointed too that we can't denounce or destroy the Thieves Guild, but at least you have that option with the Dark Brotherhood)
And yes, most quests are basically binary in the end, "or you complete them or you don't", but you need to see this from the other angle. Skyrim is about the choices you make in how to complete the quests, you can do it alone, you can try to sneak and don't kill anyone, you can use your bow, etc...
Skyrim is about the open world and free reign in how you do things, while in DA you are stuck in the ground and you can only walk on the intended paths, in Skyrim you can walk where you want and reach your destination the way you want.
For example, is very cool reading a book about some guy who defended one city, and then, finding his crypt and fighting him in person! (yes, he is undead, but it's cool all the same)
But on the other hand, you defended my point, is because of the huge content that we have less detailed story, animations, etc...
KDD-0063 wrote...
I think the major lesson here is just don't be Dragon Age ][, because it has neither.
I feel Fallout New Vegas is an example of having many options, yet retaining good story in many of those options. It may not have the sheer amount of content that Skyrim has, but it actually has a lot more options in many story arcs. You often have different ways to complete jobs and different endings to those story arcs.
Actually, I think OP misunderstood "the amount of content" as "options".
Skyrim is the prime example of offering an enormous amount of content, but most of the content has relatively low quality. My only character in that game has gone over 100 hours and has not exhausted the content in the game, but I was bored and quitted. Sure, some parts of Skyrim are high quality content, but that could be like 10-15 hours.
Witcher 2, I suspect is the opposite, a relatively low amount of content, but the quality is very high. I have never player Witcher 2 (doesn't run on my computer), but please tell me how many hours would it take to finish one play through of Witcher 2, assuming one finishes all optional content?
Dragon Age Origins, I think, offers a high amount of content of moderately high quality. If you were to finish all content in DAO it could very well take more than 50 hours. Yet you'll want more.
Fallout New Vegas also offers a high amount of content of moderately high quality.
Dragon Age ][ offers a low amount of content, while the quality is quite poor. It is plagued by fetch quests and unskippable, meaningless combat sequences that screams boring all the time.
Yes, I think you may be right, but usually more choices means more content, unless the choices don't mean different outcomes and are just illusions (DAII, Dark (a game recently launched, it really sucks)).
Witcher 2 has 20-30 hours of playthrough, but I can't say for sure because I haven't played it in a long time. Or you can consult this site:
http://www.gamelengt...ssins of Kings/But witcher 2 was made to be replayed at least 1 time, because in the chapter 1, depending on 1 choice you make, you can go to either of 2 different locations to play the chapter 2. Witcher has 2 different chapters 2's.
And Fallout New Vegas actually managed very well the amount of content and story. New Vegas can't compare itself with Skyrim in terms of content, but that's why it has a more deep and detailed story.
Modifié par JCAP, 30 juillet 2013 - 11:05 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
