145 réponses à ce sujet

[Lethys1]

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.

Your games stir up passion in people, both positive and negative.  That you can stir up such strong feelings in people is something everyone at BioWare should take as a compliment, even when the feelings expressed are negative. People really care.  Even if not everything is perfect and not everyone loves every single aspect of design, ultimately you're doing something right.  I'll be the first to admit I've had some problems with BioWare's more recent entries, but I'm also reading these forums and anxiously awaiting the new DA game.  I've even made posts with problems I've had with DA2 on these very forums.  I played another game that disappointed me called Alpha Protocol at around the same time.  I am not going on their forums and complaining, however.  In fact, I haven't thought about that game at all since I finished it, except for right now to bring it up as an example.  


I don't know how many people here are really into sports, but it's like how people criticize the basketball player Carmelo Anthony.  He's probably the 3rd or 4th best player in the world, but he receives more criticism than almost any other player simply because he's so good but isn't EXACTLY the player people would like him to be.  Players who are the 200th best in the world theoretically should get more criticism, but they don't because people aren't used to seeing greatness from them.  Everybody will have an opinion, but based on what I've read about the new game, I really have to submit and say that I'm as excited as I was for the first DA:O game to come out.

Modifié par Lethys1, 14 août 2013 - 10:37 .

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Well dragon age 2 was the only one of bioware's recent games that deviated from the formula, and people criticised the story for being different to DA:O.

You just can't please some people I suppose

[Wulfram]

I don't really think Bioware have done it all that often, though admittedly they're relatively recent. I'd only really count ME3 and DA:O as notably similar, since I think ME2's "gather your squad" is thematically quite different to doing the whole "Gondor calls for aid" thing.

Though I do find the initial impression is very "we're doing DA:O again", that might just be a marketing posture caused by the feeling that they need to win their core audience back onside.

[o Ventus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

If you're talking about ME3, that didn't deviate much from the standard Bioware formula much at all. It was DAO (in space!) for the first 95% of the game. The ending didn't even try anything different, instead going with the endin that everybody was expecting (Destroy; in terms of sheer continuity), and a relative staple in science fiction (Synthesis). The only real departure from those was Control.

ME3 is by no means a great game (I don't particularly like it much at all), but it doesn't do anything radically different.

[Iron Fist]

o Ventus wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

If you're talking about ME3, that didn't deviate much from the standard Bioware formula much at all. It was DAO (in space!) for the first 95% of the game. The ending didn't even try anything different, instead going with the endin that everybody was expecting (Destroy; in terms of sheer continuity), and a relative staple in science fiction (Synthesis). The only real departure from those was Control.

ME3 is by no means a great game (I don't particularly like it much at all), but it doesn't do anything radically different.

I think Maria was talking about DA2 with the personal story and all.

[o Ventus]

MevenSelas wrote...

I think Maria was talking about DA2 with the personal story and all.

I don't recall Bioware ever being "raked across the coals" in response to DA2. ME3 on the other hand...

[Khayness]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

It could have worked. Playing with a genre often results with the most memorable works of fiction, but DA2's fault is not that they wanted to do something different.

o Ventus wrote...

I don't recall Bioware ever being "raked across the coals" in response to DA2. ME3 on the other hand...

There was an uproar all right. But atleast Mr. Laidlaw put some effort into addressing the concerns instead of chosing to remain silent while the PR machine spun its coroporate answers.

Modifié par Khayness, 14 août 2013 - 10:55 .

[Toasted Llama]

I personally think that gathering forces is one of the least linear storylines you can have, without having to make a completely different game for every decision you make.

Best example would be choosing between 2 different kinds of assets (such as templar/mage, dalish/werewolf or dwarves+golems/solo dwarves and in ME geth/quarian) or attempting to create peace with them. You can mix and match those endlessly (and no matter what still get the required asset for the main goal) for quite some replays (and replay value means alot) and still see the game unfold differently.

Though I'd like to hear other game "stories" or concepts that could use this sort of system as well. I can't think of any other myself at the moment.

[Medhia Nox]

Isn't that how any conflict is resolved anyway?

The most obvious is a military conflict. Gather forces - crush enemy (it's a pity "be crushed/enter diaspora" isn't really used as an option - but, eh).

But even solo play games.

Gather levels - defeat enemy.
Gather loot - defeat enemy.
Gather friends (as opposed to factions) - defeat enemy.
Gather resolve - defeat enemy (Bioshock - even though it's told through a story convention and not an act of player agency. "Would you kindly...?")

Even DA 2 - on it's most basic level - is the "Gather forces" story. It's a story about how Anders gathered his forces and usurped the storyline.

[BangBoom]

There have been some differences even within that formula too. ME2's strength gathering was about a dark suicide mission, asking people to die for a potentially pointless cause. ME3 was about odds-defying universe-level heroics, about fighting the good fight and making a last stand in spite of everything. DA:O was about power vs morality with hefty shades of grey all around, and what you do for your own nation's survival even if the threat is unlikely to wipe out the world. I could expand on each of them.

Tropes can be used in a myriad of different ways. Same trope =/= same story.
And of course DA2 and ME1 are both examples of Bioware averting the trope.

[Pzykozis]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

Well, yes.

Though I'd say Rising to Power is generally what Hawke did, and the game was mostly about him and his place in the world as, a) a refugee with extenuating circumstances as a useful pawn to those in powerful positions and c) a legitamate and demanding of attention figure, as a sort of signpost to his increasing power. What I did like about DA2's story though is just how insignificant Hawke was he demanded attention at the end, but he had very little in the way of actual power. He gained power but he was ever aware (or well he wasn't but I was as a player) at how little of it he really had, it was far more meaningful to me, in that Hawke didn't change the world, he was just an angry bear constantly fighting for his own territory, whilst the bigger fish were uuh frying his.. honey..? That completely broke down... Basically a kind of less good Max Payne 3 (which to me is one of the best character studies in gaming especially when taking into account 1 and 2)

Anders on the other hand, he was the important one, perhaps thats what people dislike the most important decision in the game (perhaps the only important one) was one that the player didn't even make (which is brilliant really and a continuation on the theme, though I might be being overly generous).

Modifié par Pzykozis, 14 août 2013 - 11:23 .

[Khayness]

Toasted Llama wrote...

I personally think that gathering forces is one of the least linear storylines you can have, without having to make a completely different game for every decision you make.

Best example would be choosing between 2 different kinds of assets (such as templar/mage, dalish/werewolf or dwarves+golems/solo dwarves and in ME geth/quarian) or attempting to create peace with them. You can mix and match those endlessly (and no matter what still get the required asset for the main goal) for quite some replays (and replay value means alot) and still see the game unfold differently.

Though I'd like to hear other game "stories" or concepts that could use this sort of system as well. I can't think of any other myself at the moment.

The choices didn't result in that many branching paths. Bringing the Templars instead of the Mages or the Werewolves really boiled down to a different gathering montage, unit summons and NPC helpers at the final fight.

In Arcanum, you could go bat**** insane and murder everybody, forcibly summoning the quest NPCs' souls and interrogate them in order to progress. And even that is just one, brute force for the lulz approach. You can pickpocket plot coupons, or you can do a sidequest to acquire them (like the goody two shoes you are) or persuade/bribe/intimidate your way if that's your character's strength.

And that doesn't even take the low INT dumb character playthrough into account.

These are the real choices which were had to go to make way for better graphics, voice acting and cinematic presentation. You can't budget this much optional content anymore.

[Ianamus]

I don't really see how you expect the games to be different. They require a fixed beginning, and if if it is following a linear story like Bioware games, a climax to the overall conflict. The only way to not use the formula you suggested is to have a linear progression system, which is hardly an improvement and already seen in most games.

You may as well say it's disappointing that they continue to use the tired cliche of having a beginning, a middle and an end. 

Modifié par EJ107, 14 août 2013 - 11:12 .

[Aaleel]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

They didn't get raked across the coals for trying new ideas.  They got raked across the coals for the execution of said ideas.  They didn't take the time needed to impement them well and it showed in the game. 

[Deverz]

I think an investigation based story like ME1 could prove successful in Dragon Age. Trying to catch up to a Spectre gone rogue, always one step behind, picking up clues as you go along. I think that sort of storyline is very effective. The story in ME1 was simply epic.

After DAI is said and done I think something similar, or maybe something else entirely would be cool.

Obviously I'm way ahead of myself here, but I like to speculate. There is a "five game plan", after all.

[duckley]

 Doesn't it depend on the story? To defeat the Blight you had to "gain strength". The story in DA2 didn't really require tnat. To me DA2 was more about setting the stage for the Inquisition. In DAI I suspect the PC will need to gather strength as well as power , notority and credibility - kind of a combo of the two previous stories.

[frostajulie]

David7204 wrote...

No.

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

YES! I AGREE WITH YOU SO HARD I AM TYPING IN CAPS!<3

[BeauRoger]

Deverz wrote...

I think an investigation based story like ME1 could prove successful in Dragon Age. Trying to catch up to a Spectre gone rogue, always one step behind, picking up clues as you go along. I think that sort of storyline is very effective. The story in ME1 was simply epic.

After DAI is said and done I think something similar, or maybe something else entirely would be cool.

Obviously I'm way ahead of myself here, but I like to speculate. There is a "five game plan", after all.

Yeah, I agree. I really enjoyed the detective part, and thats only one of many possible ways to do it.

[Ausstig]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

Pretty much this. The experience in DA2 has 'shown' them that doing something different would not go down well. Rather than doing something different BADLY did not go down well, DA 2 needed a more focused plot and for our actions to affect the world and people would have loved it (admitedly it would require major changes to the plot). 

[Ianamus]

BeauRoger wrote...

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.

ME:1 follows this formula alomst exactly. There is the intro on Eden Prime and the Citadel, the open-galaxy segment where you go to different planets in the order you choose to uncover information about Saren, and a click on the "finale" when you decide to go to Ilos.

I think your confusing this act framework with the "Gathering power to defeat a great evil" plot, which is used in many linear games as well. I'll agree that has been used by Bioware in many of their games, but that is because It's hard to avoid that plot device while still having a compelling and threatening antagonist, and a long term goal.

I'd say Dragon Age: 2 was an attempt to get away from that, but many found the lack of an over-arching antagonist and overall aim left the game feeling disjointed and less compelling. 

Modifié par EJ107, 14 août 2013 - 11:33 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

I have to agree. For me DA2 didn't fail because it deviated from a mystical formula, but because it did the things it did rather poorly. Had Bioware delievered a better executed version of what they tried to do in DA2 I don't think it would have gotten as mixed responses as it did.

That being said, I don't think the "gathering strength" formula is somehow so overused it would hurt DA:I in any way - it's all in the execution.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 14 août 2013 - 11:49 .

[xnode]

I think PC Gamer wrote and article recently that actually addressed this sort of. The article spoke of how RPG's are really missing the "grand scale" world changing game play when developers limit the interaction of the game world and the player.

An example given was ME3, while Universal World Ending Scenario, The game really never makes you feel like you are fighting a big huge galatic war, but a very small part of it. I have to concure, the issues with most games (not just bioware developers) is they limit their creativity to past development practices. IF and I say "if" they really let us interacted with other factions, have vast importance in the inquistion (IE take Awakening stronghold and pump it with a ton of steriods) and let us truly be part of epic battles it might be really dam cool.

I want to be immersed in a world, not just be part of one. The "Gathering Your Strength" works very well, I argue no one has done it right yet.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Being overused is not the same as being cliche, and isn't actually a bad thing if you stop to consider what the actual story being told is. When it comes to saving the world or large multi-million live stakes, a certain procedure is needed in order to pull off the story well.

It would be out of place if the main character didn't need any allies or armies or resources to defeat the big bad, and the story was just him trying to find the big bad to kill. If this were the case, the question would arise, what makes the character so special that he's the main protaganist? Than you get into an explination of that which pretty much boils down to the choosen one archetype, another "overused" concept in fiction. But by lowering the stakes, you introduce another concept of writing that's overused, mainly the rags to riches story. Since It is doubtful that many people would play a serious rpg about a rich person on top whose entire journey is staying a rich person on top and consider it a action rpg, that sounds more like a simulator. Without any sort of challenge for players to overcome, the game simply becomes maintaining the status quo from threats that do not actually threaten anything.Trying to have an enemy that needs to be uncovered would invoke the overused detective angle, and having no villian or conflict would just be some weird jrpg sim.

The point is, the reason this type of overused method for approaching this type of story is that it is one of the few that work best in making the story engaging the believable. Sort of a weird believability valley where the formula sits just in the sweet spot between overly cliche and completely unbelievable and unengaging as a non-comedy.