2 réponses à ce sujet

[BeauRoger]

Even though I love most games by Bioware, lately I think they have been returing to this formula way too often. Im not saying its the end of the world, cause a game can still deliver on a micro level with story and characters, but the predictability a game that is using structure is still dissapointing.

It means that the game basically consists of a intro act, a middle act which is "open ended", where you go solve everybody's problems in whatever order you choose so that they can help you, and then just click on the "finale" destination. This "end game button" is usually available pretty early on, but the epilogue will be worse if click on it too early.

As i said, its not the end of the world, because this framework still is unspecific enough that games can share it and still be unique and vastly different from one another, but that doesnt mean that overusing it is a good thing because there is still a lot you can predict about a game as soon as you see its using this specific structure.

Four of Bioware's last five games are using this formula to some degree. DA:O, ME2 and ME3 are doing it straight up and DA2 is just taking elements of it. ME1 is the only one which doesnt, and it is coincidentally the oldest game of the bunch. Now it seems DA:I will be using it as well, and i cant help but shake my head a bit if thats how it turns out. I realize that its a very good structure to have if you want an open ended game with player choices where you can tackle objectives as you see fit, cause you can make neat, isolated choices througout different missions and then just have one big finale which is dedicated to playing all the consequences out. Its very convenient.

However, as i said, it does bring along some predictability about what will happen and how certain elements will play out, not to mention that doing the same thing over and over  again will eventually get repetative to some degree.

Modifié par BeauRoger, 14 août 2013 - 09:56 .

[David Gaider]

Milan92 wrote...
Lets just wait and see how it plays out first shall we? Seems like the most reasonable thing to do.

Wise.

Of course, taking that phrase, imaging the most generic way it could play out, and assuming that's how we would write it-- and then complaining about it as if we already did so-- is also an option.

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 août 2013 - 10:17 .

[David Gaider]

BeauRoger wrote...
Here we go with the obligatory "we dont know until we have played it" obvious statements. I explicitly stated that a necessary condition for this to apply to DA:I would (obviously) be that DA:I uses this formula, and nowhere did I say that I knew with certainty that it did.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but fair enough.

We're not using that formula. You are not going around from group to group, getting them to help you-- that's not the plot. There is, however, a degree of "building power" involved, primarily because you need power to deal with the issue at hand. And that's as general as I can put it without spoilers. That's the nature of these issues which get brought up: often people demand reassurances which cannot be given without explaining what we're actually doing... which isn't going to happen, certainly not at this juncture.

Insofar as the reason for the plot we're doing, it's not a reaction to DA2-- I'm not certain why the assumption would be that we'd do exactly the same type of plot as we did in DA2, regardless of how it was received. At the end of DA2, the stakes were raised. So it was always going to be a big-stakes kind of plot, and we've pushed that even further. Why? Because having a game focus solely on the mage/templar conflict wasn't what we wanted to do, even if that's an element.

That's as much as I can say. Speculate at will.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 août 2013 - 05:29 .