145 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

They tried to do something new, it backfired, so they went back to old but working concept.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EJ107 wrote...


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'll have to disagree on that point, specifically with regard to Jade Empire as a great example of how that particular plot point isn't necessary.

Granted, I'm not saying you can't have a party of followers/armies who all contribute towards stopping the big bad. But I don't think it's necessary for every story to outline it with: "Hey, you need an army to defeat the Big Bad". I think it works a lot better when the Protagonist comes across different characters over the course of his own quest who all happen to provide something of value to the overarching goal.

[BeauRoger]

EJ107 wrote...

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. 

I see what you are saying, but thats not exactly what im refering to. See, to me, ME1 had some key differences that set it apart from the other ones, even if they can at first seem superficial. The intro act of course is unavoidable, so thats not relevant. But the middle act its where its at. The similarities shared between this formula and ME1 is simply that you can chose to go to different places after the beginning act. Thats not enough to me to lump them together since the key point of my description is the entire "strenght gathering", where the end goal is pretty clear already, and you just need to gather people to do it. ME1 is much more about investigation and less about fetching. So to me the framework im talking about is as much narrative as it is about the mechanics of being able to click where to go in the middle act. The "act framework" you are refering to and the narrative one arent necessarely separate to me in this argument, cause my point in this thread is just about how both ME2,3 and DA:O are very explicitly about strenght gathering.

[blueumi]

I hate innovation just for the sake of it I don't see what is wrong with a game type being just that a type

I buy rpgs for a reason and I would go for bioware rpgs nine times out of ten for a reason

almost every story type has been done anyway there is almost no new ground left all that can be done is to make the story as good as it can be with the characters bioware create for it

[Eterna]

They tried breaking away from it with DA2, everyone whined.

[Ianamus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I'll have to disagree on that point, specifically with regard to Jade Empire as a great example of how that particular plot point isn't necessary.

Granted, I'm not saying you can't have a party of followers/armies who all contribute towards stopping the big bad. But I don't think it's necessary for every story to outline it with: "Hey, you need an army to defeat the Big Bad". I think it works a lot better when the Protagonist comes across different characters over the course of his own quest who all happen to provide something of value to the overarching goal.

BeauRoger wrote...

I see what you are saying, but thats not exactly what im refering to. See, to me, ME1 had some key differences that set it apart from the other ones, even if they can at first seem superficial. The intro act of course is unavoidable, so thats not relevant. But the middle act its where its at. The similarities shared between this formula and ME1 is simply that you can chose to go to different places after the beginning act. Thats not enough to me to lump them together since the key point of my description is the entire "strenght gathering", where the end goal is pretty clear already, and you just need to gather people to do it. ME1 is much more about investigation and less about fetching. So to me the framework im talking about is as much narrative as it is about the mechanics of being able to click where to go in the middle act. The "act framework" you are refering to and the narrative one arent necessarely separate to me in this argument, cause my point in this thread is just about how both ME2,3 and DA:O are very explicitly about strenght gathering.

I see what the two of you are saying, but I don't think that "gathering strength" necessarily means your companions or armies in particular. The strength could be that of the protagonist alone or even a mental strength to overcome rather than a physical one. I have never played Jade empire but in ME1 Shepard does become more powerful over the course of the game, and one could argue that in ME1 it is their case against Saren that is gaining strength as the investigation proceeds. 

Either way the character needs to gain something or strengthen in some form in order to defeat the antagonist, or else why would they not be able to at the start of the game?

That is why I think It's a hard plot device to avoid in this kind of story.

I understand the argument that there have been a lot of "build your army" Bioware games lately, but the Inquisition seems to be as much about information as manpower, which is promising. The whole "Who is behind this chaos?" certainly has a mystery element to it.

Modifié par EJ107, 15 août 2013 - 12:27 .

[Dabrikishaw]

So the Mass Effect 3 players are finally migrating here. I was wondering how long that would take.

[DarthLaxian]

hm...

yes and no IMHO

because, on the one hand it makes for a great story, if done right (and advancing the main story at the same time - like DA:O did with Loghain sending Assassins after you and having meetings with the nobles while you are on road to gather your army)

on the other hand of course, it is is the standard RPG-Formula (even if it only applies to the hero and his or her companions (if there are any)) that you have to gain strength (levels/spells/abilities) in order to face the bosses (and the big-bad in the end)

i think they should use it, as long as it suits them, but i would like them to consider not using it in the next game and maybe even carry the PC and his power-base over into the game after inquisition (because then at the start of the game you are already somebody and not a noob that the movers and shakers of Dragon Age don't care one bit about) and they can add mechanics (if they don't have something like that in DA:I already) to really do power-plays in-game like sending out your own assassins (to kill a noble or even a king or an emperor) - maybe even in the form of a party of companion characters (that would be something i would love - to have several things happening at the same time and the player POV-Shifting between places (even if for the player the stuff does not happen at the same time of course, as you can't play two teams at the same time, but story-wise it would be)), bribe officials, make money by selling and buying information and other valuables, establish longterm relations with other parties etc. that was what i hoped for in ME3 (but we were a glorified errand-boy again and we didn't matter much at all!)

greetings LAX

[SeaSquared]

 While the formula is almost synonymos with Bioware and they execute it well, I'll admit that it does at times make me feel like every new release is just a restyled spin-off of a previous one when it comes to plot structure.

I Personally think Mass Effect 1 did a really good job of putting the strength gathering somewhat in the background as the player and their party's core roles, abilities, and assets are effectively gathered very quickly (plotwise) and further developmented organically over the course of the game which allowed it (their strength) to naturally progess at the same pace as their character development and in-game skill/equipment quality.

When ever you can achieve story and gameplay integration its a good thing since it aids in immersion and interactive feedback for the player.

[Aaleel]

I really don't care what the formula is as long as its well executed. If they're going to try something new they need to take the time needed to execute it well. Which was not the case last game.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Who cares! I want my cliche save the world story, and I want to gather an army to stop a big,bad,and powerful villain.

[What a Succulent Ass]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

BURSTING WITH FLAVOUR.

[BeauRoger]

EJ107 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I'll have to disagree on that point, specifically with regard to Jade Empire as a great example of how that particular plot point isn't necessary.

Granted, I'm not saying you can't have a party of followers/armies who all contribute towards stopping the big bad. But I don't think it's necessary for every story to outline it with: "Hey, you need an army to defeat the Big Bad". I think it works a lot better when the Protagonist comes across different characters over the course of his own quest who all happen to provide something of value to the overarching goal.

BeauRoger wrote...

I see what you are saying, but thats not exactly what im refering to. See, to me, ME1 had some key differences that set it apart from the other ones, even if they can at first seem superficial. The intro act of course is unavoidable, so thats not relevant. But the middle act its where its at. The similarities shared between this formula and ME1 is simply that you can chose to go to different places after the beginning act. Thats not enough to me to lump them together since the key point of my description is the entire "strenght gathering", where the end goal is pretty clear already, and you just need to gather people to do it. ME1 is much more about investigation and less about fetching. So to me the framework im talking about is as much narrative as it is about the mechanics of being able to click where to go in the middle act. The "act framework" you are refering to and the narrative one arent necessarely separate to me in this argument, cause my point in this thread is just about how both ME2,3 and DA:O are very explicitly about strenght gathering.

I see what the two of you are saying, but I don't think that "gathering strength" necessarily means your companions or armies in particular. The strength could be that of the protagonist alone or even a mental strength to overcome rather than a physical one. I have never played Jade empire but in ME1 Shepard does become more powerful over the course of the game, and one could argue that in ME1 it is their case against Saren that is gaining strength as the investigation proceeds. 

Either way the character needs to gain something or strengthen in some form in order to defeat the antagonist, or else why would they not be able to at the start of the game?

That is why I think It's a hard plot device to avoid in this kind of story.

I understand the argument that there have been a lot of "build your army" Bioware games lately, but the Inquisition seems to be as much about information as manpower, which is promising. The whole "Who is behind this chaos?" certainly has a mystery element to it.

In a way then i suppose this specific point comes down to how broadly one would define the "strength" gathering. To me, whatever was done in ME1 was enough to avoid that trope, even if the differences mechanically might not have been all that different. Of course, There needs to be a middle act after the introduction and before the finale, the protagonist must have something to do after all, but to me, i would not include uncovering saren's plan and the mystery the situation as "strenght gathering" in the same vein as actually gathering people and/or armies for a already well defined threat. There are so many ways one could keep this act strucutre but change seemingly superficial things to make it feel completely different. I also find it very hard to believe that everything else has been exhausted creatively and that bioware is forced to do this again and again.

I am very excited about DA:I, and even IF we get the formulaic "strength gathering", it  still will probably been an excellent game, because as i originally stated, even within that premise there is a lot of room to make it a completely different experience. Im just hoping we can get a great game and at the same time avoid that trope and/or change it up enough to make it unrecognizable.

[Thetribeman]

This formula isn't stale yet. Within the Dragon Age universe this concept is being applied under two completely different contexts. The blight was a tangible something that you had to put down, and you had no choice in the matter. This time around it sounds like your enemy will more be defined by you, and you are leading the entire Inquisition from the beginning. In origins you were basically a foot soldier in an extraordinary circumstance.

[dduane o]

Thetribeman wrote...

This formula isn't stale yet. Within the Dragon Age universe this concept is being applied under two completely different contexts. The blight was a tangible something that you had to put down, and you had no choice in the matter. This time around it sounds like your enemy will more be defined by you, and you are leading the entire Inquisition from the beginning. In origins you were basically a foot soldier in an extraordinary circumstance.

The wording of this respond makes me think that the inquisitor might be the bad guy. 

I agree on the matter of the situations of the games.

[Taleroth]

Bioware's character writing has been it's strength. So I'm not really bothered by the plot, which often lacks the same level of polish.

[Estelindis]

 As has already been pointed out, we still don't know much yet about the plot of DA:I.  However, even if we did, I don't think complaining would change much at this point.  

Personally, I enjoyed most of DA2.  What problems it had did not come, in my opinion, from the use of a different kind of story structure but from a few of the ways said structure was implemented.  (Plus the "you fight them both no matter what you did" ending.)  Possibly, those shortcomings wouldn't have been there if the team had been given more time.   As it stood, the tight focus on a single person and their family did still have some successes, in my opinion.  I know that some people hated the plot with Hawke's mother, but it had me in tears.  

[Toasted Llama]

Khayness wrote...
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.

Ofcourse the choices in the end boil down to the same thing; because in the end the main goal is simple and the same thing: to stop the blight. You can't say "no" to stopping the blight because then the game would immediately end.

While DA does focus on you making the decisions, it also has a story to tell and you can't go too far away from it.

[In Exile]

EJ107 wrote...

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. 

The thing is that Bio ware hasn't done a fame with a compelling antagonist in forever. Even when they do have what looks to be a clear antagonist, they just stick him into a box for 70% of the game. 

The plot in DA:O is as disjointed as DA2. The difference is that the justification for doing a number of arbitrary quests that don't advance the initial conflict of the game seems to be more acceptable to players. 

[FieryDove]

SeaSquared wrote...

I Personally think Mass Effect 1 did a really good job of putting the strength gathering somewhat in the background as the player and their party's core roles, abilities, and assets are effectively gathered very quickly (plotwise) and further developmented organically over the course of the game which allowed it (their strength) to naturally progess at the same pace as their character development and in-game skill/equipment quality.

When ever you can achieve story and gameplay integration its a good thing since it aids in immersion and interactive feedback for the player.

I agree with this.

I disagree with the OP.

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

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. 

The thing is that Bio ware hasn't done a fame with a compelling antagonist in forever. Even when they do have what looks to be a clear antagonist, they just stick him into a box for 70% of the game. 

The plot in DA:O is as disjointed as DA2. The difference is that the justification for doing a number of arbitrary quests that don't advance the initial conflict of the game seems to be more acceptable to players. 

It's funny, but I saw the entire story of Dragon Age II having much better pacing than games like Origins and Mass Effect in terms of its story arc.

Your prologue is fleeing from the blight, thee middle section is the rise to power (mercenary actions for a get rich quick scheme, followed by gaining respect in a moment of crisis and invasion) and then becoming the 4th most important person in the said city when all hell breaks loose due to idelogical differences. 

I also look on that story without the need for an antagonist either. Its supposed to be personal over world changing, the biggest issue in the end is that the world did change and were learning how, so fitting in the personal details that Dragon Age II had may have thrown people off due to its unique form of storytelling. 

[Beerfish]

I agree with the original poster on this one. His points are valid.