392 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Ailith430 wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Sauron-esque villains with an evil mustachio is Biowares bread and butter, so no.

And Father Comstock didn't count as an evil mustachioed villain?

It wasn't the villain, it was the city and that girl that made the game.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

There's nothing at all wrong with an explictly evil villain. It's the bread of butter of not just BioWare games, but nearly all epic fiction in general.

Also, people tend to seriously overlook some of the writing fumbles of supposedly 'grey' villains. Even the most highly regarded grey villains often do things that don't really hold up well to close examination. Gus Fring from Breaking Bad is a good example.

Grey Villains are interesting.

Explicitly evil villains are typically very childish unless given a good cause or motivation.

[David7204]

Remind me. Are you one of the people who continually insist the Reapers should have been completely unexplained mindless killing machines?

[Ailith Tycane]

mickey111 wrote...

Ailith430 wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Sauron-esque villains with an evil mustachio is Biowares bread and butter, so no.

And Father Comstock didn't count as an evil mustachioed villain?

It wasn't the villain, it was the city and that girl that made the game.

The Archdemon didn't "make" the original Dragon Age game either.

[Deflagratio]

David7204 wrote...

Remind me. Are you one of the people who continually insist the Reapers should have been completely unexplained mindless killing machines?

The Reapers would have been much more terrifying if their motivations were never explained. Mass Effect 1 planted sufficient dread in being unable to know why these transcendent constructs had to selectively purge the galaxy every 50,000Years.

Call me picky, but "Cuz u'll maek robots" didn't do it for me. They could have at least went with something cooler like the idea of Dark Energy destroying the universe in a few billion years. ( discovered by Dr. Lawrence Krauss)

In retrospect, maybe it's not becoming to trivialize the danger of the technological Singularity

[David7204]

Wow, I like how you dropped a name in an effort to make the idea you support seem more scientifically viable (when it very obviously isn't). Of course, such a tactic is clearly transparent and pointless to someone who sees through such things.

I'm not interested in discussing the actual issue. Merely in pointing out the discrepency.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 12:07 .

[Deflagratio]

David7204 wrote...

Wow, I like how you dropped a name in an effort to make the idea you support seem more scientifically viable (when it very obviously isn't). Of course, such a tactic is clearly transparent and pointless to someone who sees through such things.

I'm not interested in discussing the actual issue. Merely in pointing out the discrepency.

Oh well, I guess you win the internet for the day.

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

Deflagratio wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Remind me. Are you one of the people who continually insist the Reapers should have been completely unexplained mindless killing machines?

The Reapers would have been much more terrifying if their motivations were never explained. Mass Effect 1 planted sufficient dread in being unable to know why these transcendent constructs had to selectively purge the galaxy every 50,000Years.

Call me picky, but "Cuz u'll maek robots" didn't do it for me. They could have at least went with something cooler like the idea of Dark Energy destroying the universe in a few billion years. ( discovered by Dr. Lawrence Krauss)

In retrospect, maybe it's not becoming to trivialize the danger of the technological Singularity

The Reapers would have been far more scary if we stopped them before they arrived. Having a full-scale invasion with reapers around left right and centre made the impact of seeing a reaper a whole lot less impressive and terrifying. Though their unknowable motives was definitely another important factor.

[Deflagratio]

MisterMonkeyBanana wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Remind me. Are you one of the people who continually insist the Reapers should have been completely unexplained mindless killing machines?

The Reapers would have been much more terrifying if their motivations were never explained. Mass Effect 1 planted sufficient dread in being unable to know why these transcendent constructs had to selectively purge the galaxy every 50,000Years.

Call me picky, but "Cuz u'll maek robots" didn't do it for me. They could have at least went with something cooler like the idea of Dark Energy destroying the universe in a few billion years. ( discovered by Dr. Lawrence Krauss)

In retrospect, maybe it's not becoming to trivialize the danger of the technological Singularity

The Reapers would have been far more scary if we stopped them before they arrived. Having a full-scale invasion with reapers around left right and centre made the impact of seeing a reaper a whole lot less impressive and terrifying. Though their unknowable motives was definitely another important factor.

They were pretty much Cybernetic Darkspawn in the end, weren't they?

Probably should avoid really throwing down the Mass Effect gauntlet in here though. If Bioshock threw the discussion off topic for 4 pages...

[David7204]

If people on the BSN are putting BioShock down, then it's probably not good.

[Navasha]

I will take an impactful game over a thought-provoking one any day. Dragon Age: Origins will likely reign supreme for me for decades as an impactful game. It was a new world rich in history and lore. It was emotional and compelling.

I just played Bioshock Infinite a week ago, and it really doesn't even compare on the same level. After you play through DA:O and you finally see a sword being stabbed through the Archdemon, I was filled with emotion at that moment. You come away feeling like you and your characters accomplished something great. In Bioshock Infinite, you end the game feeling defeated and destroyed. You just erased yourself, your daughter, and everything you learned in the game from existence.

I was compelled to replay DA:O more than dozen times and am still replaying it to this day. I feel absolutely no desire to replay Bioshock infinite.

So I am hoping that DA:I is nothing like Bioshock Infinite.

Modifié par Navasha, 14 septembre 2013 - 12:49 .

[Deflagratio]

David7204 wrote...

If people on the BSN are putting BioShock down, then it's probably not good.

I think Bioshock: Infinite was just too intimidating for a lot of people. It makes you think about a lot of hard questions. The Original did too, but when the vast majority of people still say Bioshock is "Based off Atlas Shrugged" well.. Not everyone understands the concept of subtlety or environmental storytelling. Infinite is a lot more blunt. (And I believe quite a bit more inferior because of it)

Navasha wrote...


So I am hoping that DA:I is nothing like Bioshock Infinite.

Despite my praise of Bioshock: Infinite, I have to agree. There's a lot of less obvious things any game can learn from Infinite if they want to deliver better narratives. Both from what Inifinte does right, and what it does horribly wrong.

Modifié par Deflagratio, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:03 .

[Ianamus]

I liked Infinite's story for what it offered, but I tend to dislike stories with big mind screw endings. Infinite was an exception that I liked, but after Mass Effect 3's disaster for me in this regard I'd rather they stuck with a more conventional story and ending for Inquisition.

Modifié par EJ107, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

If people on the BSN are putting BioShock down, then it's probably not good.

People on the BSN also put down Mass Effect and Dragon Age on a regular basis. 

Not to mention Lord of the Rings, the writings of C.S. Lewis and Crime and Punishment. 

So... I would judge the quality of whether something is good or not based on this group's selection of praise of critique, in and of itself, is a poor judge of whether or not it is good or not. 

[Iakus]

Just don't railroad an arbitrarilly "bittersweet" ending regardless of how we played. If it is "our story" and "our inquisitor" then we should have a say in how the Inquisitor's story ends.

[DarthLaxian]

crimzontearz wrote...

Right let's hope not thank you very much I would not buy Bioshock infinite if you paid me

i said the same (at least for the full-price-game - i just got it now, for about half of what they wanted at first (about 50 Euro...i payed 26 something (small change i don't really count)) and it was fun...although i still like Bioshock 1 and 2 better (being able to gather health-kits and refills for your power-bar in advance (and using them when needed) was neat for example, same for having a lot of guns you could switch to when the situation demanded it (i used the revolver mostly in Bioshock 1 for example, because i shocked the enemy and used headshots ^^ - except for tough ones like Big-Daddies, Big-Sisters etc.)...and you could prepare ambushes (when gathering Adam for example...ah, i love those games

back to DA:

well, we will see...i just hope it is better then DA2 (and ME3 *pukes*)....if it is better then DA:O then i will be ecstatic

greetings LAX

[Mr.House]

iakus wrote...

Just don't railroad an arbitrarilly "bittersweet" ending regardless of how we played. If it is "our story" and "our inquisitor" then we should have a say in how the Inquisitor's story ends.

This is the DA series, where no endings so far have baeen happy. It ranges from bad to bittersweet.

[duckley]

I guess for me the question is ... will the story impact us like The Last of Us (at least for me), or will it be just a fun game to play (Uncharted). I am good either way ... both is best!

[In Exile]

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

This is about wwriting.

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.  

And yet novels and films both manage to convey catastrophic war and both do it without any kind of interaction from the viewer or reader, generally through getting in the characters head and create a sense of powerlessness, etc.

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's almost like... I said a game that to be completely different from whatever this thing you described to portray a catrastrophic war? But that would be silly, because then it would mean this part of your post isn't responding to anything I've said. 

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.

How do you handle when it's solved in less than two hours running time? In fact, how do you handle anything that isn't directly teleporting you into a warzone?

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.

No Bestheda game exists independently of the player. They have worker acts that sometimes die but the quests and actual "world changing" elements are entirely scripted and only run via script. Calling it a persistent world is just an empty buzzworld. 

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.

Having the game actually play itself in any kind of non-scripted way without looking like you've designed a worker ant colony like in Skyrim requires a kind of AI that is impossible to use or recreate unless you've up and designed the Matrix. 

[In Exile]

Deflagratio wrote...

It's definitely a great strategic blunder on part of Urthemeil to make himself vulnerable so early in the Blight. I don't think Dumat ever appeared on the field until the entire Alliances of Thedas and the Grey Wardens managed to start pushing the Darkspawn back, winning significant battles. Dumat appeared out of an act of desperation.

Then again Urthemeil was the Tevinter god of Beauty, and perhaps the vanity of his own power deluded the Archdemon into thinking he was a "Pretty Big deal".

The Architect started the blight in a way that a blight had never started before. His intervention was the wildcard as you learn in the Calling, I believe, and its implied that this is why the darkspawn could never mass with enough force to overwhlem Ferelden as they did. 

[Milan92]

With all due respect to Bioware, I won't expect DA I's writting to be anywhere near Bioshock Infinite. Ken Levine and his mind is a one of kind.

And that's fine. I have always liked Bioware's writting. Sure the stories itself aren't near Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us. but the characters are always great..

[Maria Caliban]

In Exile wrote...

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.  

And yet novels and films both manage to convey catastrophic war and both do it without any kind of interaction from the viewer or reader, generally through getting in the characters head and create a sense of powerlessness, etc.

What In Exile fails to understand is that even though everything from poetry to oil paintings to photographs have been able to convey the catastrophe of war, the magical medium fairies prevent games from doing the same.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:41 .

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...
What In Exile fails to understand is that even though everything from poetry to oil paintings to photographs have been able to convey the catastrophe of war, the magical medium fairies prevent games from doing the same.

I always fail to understand the magical medium faires. I think they use vuvuzelas. 

[Mr.House]

Video game writing will never be good as books.