237 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

David7204 wrote...

'Dark' is not deep as a given. It can be deep and meaningful, but that's dependent on what themes are attached to it and how characters react.

And as much as people will deny it, I have seen quite a few threads that pretty much insist 'dark' is an automatic ticket to maturity and 'realism,' and fundamentally better storytelling than 'light.' Which is nonsense.

The problem with this complaint is the all BW series balance between the two. All BW games have there Light moments  and there Dark moment. For every tear there is a time for laughter. I can understand the complaint if it was dark moment after dark moment in there games but with Sarcasic Hawke, the jokes on Griffins and the Parle and ME citadel dlc it make me wonder how people see these games as too dark.
It not that the stories are too dark but it's the person looking at focusing on the darker parts too much.

It's a glass half empty half full concept.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 28 août 2013 - 09:02 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

[SlottsMachine]

Can someone please explain what the hell a "red wedding" is?

[SlottsMachine]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

Well what else is he going to talk about? Dragon Age?

[leaguer of one]

General Slotts wrote...

Can someone please explain what the hell a "red wedding" is?

The wost abortion ever. Watch game of Thrones.

[Eleinehmm]

Star fury wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Star fury wrote...

In order to make a really heart-breaking scene like the Red Wedding, you must have a talent of George R.R. Martin.

Hope this is a joke his writing style reflects that of a fifth grader. ASOIAF has a pretty good plot though I'll give him that.

Don't see anything troll-y here. I wouldn't say  the writing is of a fifth grader, but I do think it's a little bit below of the general average, so to speak. BTW  Unlike the gent you have called a troll here, I don't like the plot of the books,  don't know why people are so excited about the series.

[leaguer of one]

Seraph Cross wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

The rivalry continues...

You know nothing, John.

[leaguer of one]

Eleinehmm wrote...

Star fury wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Star fury wrote...

In order to make a really heart-breaking scene like the Red Wedding, you must have a talent of George R.R. Martin.

Hope this is a joke his writing style reflects that of a fifth grader. ASOIAF has a pretty good plot though I'll give him that.

Don't see anything troll-y here. I wouldn't say  the writing is of a fifth grader, but I do think it's a little bit below of the general average, so to speak. BTW  Unlike the gent you have called a troll here, I don't like the plot of the books,  don't know why people are so excited about the series.

The unxpected happens, the back stabs, the intersting characters, the twist and turns, and the want to see what happens to your favorate character.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 28 août 2013 - 09:18 .

[David7204]

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Dark' is not deep as a given. It can be deep and meaningful, but that's dependent on what themes are attached to it and how characters react.

And as much as people will deny it, I have seen quite a few threads that pretty much insist 'dark' is an automatic ticket to maturity and 'realism,' and fundamentally better storytelling than 'light.' Which is nonsense.

The problem with this complaint is the all BW series balance between the two. All BW games have there Light moments  and there Dark moment. For every tear there is a time for laughter. I can understand the complaint if it was dark moment after dark moment in there games but with Sarcasic Hawke, the jokes on Griffins and the Parle and ME citadel dlc it make me wonder how people see these games as too dark.
It not that the stories are too dark but it's the person looking at focusing on the darker parts too much.

It's a glass half empty half full concept.

That's just not good enough.

You can't justify losing no matter what on the grounds of part of the story being light. And when players have a very heavy investment in the protagonist and their companions, unavoidable death absolutely qualifies as losing no matter what to a lot of people.

Not in a story like this.

Modifié par David7204, 28 août 2013 - 09:08 .

[Angrywolves]

No.

[OdanUrr]

TheChris92 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

When it comes to buying a $60 game you need to be careful how you go about "shocking" your audience. Sure, they may have already bought this game, but how does that predispose them for their next purchase?

The question you need to ask yourself is, do I really need this scene? Can it be done any other way and still deliver the same outcome/effect? If you absolutely need it to tell your story, then I say go for it. If not, if you only want it for shock/drama's sake, then perhaps your story would be better off without it.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that it's something I require of the game. Arkham Asylum had the Scarecrow sections, which is the kind of shock-valued moments that works because it was unexpected. At best I'm just gonna say that BioWare should do what they feel is best for the story they wanna tell. If I start delibarately asking for it then it'll obviously come to feel less special. But the OP was asking if something akin to the Red Wedding would happen, and my response was that I wouldn't mind seeing something akin to it if it works.

I'm assuming this response was meant to be a reply towards my post, perhaps - If not then my mistake. 
  

I was replying to the OP. Should've made that clear, my bad.

[Star fury]

General Slotts wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

Well what else is he going to talk about? Dragon Age?

Or ASOIAF and G.R.R. Martin.

[leaguer of one]

David7204 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Dark' is not deep as a given. It can be deep and meaningful, but that's dependent on what themes are attached to it and how characters react.

And as much as people will deny it, I have seen quite a few threads that pretty much insist 'dark' is an automatic ticket to maturity and 'realism,' and fundamentally better storytelling than 'light.' Which is nonsense.

The problem with this complaint is the all BW series balance between the two. All BW games have there Light moments  and there Dark moment. For every tear there is a time for laughter. I can understand the complaint if it was dark moment after dark moment in there games but with Sarcasic Hawke, the jokes on Griffins and the Parle and ME citadel dlc it make me wonder how people see these games as too dark.
It not that the stories are too dark but it's the person looking at focusing on the darker parts too much.

It's a glass half empty half full concept.

That's just not good enough.

You can't justify losing no matter what on the grounds of part of the story being light. And when players have a very heavy investment in the protagonist and their companions, unavoidable death absolutely qualifies as losing no matter what to a lot of people.

Not in a story like this.

Then you have to properly define what it means to lose. That would meaning looking and the characters goals. If Dieing alone ment losing then that mean even if you saved all of Fereldin and died doing it meant you lost no matter what no matter what your goal was....Which is not true being that your goal was to stop the blight. That just makes it a sacrific, willing or not.

Sacrific does not inheritly mean losing. It more that you don't want to comprimise. That still does not mean dark for dark sake especially with all you save doing it.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 28 août 2013 - 09:17 .

[Eleinehmm]

leaguer of one wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

Star fury wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Star fury wrote...

In order to make a really heart-breaking scene like the Red Wedding, you must have a talent of George R.R. Martin.

Hope this is a joke his writing style reflects that of a fifth grader. ASOIAF has a pretty good plot though I'll give him that.

Don't see anything troll-y here. I wouldn't say  the writing is of a fifth grader, but I do think it's a little bit below of the general average, so to speak. BTW  Unlike the gent you have called a troll here, I don't like the plot of the books,  don't know why people are so excited about the series.

The unxpected happeny, the back stabs, the intersting characters, the twist and turns, and the want to see what happens to your favorate character.

Ah, I guess my problem was that I didn’t find a single interesting character to care about. So I sort of slogged through the first book, being stuck with it on a trans-continental flight, thinking that somebody should just drop a nuke on these guys. 

Still waiting for a good fantasy novel to read, haven’t seen them for ages.

So getting back to the topic:  Is the OP trying to ask us if we are ok with Bioware killing characters for the shock value without our direct input ?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seraph Cross wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

The rivalry continues...

Eh, whatever floats your boat, call it whatever you want. It's an abusive relationship. But a humerously stimulating one.

[leaguer of one]

Eleinehmm wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

Star fury wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Star fury wrote...

In order to make a really heart-breaking scene like the Red Wedding, you must have a talent of George R.R. Martin.

Hope this is a joke his writing style reflects that of a fifth grader. ASOIAF has a pretty good plot though I'll give him that.

Don't see anything troll-y here. I wouldn't say  the writing is of a fifth grader, but I do think it's a little bit below of the general average, so to speak. BTW  Unlike the gent you have called a troll here, I don't like the plot of the books,  don't know why people are so excited about the series.

The unxpected happeny, the back stabs, the intersting characters, the twist and turns, and the want to see what happens to your favorate character.

Ah, I guess my problem was that I didn’t find a single interesting character to care about. So I sort of slogged through the first book, being stuck with it on a trans-continental flight, thinking that somebody should just drop a nuke on these guys. 

Still waiting for a good fantasy novel to read, haven’t seen them for ages.

So getting back to the topic:  Is the OP trying to ask us if we are ok with Bioware killing characters for the shock value without our direct input ?

Or a choice that leads to a sudden, dramatic over the top  death of alot of character.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Dark' is not deep as a given. It can be deep and meaningful, but that's dependent on what themes are attached to it and how characters react.

And as much as people will deny it, I have seen quite a few threads that pretty much insist 'dark' is an automatic ticket to maturity and 'realism,' and fundamentally better storytelling than 'light.' Which is nonsense.

The problem with this complaint is the all BW series balance between the two. All BW games have there Light moments  and there Dark moment. For every tear there is a time for laughter. I can understand the complaint if it was dark moment after dark moment in there games but with Sarcasic Hawke, the jokes on Griffins and the Parle and ME citadel dlc it make me wonder how people see these games as too dark.
It not that the stories are too dark but it's the person looking at focusing on the darker parts too much.

It's a glass half empty half full concept.

That's just not good enough.

You can't justify losing no matter what on the grounds of part of the story being light. And when players have a very heavy investment in the protagonist and their companions, unavoidable death absolutely qualifies as losing no matter what to a lot of people.

Not in a story like this.

Then you have to properly define what it means to lose. That would meaning looking and the characters goals. If Dieing alone ment losing then that mean even if you saved all of Fereldin and died doing it meant you lost no matter what no matter what your goal was....Which is not true being that your goal was to stop the blight. That just makes it a sacrific, willing or not.

Sacrific does not inheritly mean losing. It more that you don't want to comprimise. That still does not mean dark for dark sake especially with all you save doing it.

It's just David being anthropocentric and mind projecting. Don't worry about whatever is good enough for him or whatever. He judges everything based on what his own perspective is, which isn't bad on its own, but he does it from an objective standpoint, as though his own opinion is greater and worth more than anyone elses. Since doing that, he's done nothing but prove the complete opposite.

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'Dark' is not deep as a given. It can be deep and meaningful, but that's dependent on what themes are attached to it and how characters react.

And as much as people will deny it, I have seen quite a few threads that pretty much insist 'dark' is an automatic ticket to maturity and 'realism,' and fundamentally better storytelling than 'light.' Which is nonsense.

The problem with this complaint is the all BW series balance between the two. All BW games have there Light moments  and there Dark moment. For every tear there is a time for laughter. I can understand the complaint if it was dark moment after dark moment in there games but with Sarcasic Hawke, the jokes on Griffins and the Parle and ME citadel dlc it make me wonder how people see these games as too dark.
It not that the stories are too dark but it's the person looking at focusing on the darker parts too much.

It's a glass half empty half full concept.

That's just not good enough.

You can't justify losing no matter what on the grounds of part of the story being light. And when players have a very heavy investment in the protagonist and their companions, unavoidable death absolutely qualifies as losing no matter what to a lot of people.

Not in a story like this.

Then you have to properly define what it means to lose. That would meaning looking and the characters goals. If Dieing alone ment losing then that mean even if you saved all of Fereldin and died doing it meant you lost no matter what no matter what your goal was....Which is not true being that your goal was to stop the blight. That just makes it a sacrific, willing or not.

Sacrific does not inheritly mean losing. It more that you don't want to comprimise. That still does not mean dark for dark sake especially with all you save doing it.

It's just David being anthropocentric and mind projecting. Don't worry about whatever is good enough for him or whatever. He judges everything based on what his own perspective is, which isn't bad on its own, but he does it from an objective standpoint, as though his own opinion is greater and worth more than anyone elses. Since doing that, he's done nothing but prove the complete opposite.

If it's his perspective...Wouldn't it be subjective.

[Navasha]

For me, it would depend. If it was a consequence of some decision or sequence of decisions that I had made that lead to that route... then it would be awesome.

If its simply a pre-planned, no way to avoid it event, then it would be terrible.

I love to see dramatic consequences to my actions. When Lelianna and Wynne turn on me in DA:O, that was an awesome moment I hadn't expected.

However, in contrast, I would have hated it if it happened regardless of how the relationship with those companions developed.

[David7204]

I can pretty confidently 'define' that a great deal of players saw Shepard dying in Mass Effect 3 as losing. And we can't just look at what the characters are concerned with - we must consider what the audience is concerned with. Even if characters are content to die, that doesn't players are content to let them.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seraph Cross wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Seraph Cross wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is David here? Talking about Mass Effect?

The rivalry continues...

Eh, whatever floats your boat, call it whatever you want. It's an abusive relationship. But a humerously stimulating one.

My boat does more than float Also, David doesn't seem to think it's abusive

Who said it was abusive on his end? 

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

I can pretty confidently 'define' that a great deal of players saw Shepard dying in Mass Effect 3 as losing. And we can't just look at what the characters are concerned with - we must consider what the audience is concerned with. Even if characters are content to die, that doesn't players are content to let them.

I'd make a comment about the ending of Dragon Age: Origins, but ...

[The Hierophant]

David7204 wrote...

That's just not good enough.

You can't justify losing no matter what on the grounds of part of the story being light. And when players have a very heavy investment in the protagonist and their companions, unavoidable death absolutely qualifies as losing no matter what to a lot of people.

Not in a story like this.

So the Joining/Ostagar, the HN origin, Tamlen, blind templar guy, Mhairi, Bethaney, and Carver must've been horrendous for you?