5 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 .

[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.

[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?

[Allan Schumacher]

First of all, it makes utterly no difference how much something is justified in the story. Because guess what? The player generally chooses their class before they see any of it. So by the time you see the 'justification' the choice is already set in stone.

You'll find plenty of disagreement (including from myself) that it makes no difference.

As someone that apparently hasn't played the Dragon Age games, I would recommend that you dial down the level of confrontation with your posts, however.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am getting the impression that some people are looking at boiling down the argument into semantics and are kind of just itching for a fight.

[Allan Schumacher]

In terms of scale for story-centric games, I generally prefer somewhere in between the 2 with more personal stories, i.e. V:tmB.

Excellent example. Bloodlines is a game that does a pretty exceptional job in terms of its scope.