145 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 .

[David7204]

No.

It's used often for a reason. Because it's a meaningful and entertaining concept that works.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

It works.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

It's overused and I still love it so I ain't complaining.

[BeauRoger]

David7204 wrote...

No.

It's used often for a reason. Because it's a meaningful and entertaining concept that works.

What exactly does "meaningful" mean in this context? Like As opposed to games which dont use this concept and therefore arent "meaningful"? Is strength building especially meaningful compared to other concepts?

[Wissenschaft]

Bioware tried to mix it up by telling a different type of story and we got DA 2. While I enjoyed DA 2, I'd rather they stick with the good old, tried and true, "gathering your strength" formula. It works. As the saying does, don't fix whats not broken.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 14 août 2013 - 10:03 .

[AresKeith]

BeauRoger wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No.

It's used often for a reason. Because it's a meaningful and entertaining concept that works.

What exactly does "meaningful" mean in this context? Like As opposed to games which dont use this concept and therefore arent "meaningful"? Is strength building especially meaningful compared to other concepts?

Don't mind David

The formula is overused, but it still works to an extent

[Rawgrim]

Its abit overused, but its not starting to bore me yet either.

[Battlebloodmage]

Well, no more than defeating enemies using the power of friendship in Japanese games. With so many games out there, we would eventually face many cliche storytelling. For me, personally, I love the gathering theme, and it works for Bioware and many games out there, so why fix what isn't broken. I would prefer it over running errants for random NPCs posed as quests. At least, with this theme, our character would have a purpose in the game.

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 14 août 2013 - 10:06 .

[Maria Caliban]

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

[Pzykozis]

Yes, but the games work despite it. Besides as Maria said some people didn't really take to their experiment into something new.

[Fast Jimmy]

I've yet to see a game do a better formula, honestly.

The "traveling through countless levels to get to my final objective" has been used in more games than you can shake a stick at, from Mario to God of War to Dark Souls. Yet no one complains when you do this Migrant Story plot line.

Bioware has done maybe six games with the "gather your forces" concept. The number of games using a "work your way as a straight line to X objective - coincidentally laden with enemies, monsters or aliens" is nigh uncountable.

You see it as being reused. I see it as a fresh alternative to what everyone else has been doing for decades.

[berelinde]

When I first read the premise, "gather allies to defeat an overarching evil," I did think about the Grey Warden treaties and other "gather the armies" plots of other games/books/movies, but if you reduce anything down to its nuts and bolts, you'll find that you always have nuts and bolts. There are only so many grand themes an adventure story can have. That doesn't mean they're all the same.

[BeauRoger]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Bioware tried to mix it up by telling a different type of story and we got DA 2. While I enjoyed DA 2, I'd rather they stick with the good old, tried and true, "gathering your strength" formula. It works. As the saying does, don't fix whats not broken.

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

I think this logic is kind of faulty. It implies that a game only can be good if it uses this system, which we know for a fact isnt true. It also implies that changing from this system is the why dragon age 2 sucked, and therefore returning to it will fix everything. Its kind of guilt by association, just because dragon age 2 had it and happened to disappoint. There are so many other action/adventure games, hell, even RPG's that dont abide by these rules and still are good. witcher 2 for example.

[Milan92]

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

[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 .

[Iron Fist]

Milan92 wrote...

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

There is no rationality on the BSN.

[Fast Jimmy]

Pzykozis wrote...

Yes, but the games work despite it. Besides as Maria said some people didn't really take to their experiment into something new.

I'd argue it wasn't received well because it wasn't executed well.

A different story can be told, but one must understand why the Migrant Story or the Gather Your Forces Story frames work really well for gaming. There is a lot of human psychology at play, in terms of progression and accomplishment in both designs, but the Gather Your Forces frame also gives a sense of freedom and control.

The attempt of DA2, to tell a story of a Rise to Power, if that was the goal, was totally unfulfilled.

Hawke never felt like a downtrodden immigrant - starting in Chapter 1, s/he has a reputation for being one of the most remarkable adveturers in the city and is working on reclaiming the family's nobility while hobknobbing with nobles, guards captains and leaders such as the Arishok. There was no "bottom of the barrel" feeling to the game, aside from your uncle's house - which wasn't that far of a step down from the Hanged Man, which was the gang's designated hang out anyway.

Then, the rise to power resulted in nothing feeling different - you still are important, you still get contacted and asked for help yet you still have no power or influence to affect things in your station. The only thing changed is your home base is now larger... but that homebase is hardly used at all aside from the front room, which is about the same size as your Uncle's House.

Then, in Act 3, the idea of being about a Rise to Power is completely thrown to the wind. You are powerless, as you watch the city crumble and descend into chaos - powerless to stop it, powerless to control it and powerless even to say you want no part in it. 


If the goal of the story was to, instead, tell a story about how people can become their own worst enemies, I'd say this is a viable storyline, but it isn't really even touched up until late Act 2 with the companion quests and, of course, Act 3 (which was irrationally short). So, arguably, the smallest segment of the game dealt with the "no one is a bad guy/everyone is a bad guy" concept... which was trounced when they made the Big Bads - Orsino and Meredith - irrationally stupid and evil for no reason. Orsino turns into a (literal) monster despite anything and Meredtih is possesed by an evil magic rock.


So I'm a little off-put by the implication that the fanbase bit the heads off Bioware because they dare change the holy "Gather Your Forces" story frame. The fans rejected it because it was a ragtag mess of narrative structure, with no clearly defined themes or concepts that were consistent throughout the story. If it had been, then maybe it would have been better received.

[BeauRoger]

berelinde wrote...

When I first read the premise, "gather allies to defeat an overarching evil," I did think about the Grey Warden treaties and other "gather the armies" plots of other games/books/movies, but if you reduce anything down to its nuts and bolts, you'll find that you always have nuts and bolts. There are only so many grand themes an adventure story can have. That doesn't mean they're all the same.

Those nuts and bolts look massive to me. I dont see them being even close to as elementary as you are suggesting them to be. Gathering allies for a waiting threat in the distance is a very specific concept that has many ideas already baked into it, so i dont agree at all. I dont agree with the appeal to history either, just because something has been done before does not mean that it is the only way to do it, not to mention that it has already been done differently  by so many, so there are more than a few concepts to go for. My original point was that now 4 out of the last 5  bioware games  use this concept. and there is evidence of plenty of other games, action/adventures and rpgs alike using different concept and succeeding. So i dont really buy that this is so elementary that bioware just happens to end up here so often.

[Deverz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

DA2 had a slew of other issues not governed by the story formula, most of which have already been said about a million times.

The "gather strength" formula has shown time and time again that it works. What matters is what you build around it, which is what Bioware does best.

Modifié par Deverz, 14 août 2013 - 10:36 .

[LinksOcarina]

Yes, put people wanted it. There you go.

[KR4U55]

As I recall DA:O and ME2 were straight examples of the "gathering your forces" formula and ME3 was more like, "doing random stuff in desperation so we can kill the reapers."

Anyways, there's a chart somewhere...doesn't matter. Gathering your forces works as a premise, but not everything works as planed, armies get killed, problems arise, a mysterious evil comes from the abyss. Bioware has always created new worlds with amazing characters. I don't whink this game will be as "gathering your strengh" as "investigating a weird occurence while keeping everybody in check."

Remember, the Inquisitor doesn't want to go to war. He wants to stop it.

[BeauRoger]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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. My topic  adressing biowares past habits as much as it is adressing DA:I, as well as just trying to discuss this specific concept and its merits.

This kind of post is such a cheap way to try to score easy points, just makes me roll my eyes to be honest.

Modifié par BeauRoger, 15 août 2013 - 12:57 .