392 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

Bioshock Infinite was a wonderful, thought-provoking game that I enjoyed immensely, but the plot itself is a bit jumbled together and uneven. It suffers from having way too many good ideas and trying to fit them al in. I know that sounds like fake criticism - like telling an author that the problem with his books is that they're TOO good - but trying to do too much can hurt pacing and result in an incoherent plot.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 14 septembre 2013 - 05:15 .

[Zu Long]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Garrus's C-Sec dad and his by-the-book rules get brought up a lot as well. Ashley mentions her dad constantly. I was glad I chose Spacer so Shepard could have some mother-daughter time herself. :-P

Wait, does that mean Carth is the ONLY one who isn't complaining all the time? Irony?

And yet still managed to be my least favorite character from ME1, when all is said and done.

[AppealToReason]

Zu Long wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

This isn't directly related but now that I think of it, most of Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions was dealing with some branch of daddy issues.

Same for ME1. Liara doesn't have a mission but the whole issue with her mother. Wrex is exactly a daddy issue. Tali's is sort of--it's getting stuff for the fleet.

Garrus's C-Sec dad and his by-the-book rules get brought up a lot as well. Ashley mentions her dad constantly. I was glad I chose Spacer so Shepard could have some mother-daughter time herself. :-P

Grunt's whole pissfest on his loyalty mission is because of his daddy issues being a test tube baby. Liara's "dad" Asari is a minor but existent thing in ME3. Maybe Samara was the dad Asari to Morinth and thus she was the daddy issue herself, like Thane was.

Dads in the future must suck.

[Zu Long]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

As far as power fantasies go, I don't know, maybe. I don't think gameplay through combat is naturally inclined toward power fantasy. I think the violence is a tool that can be used to express themes and character moments as well as dialogue and cutscenes can. While I wouldn't argue something like Gears of War being a power fantasy, I would argue that God of War is not. Thematically, there is nothing cathartic about the savagery on display in those games - all of the violence Kratos commits only serves to reinforce his villainy. That's more of what I was getting at when I referred to the power fantasy. If that makes any sense.

Given that the brutal, over the top combat is a major selling point of the series, I'm going to disagree. You can be disgusted by the moral implications of playing a character like Kratos, but the basic appeal of the game is ripping up monsters.

City Elf was my favorite Origin as well though. :-)

Modifié par Zu Long, 14 septembre 2013 - 05:20 .

[2leggywillow]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Not to mention I don't think anyone at BioWare is all that interested in making a game that challenges you emotionally and intellectually.That's not a dig at them - they make fantasy and sci-fi RPGs that focus on the bombastic, operatic nature of their genres. It's all about the feel-good while something like BioShock is all about the introspection.

I just

I don't understand

If anything I feel like you typed "BioWare" and "BioShock" in the wrong places, but at least I will say I never got that impression from Bioshock at all.  I mean, I got the impression that's what they wanted me to think, sure.

[AppealToReason]

EntropicAngel wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

Grunt's whole pissfest on his loyalty mission is because of his daddy issues being a test tube baby. Liara's "dad" Asari is a minor but existent thing in ME3. Maybe Samara was the dad Asari to Morinth and thus she was the daddy issue herself, like Thane was.

Dads in the future must suck.

Bioware is anti father-child relationships!

In Dragon Age they're all about broken family dynamics. Like just look at this http://social.biowar...ndex/16400531/1

[Fraevar]

Well we only have two recent BioWare titles to go on, let's use the most recent one as an example: Mass Effect 3 ended up being crushed in several narrative elements by its perceived need to be "big". Both in terms of project scope but also from a marketing/publishing standpoint. That meant more focus on features "tried and tested" in other genres, even if they didn't fit. The move towards driving combat as the primary method of interacting with the world as opposed to the dialogue wheel was one such example.

In essence, what it caused was for BioWare to need to spend more time on the combat and explosive set-pieces, which caused the underlying narrative foundation to erode. That the writers and developers were so pressed for time that they forgot certain characters were romance options (Thane and Jacob) and forgot to build appropriate reactivity into the narrative sections of the game is quite telling, and also quite a shame.

Dragon Age II might have worked without the marketing of Hawke as "The Champion". If they'd marketed it as the story of a refugee trying to survive in the aftermath of the Blight, it stands to reason that a lot of the negativity would have been scaled back. The game simply wasn't given enough time to flesh out most of its ideas, but with a four-year development cycle, Inquisition looks to be shaping up better.

Now BioShock Infinite - on the other hand. That one is an odd one for me. I can see what it is trying to do, and when I'm in the moment, it does succeed in triggering an emotional response. But immediately afterwards I then recognize the framework behind it. I see the strings controlling the puppets, as it were. I also found combat in Infinite to be a frustrating annoyance that I could have done without half the time. I just didn't want to play it - I just wanted to see where the next plot-line might go. Which isn't exactly an ideal situation, either.

I think BioWare *can* create games with proper moral dilemmas. Look to Dragon Age: Origins - selecting who to put on the throne of Orzammar still makes me pause to this day. There is no clear-cut choice, so to dismiss their ability to write these scenarios would be remiss.

[In Exile]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Well we only have two recent BioWare titles to go on, let's use the most recent one as an example: Mass Effect 3 ended up being crushed in several narrative elements by its perceived need to be "big". Both in terms of project scope but also from a marketing/publishing standpoint. That meant more focus on features "tried and tested" in other genres, even if they didn't fit. The move towards driving combat as the primary method of interacting with the world as opposed to the dialogue wheel was one such example.

In essence, what it caused was for BioWare to need to spend more time on the combat and explosive set-pieces, which caused the underlying narrative foundation to erode. That the writers and developers were so pressed for time that they forgot certain characters were romance options (Thane and Jacob) and forgot to build appropriate reactivity into the narrative sections of the game is quite telling, and also quite a shame.

I don't think Bioware's mistake was combat and explosive set pieces. It was trying to pidgeon hole some sort of bleak war cataclysm on top of that. ME3 worked well when it was just about the explosion and the set pieces - Tuchanka and Rannoch. 

Modifié par In Exile, 14 septembre 2013 - 06:42 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I don't think it's fair to call it pigeon-holing, seeing as how the entire war was, in reality, doomed from the start. ME3 should have been about the Reapers hitting every world and obliterating the galaxy, no hope at all.

The Reapers are powered by plot. A single one could eradicate all life in the galaxy or all of them combined could lose in a pitched battle to the Citadel races... it's all in the story you want to tell. And Bioware couldn't decide if they wanted Spec Ops: The Line or Mass Effect 1 and ended up just trolling the players. 

Bioware may have suddenly taken a darker turn than the entire series had ever been, but in reality it was still lighter/brighter than our knowledge of the Reapers would have implied. 

Every single game has an unstoppable Chtulu-like abomination that threatens the world. If DA:O played the darkspawn straight this would have been another 100 year blight at least. But the Warden is magic so that doesn't happen. ME3 could have been the same way. 

[Deflagratio]

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game. Even more so when said game is basically a series of scripted events not particularly related to fighting "The war".


I think if they ever want to do another "Blight" storyline, Bioware should take notes from Destiny... at least the theory of Destiny. A single player persistent world with dynamic and volatile content while still maintaining a narrative. And before you say "Destiny isn't Single Player", I know it's not, but the game is designed (Particularly the Narrative) to be accessible to a single player.

Anyway, that framework makes it possible for a realistic timeframe to exist with "MMO like" expansionary content added over time that eventually concludes the story.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 07:02 .

[Maria Caliban]

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game.

Yet they're able to do it in 2 hour movies.

[In Exile]

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game. Even more so when said game is basically a series of scripted events not particularly related to fighting "The war".

I think it'd be very easy to do. But then you don't have superpowered plot weapons that end the war. You just have death, destruction, the world being torn apart... and then you just showcase human misery. I can't imagine why anyone would want to be exposed to that for 50 hours, but I'm sure it can be done.

I think if they ever want to do another "Blight" storyline, Bioware should take notes from Destiny... at least the theory of Destiny. A single player persistent world with dynamic and volatile content while still maintaining a narrative. And before you say "Destiny isn't Single Player", I know it's not, but the game is designed (Particularly the Narrative) to be accessible to a single player.

Anyway, that framework makes it possible for a realistic timeframe to exist with "MMO like" expansionary content added over time that eventually concludes the story.

Yeah, I'm going to say that this idea, on the other hand, doesn't work. It's all just buzz worlds. What's a single player "persistent world"? Is the game going to play itself while the player isn't there? What does it mean to have "volalite" content?

[What a Succulent Ass]

BioShock Infinite's story was disgraceful, so hopefully not.

[Sharn01]

You can make a judgement on the actual quality of a story based on how well the writer puts together the plot, adheres to the lore he has established within the universe, and how well he uses generally accepted literary rules when writing.

How much you like the story, and how ground breaking or not it is, will always be a matter of opinion, and for the record, you don't need to write some of the wall ground breaking plot to write an enjoyable and engaging story.

[ObserverStatus]

If the story is even half as good as Hatoful Boyfriend's I won't complain about anything else.

[Deflagratio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game.

Yet they're able to do it in 2 hour movies.

Oh, and here I was under the impression that Games and Film were separate mediums.

In Exile wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game. Even more so when said game is basically a series of scripted events not particularly related to fighting "The war".

I think it'd be very easy to do. But then you don't have superpowered plot weapons that end the war. You just have death, destruction, the world being torn apart... and then you just showcase human misery. I can't imagine why anyone would want to be exposed to that for 50 hours, but I'm sure it can be done.

"Very easy" and game development are mutually exclusive states of existence.

Anyway, I feel like a certain someon else, you're not fully grasping the idea that games are a separate medium from novels and film. Sure it's easy to say "Bad guys comin, bad guys killin, now you win" but to involve the player, to engage the player... Entirely different and infinitely more difficult task. And I really feel you can't accomplish that feeling without a severe investment into the atrician aspect of campaigning, especially in the "Fantasy" setting. The current model is little more than Mideival James Bond. Show up, talk to Q, Race around the world in less than a week and bang the chick.

It comes down to how much you'll rely on suspension of disbelief. Call me particular, but when I've solved the world's greatest catastrophe in less than a week (Game time) it feels dishonest.

In Exile wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...
I think if they ever want to do another "Blight" storyline, Bioware should take notes from Destiny... at least the theory of Destiny. A single player persistent world with dynamic and volatile content while still maintaining a narrative. And before you say "Destiny isn't Single Player", I know it's not, but the game is designed (Particularly the Narrative) to be accessible to a single player.

Anyway, that framework makes it possible for a realistic timeframe to exist with "MMO like" expansionary content added over time that eventually concludes the story.

Yeah, I'm going to say that this idea, on the other hand, doesn't work. It's all just buzz worlds. What's a single player "persistent world"? Is the game going to play itself while the player isn't there? What does it mean to have "volalite" content?

Persistent world means the game environment exists independent of player interaction. This is something you're going to be hearing a lot more about when Destiny (And in about 3 weeks) GTA:Online hit. I'll point out that "Single Player Persistant World" is exactly as you described it. A world that plays itself. I suppose you've never heard of Skyrim have you? Or Oblivion? Those are single-player and persistant worlds. They just have a low level of dynamic (Volatile) content, which brings me into my second point.

Volatile is another word for Dynamic, but I prefer volatile because it properly illistrates the unstable nature of true dynamic worlds. So when I refer to "Volatile Content" it means the result can A) Result in a kind of Failure state and Doesn't have to involve the player.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[Hey]

so basically you want to know how it ends?

[Fredward]

Deflagratio wrote...
It comes down to how much you'll rely on suspension of disbelief. Call me particular, but when I've solved the world's greatest catastrophe in less than a week (Game time) it feels dishonest.

Which game was this?


I like both.

[Deflagratio]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...
It comes down to how much you'll rely on suspension of disbelief. Call me particular, but when I've solved the world's greatest catastrophe in less than a week (Game time) it feels dishonest.

Which game was this?


I like both.

Dragon Age: Origins in particular. They just oversell the threat of the blight, without really being able to pay off on it in the end. It's the trapping of going all "Tolkein" in the written lore department. They talk about the First Blight of Dumat as this grand, century's-long campaign, and then the Fifth blight is over in a couple days. (I actually think it's more like 2 months in game time)

A bigger violator though, is Skyrim. The Civil War campaign can be completed in under a week of game time, which is roughly four hours of play. (Much less if you spam fast travel)

[Maria Caliban]

Deflagratio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game.

Yet they're able to do it in 2 hour movies.

Oh, and here I was under the impression that Games and Film were separate mediums.

Novels, films, opera, and even comic have managed to do this. Games are different, but they're not that different.

[Deflagratio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

It's really hard to pull off a "Great and catastrophic war" theme in  even a 50 hour game.

Yet they're able to do it in 2 hour movies.

Oh, and here I was under the impression that Games and Film were separate mediums.

Novels, films, opera, and even comic have managed to do this. Games are different, but they're not that different.

Ha.


That's only true in one of the examples you give, which is Novels. Both literature and gaming engage the participant's mind, however Gaming engages the player in the creation of their own experience within the art, while literature engages the imaginative interpretation of the words. (Best examples the various depictions of classic monsters Grendel and Cthulu).  You spit in the face of the art to even insinuate that games "Aren't that different" from Film, Opera and Comics, which are all passive and lack any commited level of engage or creation by the participant.


Now, I'm not saying that Games can't, or haven't... It's just uniquely difficult and relies on a certain level of self-awareness within the medium.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:53 .