227 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

David7204 wrote...

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

Older sam fisher does not (not blacklist). He is actually pretty disheartened with his work and the actor even described him as a weapon of the government "used too many times".

Solid Snake doesn't consider himself a hero, either, he is a product of being a cloned super soldier, he laments this frequently.

Big Boss is not a hero at all.

Leigh Everette from TWD is another one.

Making your characters able to be perfect can limit the gravitas of their situation and the narrative. It can work too, it just depends on what the creators invision.

[David7204]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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 is 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.

Given the very obvious emotional investment in BioWare games, that very clearly has not happened.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare doesn't tend to give us all-powerful PCs.

[David7204]

StElmo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

Older sam fisher does not (not blacklist). He is actually pretty disheartened with his work and the actor even described him as a weapon of the government "used too many times".

Solid Snake doesn't consider himself a hero, either, he is a product of being a cloned super soldier, he laments this frequently.

Big Boss is not a hero at all.

Leigh Everette from TWD is another one.

Making your characters able to be perfect can limit the gravitas of their situation and the narrative. It can work too, it just depends on what the creators invision.

And how are Shepard or the Warden or the Inquisitor different? Are they 'perfect' in the sense being able to wave a magic wand and make the conflict go away? No. They're limited. And the gravity of the narratives are clearly very intact.

[The Hierophant]

MasterScribe wrote...

StElmo wrote...

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.

Hawke was the product of Varric's storytelling.

I think he, Aveline, and the rest of the lot created Hawke in order to defer consequences for their actions.

What if HAWKE is an organization and not a person?

THAT would be deconstruction.

Alongside killer snapping turtles this would be beautiful.

[StElmo]

AstusOz wrote...

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.

That's an interesting perspective. I personally didn't have too much issue with execution, but I like that you aren't throwing away everything about DA2.

I am mostly talking conceptually here, DA4 would no doubt have more polish anyway (sequels always do), but yes, the ideas in DA2 really had me hooked.

[Lord Raijin]

Dragon Age 2 is not a bad game. The concept is good but it was poorly executed. The fact that I could walk right inside the gallows... the fricken gallows... Templars headquarters mind you, for the first time  , and already I'm casting magic spells in the middle of the court yard fighting against an angry mob. Their was no consequences to my actions. You would think that the templars would arrest me, and send me off to the circle, but no. It didn't happen that way. That really pissed me off because I wanted to have the Kirkwall circle experience.

If I become a blood mage and start stabbing myself in front of people nobody is calling me a blood mage, and again nothing happens. For makers breath I was casting blood magic when I was fighting with a possessed templar who turned into a demon; next to the fricken Knight-Captain! When the fight was over with Cullen didn't even acknowledge that I was using blood magic, and he had his share of blood mages at the circle tower.

In DAI if I choose to become a blood mage I want Vivienne (Very pro circle) to give me the riot act. I want her to be all up my ass and become a **** to me. I want her to remind me about the chant of light, and give me religious lectures about how magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

I want Cassandra to aid  Vivienne into making my DAI miserable by reminding about the terrible decision that I made to become a blood mage.


Wynne confronts a blood mage Warden. Without a Persuade check, she, Irving and Greagoir attack. <~~~ best damn thing in DA:O but it was cut out by the developers! Why?!?!? When I saw this video clip for the first time my heart skipped a few beats (I was still in RP mode). I like games that could do this to me.

[Melca36]

StElmo wrote...

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.

The thing with Hawke not being God-like....

He was the only one who had cutscenes where he or she killed the Rock Wraith

And it was the same with the High Dragon....

If they wanted to show Hawke being Ordinary then other people in the party should have been able to kill those bosses.

DA2 had interesting elements but it was rushed and given the reception....I would expect somthing different for DA4

[David7204]

I can think of countless games where the consequences of going around town shooting everyone are slim to none. Having characters not react to magic is really not that big of a deal.

Also, I hate the idea of a character attacking you because of your class.

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[StElmo]

David7204 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

Older sam fisher does not (not blacklist). He is actually pretty disheartened with his work and the actor even described him as a weapon of the government "used too many times".

Solid Snake doesn't consider himself a hero, either, he is a product of being a cloned super soldier, he laments this frequently.

Big Boss is not a hero at all.

Leigh Everette from TWD is another one.

Making your characters able to be perfect can limit the gravitas of their situation and the narrative. It can work too, it just depends on what the creators invision.

And how are Shepard or the Warden or the Inquisitor different? Are they 'perfect' in the sense being able to wave a magic wand and make the conflict go away? No. They're limited. And the gravity of the narratives are clearly very intact.

You don't see the narrative and situational differences between the two? We can't comment on the Inquisitor, but I would simply consider the phenomenon of power-fantasy as a good distinguishing element, amongst other things

It mostly comes down to situational opportunity for each character int he narrative, Shepard and Warden had the freedom to be heroes, that can certainly be fun, but it's also engaging to see other characters that don't have that opportunity.

[David7204]

You don't do yourself any favors by calling epic fiction 'power fantasy.' What's the very obvious implication there? You're stupid and childish for enjoying it. If you were mature, you would enjoy real fiction, not this silly kiddy nonsense.

It's not 'power fantasy.'

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:50 .

[StElmo]

David7204 wrote...

You don't do yourself any favors by calling epic fiction 'power fantasy.' What's the very obvious implication there? You're stupid and childish for enjoying it. If you were mature, you would enjoy real fiction, not this silly kiddy nonsense.

Not intended, sorry.

Modifié par StElmo, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:52 .

[Lord Raijin]

David7204 wrote...

I can think of countless games where the consequences of going around town shooting everyone are slim to none. Having characters not react to magic is really not that big of a deal.

Also, I hate the idea of a character attacking you because of your class.

Having consequences makes the RP experience more realstic. It makes it that much fun.

And why not? Why do you hate the idea of a character attacking you because of your class? Darkspawn attacks you because of who you are. Do you hate that?

[wolfhowwl]

But most videogames are a power fantasy.

Look at Mass Effect. Your character is tasked with representing humanity as a SPECTRE, yet you can routinely cut off your bosses, the most powerful people in the galaxy, in debriefings with no consequences for your childish behavior other than a throwaway line of dialogue.

It's childish, it's immature, yet players loved it because they got to give the finger to an authority figure. Something they can never do to their boss or teacher.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:56 .

[David7204]

Consequences are one thing.

Meaningful consequences are another.

It's not a meaningful consequences because the player has no meaningful influence over it. There's no way that when choosing his or her class, the player can know that it's going to result in a character dying. It's a dice roll. It's 'Sorry, you picked the wrong class six hours ago when you started the game, so this character dies.'

Of course, in practice the persuasion check would smooth things out.

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:56 .

[David7204]

wolfhowwl wrote...

But most videogames are a power fantasy.

Look at Mass Effect. Your character is tasked with representing humanity as a SPECTRE, yet you can routinely cut off your bosses, the most powerful people in the galaxy, in debriefings with no consequences for your childish behavior other than a throwaway line of dialogue.

It's childish, it's immature, yet players loved it because they got to give the finger to an authority figure. Something they can never do to their boss or teacher.

That is simply ridiculous.

Players hang up on the Council because it's funny. Because it's entertaining. That's all there is to it.

You seem to have this idea that players do out to get some sense of catharsis? To finally experience what it's like to talk back to their superiors, an experiences they've been desperately denied in real life? No. Nobody hangs up on the Council to get a rush of rebellion. They do it because messing around in a video game is fun. That doesn't make it 'power fantasy.'

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:00 .

[snackrat]

Hmm. I think expansions would probably work better to that idea so they could use similar engines. As Origins is to Awakenings and such. Otherwise you're facing both long development cycles for 'minisode' games, and/or a lot of sequels, which on their own are discouraging to a consumer.

[wolfhowwl]

David7204 wrote...

Consequences are one thing.

Meaningful consequences are another.

It's not a meaningful consequences because the player has no meaningful influence over it. There's no way that when choosing his or her class, the player can know that it's going to result in a character dying. It's a dice roll. It's 'Sorry, you picked the wrong class six hours ago when you started the game, so this character dies.'

Of course, in practice the persuasion check would smooth things out.

Oh David, if you actually bothered to play Dragon Age you would understand why NPCs would react to the blood mage specialization that way.

You would also understand that the player would get plenty of warning when they have to sell the soul of a child to a demon for blood magic powers. Any reasonable person would expect that a stunt like that might have some negative consequences.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:03 .

[kinderschlager]

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.

on a stylistic stand point, DA:2 was very well done, added a ton of new things to the DA universe. (new gameplay style, voiced PC, new artwork style (not variations of brown was good) and an attempt to personalize the story

on a personal stand point? absolutely HATED it, it felt too constraining, like some RPG version of CoD (linear path compared to go at own pace and unlock areas at player discretion in DA:O is something i came to expect in bioware and overall, RPG games, it was disconcerting)

[David7204]

wolfhowwl wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Consequences are one thing.

Meaningful consequences are another.

It's not a meaningful consequences because the player has no meaningful influence over it. There's no way that when choosing his or her class, the player can know that it's going to result in a character dying. It's a dice roll. It's 'Sorry, you picked the wrong class six hours ago when you started the game, so this character dies.'

Of course, in practice the persuasion check would smooth things out.

Oh David, if you actually bothered to play Dragon Age you would understand why NPCs would react to the blood mage specialization that way.

You would also understand that the player would get plenty of warning when they have to sell the soul of a child to a demon for blood magic powers. Any reasonable person would expect that a stunt like that might have some negative consequences.

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.

Do players get the warning before they choose their class?

Also, there's another reason I didn't touch on. Players should be able to play the class they find fun and enjoy playing. Not the class they feel obligated to play because they feel it gives the best story. As Patrick Weekes says, the 'optimal' way to play the game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:07 .

[Ozzy]

David7204 wrote...

I can think of countless games where the consequences of going around town shooting everyone are slim to none. Having characters not react to magic is really not that big of a deal.

Also, I hate the idea of a character attacking you because of your class.

It is a big deal when considering the context of Dragon Age 2. That was a game where class choice Rogue/Warrior or Mage should have been more vital and impactful than it was.
Blood Magic is also something that should be absolutely acknowledged and lead to consequences and the like. The only reason it didn't in DA2 was that the specialisations were selected and implemented after all the writing was done IIRC. Given Bioware's commentary on the issue, i expect that they're incorporating such things in Inquisition.