227 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

I think that just might be a discrepancy we're going to have to accept with video games.

[Lord Raijin]

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.

David, I don't think you truly understand the very concept of blood magic. Most Blood mages aren't exactly friendly type of people, and they don't do much of good either so it makes perfect and logical sense for NPCs to want to attack you as a blood mage. It's part of the meaningful consequences that makes the game far better than just not doing a damn thing about it.

[Rawgrim]

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.

I agree too. I can appretiate that DA2 tried something different. So kudos to everyone involved for that bit. I wasn`t a huge fan of the execution, but it didn`t keep me from finishing the game.

Having smaller and more personal stories set in the DA universe would just help to flesh out the setting alot more, I guess. They don`t even have to be rpg games, to be fair. A tomb raider`ish game featuring Leliana could probably work very well too.

[David7204]

It makes no difference how much 'sense' somethings makes in-story. Poor gameplay design is poor gameplay design.

It's the same reason you never have a single choice save you or damn you, no matter how much 'sense' it makes. The same reason why you don't have party members getting killed on mundane missions, no matter how much 'sense' it makes.

[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.

[DooomCookie]

StElmo wrote...

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

I agree, but maybe not in the same franchise.  DA2 was only bad because it was next to DA:O.  And the reused environments.

[wolfhowwl]

David7204 wrote...

It makes no difference how much 'sense' somethings makes in-story. Poor gameplay design is poor gameplay design.

It's the same reason you never have a single choice save you or damn you, no matter how much 'sense' it makes. The same reason why you don't have party members getting killed on mundane missions, no matter how much 'sense' it makes.

In Dragon Age, specializations such as blood magic are chosen after a significant amount of playing time. At that point a player who has been paying a marginal amount of attention will be aware of what being a blood mage means in the setting.

[Ozzy]

MasterScribe wrote...

StElmo wrote...

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.

Both Shepard and The Warden can die for REAL. Hawke cannot. 

An ordinary person should be able to die, since 100% of all mortals die.

That's kind of why they are mortal.

Oddly though, Hawke just skips along his/her merry way for 7 years against all manner of evil and yet manages to live through it all.

Hawke also becomes a noble AND the viscount.

All of Hawke's love interests are "player-sexual," as if none of them have personal preferences.

Hawke's story is the ultimate power fantasy. 

Yes, because my sibling getting crushed by an ogre and mother gets hacked to pieces in my envisioning of the ultimate power fantasy!

There's a lot that Hawke can't control. The fact that he manages to stay alive through 7 or so years of Kirkwall madness isn't really relevant.

Modifié par AstusOz, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[David7204]

I see. Well that makes a huge difference, then.

[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.

[AutumnWitch]

I hope that DAI makes enough dosh that they can produce Epic and what I call "Intimate Character Driven" games at the same time so perhaps there could be possibly two DA2 style games that come out in the lengthy time it takes to make a more epic DAI type games. And the smaller games would fill in aspects that you need for the epic games.

[Ozzy]

I would be crushed if Hawke didn't exist though.

[Lord Raijin]

David7204 wrote...

I see. Well that makes a huge difference, then.

Here's some lore education for you regarding to Blood magic. http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Blood_magic

Modifié par Lord Raijin, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:37 .

[Dominus]

In terms of scale for story-centric games, I generally prefer somewhere in between the 2 with more personal stories, i.e. V:tmB. The sense of time with DA2 was certainly interesting in an Assasins-Creed-2 sort of way, but I never gained the same sense of growth and development in terms of character with hawke as I did with Ezio. I'm mixed with the OPs strategem, but I get what you're going for.

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.

True. A common trend of "Press A to continue the text" in jRPGs - not always what I'd consider a flaw dependent on the game, but I'll agree that the level of participation is virtually null and void. You won't have the same sense of manifest destiny if the game sticks to narrative hand-holding.

Modifié par DominusVita, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:57 .

[wolfhowwl]

David7204 wrote...
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.'

Of course it's a power fantasy. You get to **** on your bosses for a cheap laugh with no consequences.

The game being a power fantasy isn't necessarily a bad thing, for many people that is what makes it so enjoyable.

Messing around in the world of ME is escapist fun, instead of being a regular person you are the larger than life Shepard.

Your self-insert is the badass who doesn't take crap from anyone.

You make choices that shape the galaxy.

And of course you get the damsel in distress. A "romance" is just a matter of selecting the flirt options, the character is always interested. You're Shepard is just that awesome.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 22 septembre 2013 - 09:17 .

[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.

[Tinu]

I rather have the 'big guns' out each 3-5 years and in between some alternate campaigns.
DLC's purely based on one character of the main game, like they did in Leliana's song. Characters are the best thing in a Bioware game, so I really like it when I get to know one of the companions in a different light. It also creates opportunity to make those characters all the more personal and believable.

[puppy maclove]

@ OP.

In general I agree. I liked the whole concept of DA2 and it had potential, however it felt rushed and poorly executed to me. (IMO the city was empty and bland, it didn't change to reflect time and your influence, the narrative felt disjointed, it all felt very shallow etc)

In DA:Awakening (which I enjoyed), I loved the idea of running your own castle and making decisions etc. (I hope this is expanded upon in Da:I) I don't mind a compact / tighter story and setting, as long as it's done well and gets good depth which DA2 lacked.

[Wulfram]

I don't really accept the premise that DA2's story was notably smaller in scope. We've got the death of a Qunari "King" and what that game tells us is the start of a continent size war.

It was basically the same stories that could be bundled into any Bioware fantasy RPG ever, just without much of a main plot and with the Player Character being basically irrelevant, despite everyone rather desperately telling us that they were the awesomest thing ever.

I have no problem with a smaller scale game. That could be interesting, and potentially more compatible with the save imports since you could allow more player choice without causing problems for the next game. But DA2 didn't do that.

[Bleachrude]

I'm not sure how DA2 isn't a smaller scope Wulfram...

Hawe, in DA2 is NOT in total control of the setting...the warden, no matter how dumb you play him, IS in total control of the setting...

No matter what Hake does, Anders will always blow up the chantry and I actually LIKE the fact that the game world doesn't revolve around Hawke.

(Of course RPGs are a power fantasy...to me, trying to deny that seems weird. The more options to control the world, "better" the game is seen by most and that clearly is a power fantasy IMO.

[David7204]

I don't play RPGs so I can enjoy a 'fantasy' of 'power.' And I resent the implication that I do and others do.

The fact that there's no correlation between people enjoying BioWare games and games like Duke Nukum or Saints Row should be indicative of that.

Modifié par David7204, 22 septembre 2013 - 10:03 .

[StElmo]

DooomCookie wrote...

StElmo wrote...

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

I agree, but maybe not in the same franchise.  DA2 was only bad because it was next to DA:O.  And the reused environments.

I would say DA2 was considered negatively because people were expecting DA:O "2" my proposition is we have both kinds of games, just this time round, people know what to expect and will enjoy it for what it is.