131 réponses à ce sujet

[Lokiwithrope]

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay? In addition, when do you draw the line between lore and gameplay segregation, and if you have any, what are some things from the lore you would like to introduce to the gameplay?

[Iron Star]

Hard to say. I'm usually the sort who easily gets disturbed when lore gets shoved under the rug to make way for fancy gameplay, but if there is a reason as to why this is possible within the lore, and it doesn't feel forced as hell, I'm generally okay with it. A good example is teleporting in the DA universe - in DA2 it was a glaring plothole which made me twitch every time I saw it, but in DA:I we have an explanation as to why it suddenly works in DA:I which doesn't contradict the established lore as far as I know at least (note that it still doesn't explain why it worked in DA2 though!), which makes me feel okay about teleporting in DA:I.

Modifié par Get fired up, 22 septembre 2013 - 03:12 .

[Sandy]

When creating a game and a game setting the goal should always be to design good and fun gameplay first and then add the lore around that.

However, once the lore has been established (say in a previous installment of a series like Dragon Age), I'd very much like the game devs to stick to the lore and build gameplay around the established lore, instead of dismissing the lore. Yes, some gameplay features will be lost/impossible to implement, but at least the world will feel real in the sense that things can't just randomly change.

Let's take an example. Dwarves can't be mages. They can't access mana or the Fade. They don't dream and they are created by the Stone.

Sure, people could start to want dwarven mages, and it COULD happen, but not by retconning established lore. Instead they could move forward, such as Sandals prophesy, and give magic to everyone or something. I'm not a fan of such changes myself, but as long as the lore is changed in a way that feels organic and not forced, lore can take a backseat to gameplay. However, changing the lore just to add new "cool" mechanics would just feel odd.

[Vapaa]

If there weren't any lore/gameplay segregation, DAO would've ended with the not-yet-warden dying from he taint in the Kocari wilds with Alistair

As long as it's not jarring, it's okay

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay?

Never.

If the gameplay doesn't work within the established lore, the designers should change the lore.

[Mr.House]

Fun gameplay first, but don't go overboard.

[Ferretinabun]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay?

Never.

If the gameplay doesn't work within the established lore, the designers should change the lore.

+1

[Mr.House]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay?

Never.

If the gameplay doesn't work within the established lore, the designers should change the lore.

+1

Ok, so when someone in your party gets shot by an arrow, they die right away.

[Eragon-]

Vapaä wrote...

If there weren't any lore/gameplay segregation, DAO would've ended with the not-yet-warden dying from he taint in the Kocari wilds with Alistair

As long as it's not jarring, it's okay

What he/she said. As long as it is fun I'm fine.

[In Exile]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay? In addition, when do you draw the line between lore and gameplay segregation, and if you have any, what are some things from the lore you would like to introduce to the gameplay?

1. Always (sadly). It is an RPG. The  very nature of the combat system segregates lore and gameplay. 

2. I would like a ruleset that (more) realistically addressed how damage is dealt. 

[Wulfram]

The worst problem for me is if it's clashing with one of the main themes of the story. Like having a game where one of the central themes is mages being persecuted and hunted, and then having people ignore the player tossing fireballs about.

[Chari]

Lore, lore and lore only as the first priority

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

The worst problem for me is if it's clashing with one of the main themes of the story. Like having a game where one of the central themes is mages being persecuted and hunted, and then having people ignore the player tossing fireballs about.

And blood magic. When you stab yourself. In the chest. And then fly. And quick out blood. With your blood mage friend. Doing the same. 

[mupp3tz]

I'm pretty forgiving, but I admit having to do a couple of eye rolls from the "You're a mage?!" when you've been running around with a massive staff on your back.

[azarhal]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

I'm pretty forgiving, but I admit having to do a couple of eye rolls from the "You're a mage?!" when you've been running around with a massive staff on your back.

That doesn't bother me much, but stuff like apostate mage Hawke being made Viscount of Kirkwall by Templars is more jarring.

[Ieolus]

Get fired up wrote...

Hard to say. I'm usually the sort who easily gets disturbed when lore gets shoved under the rug to make way for fancy gameplay, but if there is a reason as to why this is possible within the lore, and it doesn't feel forced as hell, I'm generally okay with it. A good example is teleporting in the DA universe - in DA2 it was a glaring plothole which made me twitch every time I saw it, but in DA:I we have an explanation as to why it suddenly works in DA:I which doesn't contradict the established lore as far as I know at least (note that it still doesn't explain why it worked in DA2 though!), which makes me feel okay about teleporting in DA:I.

I missed that.  What is the lore explanation for while teleporting works in DA:I?

[Br3admax]

Vapaä wrote...

If there weren't any lore/gameplay segregation, DAO would've ended with the not-yet-warden dying from he taint in the Kocari wilds with Alistair

As long as it's not jarring, it's okay

Uh, no. The taint isn't something that you one hundred percent catch, nor is it something that kills you in even a span of a few weeks if you are strong enough to resist it. Look at the Dalsih Elf Warden. How long did they have the taint before they even made it to Ostagar? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

Ok, so when someone in your party gets shot by an arrow, they die right away.

How does that follow?  The only time we see that is in the cutscenes, but that could easily be amended.

I didn't say the gameplay should conform to the lore.  I said the two should agree.  If the lore produced inadequate gameplay, then the lore is what needs changing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vapaä wrote...

If there weren't any lore/gameplay segregation, DAO would've ended with the not-yet-warden dying from he taint in the Kocari wilds with Alistair

Wait.  Why?

Even if the Warden takes damage in the Wilds (which is not guaranteed), and even if the Warden gets tainted blood in him in the Wilds (which is far from guaranteed), he goes through the Joining that very day, which we have reason to believe can save those who've been infected.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How does that follow?  The only time we see that is in the cutscenes, but that could easily be amended.

I didn't say the gameplay should conform to the lore.  I said the two should agree.  If the lore produced inadequate gameplay, then the lore is what needs changing.

But what if technology is insufficient to portray the complexities of the lore?

Or worse yet... the advancing technology allows you to make better gameplay? Should you not make the sequel better to preserve the setting?

[Ieolus]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How does that follow?  The only time we see that is in the cutscenes, but that could easily be amended.

I didn't say the gameplay should conform to the lore.  I said the two should agree.  If the lore produced inadequate gameplay, then the lore is what needs changing.

But what if technology is insufficient to portray the complexities of the lore?

Or worse yet... the advancing technology allows you to make better gameplay? Should you not make the sequel better to preserve the setting?

What does better gameplay mean?

[The Six Path of Pain]

I hate when they ignore the lore just to add to the gameplay. Stick to your lore and build your gameplay around that. If something you want to do goes against the lore then don't do it. Though the Fade sundering could be used as a viable excuse to make some of the impossible possible... like teleporting mages.

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[Br3admax]

I think he means contradicts.

[The Six Path of Pain]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...
If something you want to do coincides with the lore then don't do it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Damn your right...sorry it's been a bad day for me. I'll fix it right now.

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:29 .