227 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

Ok, so please bear with me here, because people might react badly to this proposition. (TL;DR below )

(NOTE: Obviouslly, DA:I will be creative and experiment with ideas,I'm not saying it won't (I'M SO EXCITED FOR IT ), but I am saying smaller and larger worldspaces/games inherently present different opportunities.)

IMHO, I think that Dragon Age game series should alternate between "the subtitled", larger scale games (DA:O and DA:I) and smaller, "numbered", potentially more experimental games (DA2 and hypothetical DA4).

I really enjoyed both DA2 and DA:O, but for different reasons and the fact both were so different was refreshing in my view.

Some quick points about DA2:

• Obviously, DA2 was made with a different dev cycle, but it included a lot of very interesting new ideas to BioWare narratives. I enjoyed the smaller scale setting, getting to know Kirkwall and learning about it's problems alongside the personal family problems of Hawke.
• I also enjoyed how you didn't really play a typical hero, Hawke was damn likeable and I loved her companions, but none of the story felt like a power-fantasy to me, which was definitely interesting.
• DA2 also made the world large through time, rather than space. Following 10+ years of the characters lives was very new and excit
• DA2 felt like a micro exploration of a part of the world, where as DA:O felt like a macro vision of a huge country. Both have merits, and I love how BioWare has now explored both.

I think most of the negative reaction to DA2 can be summed up by how different it was to DA:O in scale and style. I personally believe that if people had known what to expect from DA2, people would have loved the game as much as I do.

----

I propose that the Dragon Age franchise adopt a release strategy, where every other game is comparable to "DA2" in scale and each game after that is a DA:O, DA:I scale (larger) game.

This would allow BioWare to do some more creative, experimental and intersting things like we saw this in DA2. I think that has helped the world grow immeasurably over if they had simply done Origins 2. That said, we all love sweeping epics, and I think DA:I is clearly going to strike that note firmly.

Also, it keeps excitement for each alternate entry high, rather than allow us to know fully what to expect.

TL:DR and summary:

I feel that bigger and smaller game-worlds/stories present different opportunities to explore and experiment. Both are equally valid, which is why I would love to see the two styles of game alternate with the DA franchise to give BioWare the most creative freedom.

I think if BioWare make a point of alternating between smaller DA2 style games and larger DA:O DA:I style games in the series, they will sustain a level of interest and a level of creative freedom that could not be afforded if they maintained every entry as a large scale, epic, heroes journey.

I believe DA:O and DA2 bring different things to the table and that DA:I is benifitting from both, but taking the DA:O scale. DA4 should therefore reduce the scale and experiment with things to give BioWare more freedom and chances to do less traditional narratives in a smaller world. This would make DA5 (DA:subtitle) even better as a result from the potential risks/ideas taken with DA4.

Modifié par StElmo, 22 septembre 2013 - 10:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I only partly disagree. I do think DA2 did some very interesting things with narrative structure - some of which I'd been asking BioWare to do for some time.

But, I think DA2's overall quality (or lack thereof) had quite a lot to do with how it was received - it wasn't disliked just because it was different.

So, while DA2 did some very interesting and valuable things with its design, that design was not well executed.

If DAI is better received, the lesson I think BioWare should take from that is that each game needs to be given sufficient development time to do it well, regardless of its scope. But I also think BioWare has already learned that lesson.

[In Exile]

I will say one thing: I think it's really funny that Act I's story is poorly received, when it's really an extended BG2 easier egg/nod.

[StElmo]

MasterScribe wrote...

You're assuming that DAI will NOT be "creative, experimental and interesting" before even playing it.

<_<

Sorry, didn't mean to come accross like that, my point is that smaller and larger games present different creaitve opportunities - both are valid and I love both. I want them to keep doing both

Modifié par StElmo, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:11 .

[In Exile]

I think that DA2 had interesting concepts... but that it needed a lot more time to get right, and overall, I think Bioware is the wrong company to make that kind of game. First of all, Kirkwall and the sorrounding area really needed to be open-world. Like GTA V or RDR, actually. If you're going to put the player in once city, then you have to give them the entire city.

After that, I think the game needs a lot of branching content. For time to feel like it matters, things have to change lots. And that leads to the other problem: if you have time pass and the player passes on control, they'll feel like they lose control of their character and find out after the fact what they did for years. That's a problem too.

And, lastly, I don't think players like surprise deconstructions of fantasy tropes. DA2 was that, and I think Bioware had a lot of fans miss the message entirely. So instead of Hawke being a deconstruction of the fantasy hero that saves the day, Hawke comes off like an incompetent screw-up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If the PC is going to be an incompetent screw-up, it should be because the player designed him that way.

You could play an incompetent screw-up in DAO. You could also play a traditional hero. Deciding which we get should never be the job of the game's designers.

[StElmo]

In Exile wrote...

And, lastly, I don't think players like surprise deconstructions of fantasy tropes. DA2 was that, and I think Bioware had a lot of fans miss the message entirely. So instead of Hawke being a deconstruction of the fantasy hero that saves the day, Hawke comes off like an incompetent screw-up.

This is what I mean when I think BioWare took an awesome risk. Hawke is absolutely my favorite RPG protagonist - I like characters that aren't god-like.

[StElmo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If the PC is going to be an incompetent screw-up, it should be because the player designed him that way.

You could play an incompetent screw-up in DAO. You could also play a traditional hero. Deciding which we get should never be the job of the game's designers.

Why not? If we are to accept games are an art form, the designers are the ones who guide us through a story, be that branching and open, or maybe a little less so. Both are valid styles of narrative.

[Allan Schumacher]

I actually agree.

On a personal level I hope that when people say that they didn't like the game for it's lack of epic scope, it's actually more a representation on how they simply didn't like our execution and other aspects of it.

I like a smaller, tighter story too.

[In Exile]

MasterScribe wrote...
DA2 was NOT a deconstruction. It was an amalgamated mess comprised of three different story ideas, which they didn't have time to fully develop individually.

I think DA2 dealt with the super-murder-machine protagonist quite well in terms of a deconstruction. Like Shepard, or the Warden, Hawke was only good at one thing: murder. His ability to kill things wasn't the solution to everything, however, unlike those two (and other) heroes. 

Hawke couldn't murder the blight away from his sibling, for example. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:28 .

[David7204]

You know, I'm always weary when people say they (supposedly) want a weaker protagonist. Because what exactly does that mean?

The protagonist is less effective in combat? I really don't see that happening. It seems to me that the protagonist of any BioWare game is going to be able to handle themselves in combat very well.

So what else is there? The protagonist is stupider? The protagonist is an emotional sissy?The protagonist is incompetent? These things aren't desireable at all.

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:30 .

[StElmo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I actually agree.

On a personal level I hope that when people say that they didn't like the game for it's lack of epic scope, it's actually more a representation on how they simply didn't like our execution and other aspects of it.

I like a smaller, tighter story too.

Bought DA2 again on PS3 recently (have it on PC), having a great time with the story. It's literally like watching a great movie again, (like if you watch a LOTR/StarWars marathon) but it's got the added benifit of interactivity and a longer narrative arc.

The game doesn't look amazing on PS3 compared to PC, but I am enjoying it thoroughly none-the less on the couch with a nice tea.

Modifié par StElmo, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:29 .

[StElmo]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I'm always weary when people say they (supposedly) want a weaker protagonist. Because what exactly does that mean?

The protagonist is less effective in combat? The protagonist is stupider? The protagonist is an emotional sissy?

I don't think weaker is a good way to put it. A lot of great characters are a product of circumstance, Hawke was a poduct of circumstance, she wass strong and capable, but her situation only allowed her to do so much. I found that very interesting and engaging.

Modifié par StElmo, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

StElmo wrote...

Why not? If we are to accept games are an art form, the designers are the ones who guide us through a story, be that branching and open, or maybe a little less so. Both are valid styles of narrative.

Because allowing the designers to "guide us through a story" at all gives all emphasis to the authored narrative, while completely eliminating the emergent narrative.

What makes games new and interesting as a form of narrative art is the emergent narrative.

If all the narrative we get is the narrative written by the designers, then games are no more interactive than musical theatre in which the audience is encouraged to sing along.

[Allan Schumacher]

You know, I'm always weary when people say they (supposedly) want a weaker protagonist. Because what exactly does that mean?

I take it as meaning one that is less overtly equipped to handle any and all challenges, to the extent that in some cases they feel more vulnerable with their character.

Sort of a difference between playing as Duke Nukem compared to Sam Fisher?

[David7204]

Sam Fisher still basically succeeds at the challenges he faces, right?

[StElmo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Why not? If we are to accept games are an art form, the designers are the ones who guide us through a story, be that branching and open, or maybe a little less so. Both are valid styles of narrative.

Because allowing the designers to "guide us through a story" at all gives all emphasis to the authored narrative, while completely eliminating the emergent narrative.

What makes games new and interesting as a form of narrative art is the emergent narrative.

If all the narrative we get is the narrative written by the designers, then games are no more interactive than musical theatre in which the audience is encouraged to sing along.

I disagree, because it's not as black and white as that. Gaming as an artform has a multitude of narrative pros and cons, creators are free to decide which works best for their story.

Ultimately, what matters is if the game is engaging. That can be Red Dead Redemption, Spec Ops, Walking Dead, Dragon Age Origins, or Dragon Age 2. All have different ways of telling the story with elements of player interaction and there is no right answer in regards to which is best.

[wolfhowwl]

Oh I wouldn't mind stepping away from an epic story with a powerful PC like the Warden or Shepard for a more personal tale where the protagonist is only human.

But Hawke was incredibly ineffectual and incompetent in a game that wanted to be deadly serious. It is one thing to try and fail because the forces moving against you are just too strong but she just stands there and watches things fall apart!

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Ozzy]

The problem with DA2 wasn't its scope. I just get a bit sad when I think of what Bioware could have accomplished with another year or so of development. The game is enjoyable for the most part but is awash with situations and events that could have been expanded upon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I take it as meaning one that is less overtly equipped to handle any and all challenges, to the extent that in some cases they feel more vulnerable with their character.

I might phrase it in terms of feeling a sense of genuine achievement when the PC accomplishes something.

An all-powerful PC really does rob the narrative of drama.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:37 .

[In Exile]

MasterScribe wrote...
You've lost me.

The Warden could talk his or her way out of some fights AND some of the origins involved losing a loved one.

Yes, but the losing a loved one as part of your heroic start is part of the trope. Failing to save everyone in your act II showdown with your personal antagonist is not.