145 réponses à ce sujet

[Navasha]

I don't see how it can be over-used really. Gathering strength and ability to manage a much larger situation is kind of the focus of nearly every great story ever told.

Few people want to start out as a weak character and you still end up weak and unable to overcome the giant obstacles put in your way by the end of the story.

I would certainly rather play a story where I am gathering up others to join in an epic battle rather than to unrealistically pump up a single figure as some unbeatable god-like character acting solely alone.

[brushyourteeth]

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

[robertthebard]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

Evidently, you're supposed to pick flowers and hug trees in the hope that the big bad will get bored and go away on it's own.  Especially given that, up to and including assorted MMOs, every game I've ever played follows the same basic premise.

[andar91]

I don't care. Many plots follow the same, general paths; it's the characters that make stories interesting for me. Devil in the details and all of that.

As Maria Caliban said, they tried something different in DA2, and I didn't like it as much. I like having an antagonist and being important to more than just one city.

[Krudus]

BeauRoger wrote...

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.

Well said!

[Krudus]

robertthebard wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

Evidently, you're supposed to pick flowers and hug trees in the hope that the big bad will get bored and go away on it's own.  Especially given that, up to and including assorted MMOs, every game I've ever played follows the same basic premise.

The lack of imagination here is shocking. Have you guys not played any other games? Every game you have ever played follows this premise you say? Then you cant have played many.. But by all means, just stay in that familiar cozy box of yours.

[Potato Cat]

I would like to see a choice that can affect the allies you've already mustered. ME3 had this to some extent, but not as much as I would have liked. Bad example, but say in Origins if you first went to Orzammar and did their quests and got the support of the new King, and then annulled the Circle Of Magi. Harrowmont/Bhelen could have heard complaints that their lyrium trade suffered majorly as a result so refused to honour the agreement because the Warden had not acted in their interests. So now you're less prepared than you were because you weren't consistent in your choices. I know it's bad example but something similar would be great and show reactivity straight away in the game.

[Dave of Canada]

I appreciated Dragon Age 2 because it deviated from the norm.

Damn shame we're returning to it.

[brushyourteeth]

Krudus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

Evidently, you're supposed to pick flowers and hug trees in the hope that the big bad will get bored and go away on it's own.  Especially given that, up to and including assorted MMOs, every game I've ever played follows the same basic premise.

The lack of imagination here is shocking. Have you guys not played any other games? Every game you have ever played follows this premise you say? Then you cant have played many.. But by all means, just stay in that familiar cozy box of yours.

I'm just asking a question. I'd really like a sincere answer.

[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 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

It's over-used by a lot of developers but it works brilliantly.

[robertthebard]

Krudus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

Evidently, you're supposed to pick flowers and hug trees in the hope that the big bad will get bored and go away on it's own.  Especially given that, up to and including assorted MMOs, every game I've ever played follows the same basic premise.

The lack of imagination here is shocking. Have you guys not played any other games? Every game you have ever played follows this premise you say? Then you cant have played many.. But by all means, just stay in that familiar cozy box of yours.

Games installed on this rig:

The Witcher/2
ME 1-3
Rappelz
Aion
Assassin's Creed 1/2 Brotherhood and Revelations
Baldur's Gate EE
NWN 1 and 2
Neverwinter

Games I own that aren't installed:

The original BG + expansion
BG 2 + expansion
IWD 1 and 2
Gorasul, and the list goes on.  I don't play any pure shooters, so I don't have any of them, and I'm sure I'm overlooking a few that I have played, such as Diablo et al, excluding 3.

Ok, so not every game I've played follows this premise, as I have Chess, Mahjong and Hearts that I play a bit as well.  However, the point to every game in this genre that I have ever played is to gain power and face the big bad.  I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees, but at the core, every game in this genre follows the same path.  It doesn't matter if that power is self, information or armies to throw at the big bad, the idea is to become able to defeat the big bad, and frankly, that's every game I've ever played.

[Jerrybnsn]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

There were other reasons why DA2 was received poorly besides not using the "War Assets" formula.  How about a short game barely 20 hours long, for one.

I agree about not overusing of the same ending technique throughout a series.  A series should grow in its presentations.

[MisterJB]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

But did we need to have an outworldy crysis? We already had well extablished and very interesting and morally grey crysis that originated not in "The Underworld" but in the people of Thedas.
Mages vs Non-mages. Orlesians vs Orlesians. Humans vs Elves. Qunari Culture vs Thedosian Culture. Tevinter vs Everyone.

These are conceptually sound conflicts that forces one to reflect upon whose fault it truly is and where there is no true, good answer just different points of view. At this point, the introduction of an Always Chaotic Evil like the Demons just reeks of a convenient scapegoat to get everyone to stop fighting and unite to fight the common enemy.

This is not, by itself, a bad premises; even the Fantasy series that has made Fantasy mainstream, "A Song of Ice and Fire" will, at some point, be about the Great Houses putting their differences aside to stop the Others; but Bioware has already done so multiple times in the past.

Will getting mages and templars to cooperate be that much different from getting Quarians and the Geth to do the same or Bhelen and Harrowmont? Maybe, I'm willing to wait and see but, at this moment, it does seem that Bioware has reverted to the true and tried formula.

[Iron Fist]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thank you, sir.

[lady_v23]

Um... then how will you defeat the (surely) near invincible villain?  

If the gathering strength is not an option then there is only one solution...

[Dave of Canada]

lady_v23 wrote...

Um... then how will you defeat the (surely) near invincible villain?  

Why does the game need a villain?

[lady_v23]

Dave of Canada wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Um... then how will you defeat the (surely) near invincible villain?  

Why does the game need a villain?

because it would be boring without one?? 

[Iron Fist]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

[ghost_ronin]

You know what would be awesome? Having the next game put you in the role of an explorer of some kind. You're a pioneer venturing into and beyond the uncharted lands of Thedas.

[brushyourteeth]

MisterJB wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'd like to know what you're supposed to do in a crisis, if not "gather your strength."

I'm being serious.

But did we need to have an outworldy crysis? We already had well extablished and very interesting and morally grey crysis that originated not in "The Underworld" but in the people of Thedas.
Mages vs Non-mages. Orlesians vs Orlesians. Humans vs Elves. Qunari Culture vs Thedosian Culture. Tevinter vs Everyone.

These are conceptually sound conflicts that forces one to reflect upon whose fault it truly is and where there is no true, good answer just different points of view. At this point, the introduction of an Always Chaotic Evil like the Demons just reeks of a convenient scapegoat to get everyone to stop fighting and unite to fight the common enemy.

This is not, by itself, a bad premises; even the Fantasy series that has made Fantasy mainstream, "A Song of Ice and Fire" will, at some point, be about the Great Houses putting their differences aside to stop the Others; but Bioware has already done so multiple times in the past.

Will getting mages and templars to cooperate be that much different from getting Quarians and the Geth to do the same or Bhelen and Harrowmont? Maybe, I'm willing to wait and see but, at this moment, it does seem that Bioware has reverted to the true and tried formula.

I don't have the answers to your questions.

I'm still waiting for mine.

[Taleroth]

David Gaider wrote...

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. 

Color me surprised and intrigued.

I think that's a violet shade, but don't quote me on that. Could be red. Or mauve.

Modifié par Taleroth, 15 août 2013 - 06:49 .

[LinksOcarina]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

They tried something different and were raked across the coals.

There were other reasons why DA2 was received poorly besides not using the "War Assets" formula.  How about a short game barely 20 hours long, for one.

I agree about not overusing of the same ending technique throughout a series.  A series should grow in its presentations.

What planet are you from dude, saying 20 hours is short?

And considering an average playthrough is about 35-40 hours on Dragon Age II, I am not sure I agree with that logic to begin with, unless you know where everything is and skip a lot of the cut-scenes to do it.

Hell, you do that in Origins it can be done in 20 hours easy as well. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 15 août 2013 - 07:27 .

[LinksOcarina]

lady_v23 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Um... then how will you defeat the (surely) near invincible villain?  

Why does the game need a villain?

because it would be boring without one?? 

Is Loghain a villian then? Or are we told he is due to our disposition of his actions?