131 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieolus]

Nashiktal wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

My point is, don't fix what isn't broken. Tweak... don't radically change. Especially if it conflicts with the lore and you have to go retconning for really no reason.

Except it wasn't no reason. They definitely had reasons which they talked about at length many times during develoment during and afte ME2. I agree with you on not liking the change entirely but don't pull out hyperbole and say it was for no reason.

You are right... not no reason, not a good enough reason to retcon and change the lore.  That better?

Edit: For the record, I am arguing on the basis of lore vs gameplay.  My opinion of ME1 combat vs ME2 combat?  I liked them both.  Now, you wanna talk DA?  lolz

Modifié par Ieolus, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:24 .

[Realmzmaster]

I hear the terms necessary abstraction and abstraction for coolness. Who determines what is necessary abstraction and what is abstraction for the sake of coolness?

The other point is that many posters are suggesting that lore is written in stone and always true or correct. Lore by definition is beliefs, traditions and accumulated facts about a particular subject held by a particular group typically passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth sometimes written.

Would it be okay for the developers to allow the PC to discover an object or creature that contradicts the lore?
For example, it was taken as lore that the earth was flat and if a ship sailed to the end of the earth it would fall off. Discoverers who sailed the world and scientists who studied the heavens eventually came to the realization that the earth is not flat. Thereby disproving the lore with observational and scientific fact.

I assume as long as there is an in-game reason for the lore-breaking that would be acceptable?

[Ieolus]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I hear the terms necessary abstraction and abstraction for coolness. Who determines what is necessary abstraction and what is abstraction for the sake of coolness?

The other point is that many posters are suggesting that lore is written in stone and always true or correct. Lore by definition is beliefs, traditions and accumulated facts about a particular subject held by a particular group typically passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth sometimes written.

Would it be okay for the developers to allow the PC to discover an object or creature that contradicts the lore?
For example, it was taken as lore that the earth was flat and if a ship sailed to the end of the earth it would fall off. Discoverers who sailed the world and scientists who studied the heavens eventually came to the realization that the earth is not flat. Thereby disproving the lore with observational and scientific fact.

I assume as long as there is an in-game reason for the lore-breaking that would be acceptable?

You are using the wrong definition of lore in this case.  Rules and background of the setting I think is what is being discussed... i.e. magic comes from the Fade, dwarves have no connection to the Fade, hence dwarves don't have magic.  Something like that.  I'm sure there are better examples.

But about your other question regarding abstraction?  Who decides what abstraction is added for coolness and what abstration is necessary for gameplay?  Well, I can tell you, in DA's case, its the developers own words as to what was added for coolness vs necessary.

Lastly, if there is an in-game reason, then that means it doesn't break the lore... so, not sure your question works.

[fchopin]

There is no lore unless it makes sense.

If it is lore that keeps changing so we can change the gameplay to whatever then it is nothing but rubbish and not worth thinking about.

[Fast Jimmy]

I assume as long as there is an in-game reason for the lore-breaking that would be acceptable?

If there is an in-game explanation, how could the lore be broken?

Besides, this isn't an issue where we THINK the world is flat, but them find out its not. The creators of the world say something is a certain way - they can't be uncertain about that, or have to test it out to make sure it is true... they are the creators of the universe. They can't find out that their assumptions were wrong, or weren't based in "fact," simply because they are the final arbiters of fact.

The codex in DA:O described the Qunari as bronzed giants. After DA2, this is obviously not true. The side step? The Codex is not the final arbiter of truth, but rather just a collection of writings and stories from different character's perspectives, which could easily be wrong. Bronze, hornless Qunari are the common ambassadors to outside lands for the Qunari, so the person who wrote that piece of the Codex mistake my believed all Qunari appeared like that... or so the side-step says.

Mass Effect did a version of this purposely. In ME2's codex entries, it mentioned the final events of the first game, saying Sovereign was a giant Geth ship, despite the fact that every player who had played ME1 knew this to not be true. This is because the Codex was the Alliance database, and that was the Alliance's official story at the time. It was wrong, but it was not outside the lore, simply because it was not the developers/writers saying it... it was an in-game source saying it, which could possibly be mistaken.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Wulfram]

Ieolus wrote...


Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

I think they'd have been better off just going for a straight retcon.  Flimsy justifications just create more problems going on.

[fchopin]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I assume as long as there is an in-game reason for the lore-breaking that would be acceptable?

If there is an in-game explanation, how could the lore be broken?

Besides, this isn't an issue where we THINK the world is flat, but them find out its not. The creators of the world say something is a certain way - they can't be uncertain about that, or have to test it out to make sure it is true... they are the creators of the universe. They can't find out that their assumptions were wrong, or weren't based in "fact," simply because they are the final arbiters of fact.

The codex in DA:O described the Qunari as bronzed giants. After DA2, this is obviously not true. The side step? The Codex is not the final arbiter of truth, but rather just a collection of writings and stories from different character's perspectives, which could easily be wrong. Bronze, hornless Qunari are the common ambassadors to outside lands for the Qunari, so the person who wrote that piece of the Codex mistake my believed all Qunari appeared like that... or so the side-step says.

Mass Effect did a version of this purposely. In ME2's codex entries, it mentioned the final events of the first game, saying Sovereign was a giant Geth ship, despite the fact that every player who had played ME1 knew this to not be true. This is because the Codex was the Alliance database, and that was the Alliance's official story at the time. It was wrong, but it was not outside the lore, simply because it was not the developers/writers saying it... it was an in-game source saying it, which could possibly be mistaken.

Yes, that is why the lore is rubbish and not worth thinking about.
I don’t care what the lore says in the game as it is often wrong so if the writers want me to take the lore seriously then they have to do better and be more consistent.

[Ieolus]

Wulfram wrote...

Ieolus wrote...


Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

I think they'd have been better off just going for a straight retcon.  Flimsy justifications just create more problems going on.

I really dislike retcons, in comics and games.  If developers are just free to retcon to their hearts extent, what is the point of creating lore in the first place?

BioWare set out to create their own fantasy setting because they didn't want to license other properties anymore.  I don't recall if it was too expensive, too much of a hassle to work out lore vs gameplay issues (haha!), or whatever.  The result is Thedas and Dragon Age.

They created it all, it took them years to do it, and the lead writer is still here doing his thing.  How can there be any excuse to retcon in this situation?

I'm sorry, were we talking about in general and not specifics? 

[Ieolus]

fchopin wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I assume as long as there is an in-game reason for the lore-breaking that would be acceptable?

If there is an in-game explanation, how could the lore be broken?

Besides, this isn't an issue where we THINK the world is flat, but them find out its not. The creators of the world say something is a certain way - they can't be uncertain about that, or have to test it out to make sure it is true... they are the creators of the universe. They can't find out that their assumptions were wrong, or weren't based in "fact," simply because they are the final arbiters of fact.

The codex in DA:O described the Qunari as bronzed giants. After DA2, this is obviously not true. The side step? The Codex is not the final arbiter of truth, but rather just a collection of writings and stories from different character's perspectives, which could easily be wrong. Bronze, hornless Qunari are the common ambassadors to outside lands for the Qunari, so the person who wrote that piece of the Codex mistake my believed all Qunari appeared like that... or so the side-step says.

Mass Effect did a version of this purposely. In ME2's codex entries, it mentioned the final events of the first game, saying Sovereign was a giant Geth ship, despite the fact that every player who had played ME1 knew this to not be true. This is because the Codex was the Alliance database, and that was the Alliance's official story at the time. It was wrong, but it was not outside the lore, simply because it was not the developers/writers saying it... it was an in-game source saying it, which could possibly be mistaken.

Yes, that is why the lore is rubbish and not worth thinking about.
I don’t care what the lore says in the game as it is often wrong so if the writers want me to take the lore seriously then they have to do better and be more consistent.

You are mistaking deliberate lore inaccuracies due to in-game unreliable writers/historians.  We are talking about the rules of the setting as created by the game writers/developers.

[fchopin]

Ieolus wrote...
You are mistaking deliberate lore inaccuracies due to in-game unreliable writers/historians.  We are talking about the rules of the setting as created by the game writers/developers.

How can the rules be changed by unreliable writers if they are permitted to do this?
If the rules can be changed then they are rubbish rules.

Modifié par fchopin, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:53 .

[Wulfram]

Ieolus wrote...

I really dislike retcons, in comics and games.  If developers are just free to retcon to their hearts extent, what is the point of creating lore in the first place?

BioWare set out to create their own fantasy setting because they didn't want to license other properties anymore.  I don't recall if it was too expensive, too much of a hassle to work out lore vs gameplay issues (haha!), or whatever.  The result is Thedas and Dragon Age.

I think they found it frustrating to be limited by dealing with the owners of the IP.  Not a lore vs gameplay issue, but they might want to take the story to darker places than the IP owners are comfortable with, or do stuff that'll shake up the setting in ways that's not possible if you don't control it. Or they might want to have a lesbian Jedi.  Though no doubt money came in somewhere

They created it all, it took them years to do it, and the lead writer is still here doing his thing.  How can there be any excuse to retcon in this situation?

That they don't have perfect foresight and may find that what they wrote once doesn't fit what they do now.  Retcons shouldn't be done lightly, but sometimes they are necessary - and I think they're preferable to something that's obviously no more than a contrived excuse, and that ends up breaking down very frequently.  In the specific example of thermal clips, it made no sense for this technology to suddenly be absolutely ubiquitous, and the explanation totally broke down when you encountered stuff like the guys who were stranded long before ME1 took place.

I'm sorry, were we talking about in general and not specifics? 

I'm happy to talk generally, the second half of my comment was certainly a general statement

Modifié par Wulfram, 23 septembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[AlanC9]

Wulfram wrote...

I think they found it frustrating to be limited by dealing with the owners of the IP.  Not a lore vs gameplay issue, but they might want to take the story to darker places than the IP owners are comfortable with, or do stuff that'll shake up the setting in ways that's not possible if you don't control it. Or they might want to have a lesbian Jedi.  Though no doubt money came in somewhere

I remember there were some endings in HotU that were locked out in the released game, though they were still in the dialogue files. Too evil for WotC, or some such.

[Ieolus]

fchopin wrote...

Ieolus wrote...
You are mistaking deliberate lore inaccuracies due to in-game unreliable writers/historians.  We are talking about the rules of the setting as created by the game writers/developers.

How can the rules be changed by unreliable writers if they are permitted to do this?
If the rules can be changed then they are rubbish rules.

I don't follow, what exactly do you have in mind when you ask that?

The example above about the unreliable codex entry of Sovereign being a geth ship is what I am talking about.  That isn't a rule of the setting (lore as we are discussing it), it is (in this case) propoganda.

[Ieolus]

Wulfram wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

I really dislike retcons, in comics and games.  If developers are just free to retcon to their hearts extent, what is the point of creating lore in the first place?

BioWare set out to create their own fantasy setting because they didn't want to license other properties anymore.  I don't recall if it was too expensive, too much of a hassle to work out lore vs gameplay issues (haha!), or whatever.  The result is Thedas and Dragon Age.

I think they found it frustrating to be limited by dealing with the owners of the IP.  Not a lore vs gameplay issue, but they might want to take the story to darker places than the IP owners are comfortable with, or do stuff that'll shake up the setting in ways that's not possible if you don't control it. Or they might want to have a lesbian Jedi.  Though no doubt money came in somewhere

They created it all, it took them years to do it, and the lead writer is still here doing his thing.  How can there be any excuse to retcon in this situation?

That they don't have perfect foresight and may find that what they wrote once doesn't fit what they do now.  Retcons shouldn't be done lightly, but sometimes they are necessary - and I think they're preferable to something that's obviously no more than a contrived excuse, and that ends up breaking down very frequently.  In the specific example of thermal clips, it made no sense for this technology to suddenly be absolutely ubiquitous, and the explanation totally broke down when you encountered stuff like the guys who were stranded long before ME1 took place.

I'm sorry, were we talking about in general and not specifics? 

I'm happy to talk generally, the second half of my comment was certainly a general statement

But I think that is what we were talking about... was it really necessary to make that change (thermal clips)?  I would be curious to know the particulars.

[fchopin]

Ieolus wrote...
I don't follow, what exactly do you have in mind when you ask that?

The example above about the unreliable codex entry of Sovereign being a geth ship is what I am talking about.  That isn't a rule of the setting (lore as we are discussing it), it is (in this case) propoganda.

According to the chantry mages who pass the harrowing cannot be made tranquil but that law is never enforced. Is that not part of the Templar law training and why is this not checked?

[Ieolus]

fchopin wrote...

Ieolus wrote...
I don't follow, what exactly do you have in mind when you ask that?

The example above about the unreliable codex entry of Sovereign being a geth ship is what I am talking about.  That isn't a rule of the setting (lore as we are discussing it), it is (in this case) propoganda.

According to the chantry mages who pass the harrowing cannot be made tranquil but that law is never enforced. Is that not part of the Templar law training and why is this not checked?

"According to the Chantry..." 

There are alot of things that are according to the Chantry, that doesn't make them true.  The Chantry says that the darkspawn were created when the Tevinter Magisters entered the Golden City turning it Black, but that is Chantry dogma, not definate history.

[fchopin]

Ieolus wrote...

fchopin wrote...

Ieolus wrote...
I don't follow, what exactly do you have in mind when you ask that?

The example above about the unreliable codex entry of Sovereign being a geth ship is what I am talking about.  That isn't a rule of the setting (lore as we are discussing it), it is (in this case) propoganda.

According to the chantry mages who pass the harrowing cannot be made tranquil but that law is never enforced. Is that not part of the Templar law training and why is this not checked?

"According to the Chantry..." 

There are alot of things that are according to the Chantry, that doesn't make them true.  The Chantry says that the darkspawn were created when the Tevinter Magisters entered the Golden City turning it Black, but that is Chantry dogma, not definate history.

And if the chantry is powerful why do they not enforce this law?
Or do they have no power?

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think that a DA story doesn't need realism, but it needs the illusion of believability. Lore provides that. Mess too much with lore and the story suffers. I also think that some people in this thread want to bend the rules of the established lore to get what they want.

[Br3admax]

krul2k wrote...

i have no interest in lore so gameplay first

Then why are you playing Dragon Age? Go play Dragon's Dogma. 

[Bleachrude]

crimzontearz wrote...

yeah...no...just no.

At a certain point the testers basically showed that Reloading was less liked than cool down (one of the builds had both) the decision from above was then NOT to keep and tweek the more used mechanic but to SCRAP IT in favor of a less liked, more retconny mechanic


 
That is not an issue of execution at all, it is a high level concept faux pas

Actually I heard it was the REVERSE.

They had both and nobody liked the cooldown mechanic and they tried combining the two (you would have infinite ammo and could have a cooldown system but could hot switch a new thermal clip instead of waiting for the cooldown).

Technical limitations were the issue and when it came down to "active reload vs cooldown" the vast majority of testers preferred the reload system...

[Hiemoth]

crimzontearz wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

My conclusion is different.  Instead of keeping them seperate, you just should not make the game if you messed up that badly.

The thing is... gameplay design isn't terribly easy. You can't just drum something up and suddenly there's an enjoyable system. Sometimes you create a system you like that turns out to be terribly unintuitive and difficult to learn. Sometimes one that that's more tedium than challenge. Sometimes one that was supposed to challenge but turned out to be trivial.

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down. With frictionless materials, you didn't even have to do that. Decent system, did not work out fantastic. Definate room for improvement.

That aspect of the combat system was tied to the lore and they jumped through hoops to justify it, with limited success. Maybe they could have improved the system in a way consistent with their lore had they had unlimited time or money, but they didn't.

And that's the crux of it all. The quality of the gameplay is not the only constraint a game has. A game should not have to be perfect to be released now should it? And if I then decide to make a sequel, should lore prevent me from improving it even if the majority of my fanbase wants the change?

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying that they should always be segregated or have no impact on one another. They should for as much as possible strenghten one another. Gameplay that contradicts lore should be avoided as much as possible. But they should never lead to one another's detriment.

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

no, they did not


 
First off, their issue was not to limit the ammo for tactical purposes, because face it, you nearly never run out of ammo.

They admitted it was done to create tension and force you to "reload" that could have been easily accomplished by simply adding an active cooldown like many games before have (gears of war and Halo Reach come to mind) which would have made sense and would not have broken the lore


 
But at that point the COD crowd might not have liked it anymore (half kidding here)

I can't comment on Halo Reach, as I have not played it yet, but Gears of War has always used limited ammunition in it's gameplay. Especially for those kinds of tense moments which the developers were trying to get at in ME2/3. The only weapon I can remember with something resembling an active cool down was Hammer of Dawn, which wasn't even the same. So basically using Gears of War as an example is kind of supporting the design decision?

Also, if the designers wanted to add tension by forcing the player to pay attention to the amount of ammunition left, how exactly would that exact effect have been achieved just by adding an active cooldown?

[Hiemoth]

crimzontearz wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

sickness should really have no influence on such a high concept decision....especially since it was shown in early builds that people disliked it to begin with

Not on the decision, but on the execution. Now this was years back so I might be remembering wrong but the developer who talked about it mentioning it hurting man hours pretty bad.

So your dev team is losing strength because people either can't work, or if they are can't operate at efficiency. That effects the entirety of development and make implimenting decisions more difficult and possibly having multiple people working multiple stations.

This is all baseless speculation of course but having an epidemic of the flu can hurt development in various ways and thus effect implimentation.

Altering high level concepts? Nah. Preventing effective execution in one or more areas? Possibility.

yeah...no...just no.

At a certain point the testers basically showed that Reloading was less liked than cool down (one of the builds had both) the decision from above was then NOT to keep and tweek the more used mechanic but to SCRAP IT in favor of a less liked, more retconny mechanic


 
That is not an issue of execution at all, it is a high level concept faux pas

And I assume you have a link to back up that claim of the events?

[Hiemoth]

Ieolus wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

I really dislike retcons, in comics and games.  If developers are just free to retcon to their hearts extent, what is the point of creating lore in the first place?

BioWare set out to create their own fantasy setting because they didn't want to license other properties anymore.  I don't recall if it was too expensive, too much of a hassle to work out lore vs gameplay issues (haha!), or whatever.  The result is Thedas and Dragon Age.

I think they found it frustrating to be limited by dealing with the owners of the IP.  Not a lore vs gameplay issue, but they might want to take the story to darker places than the IP owners are comfortable with, or do stuff that'll shake up the setting in ways that's not possible if you don't control it. Or they might want to have a lesbian Jedi.  Though no doubt money came in somewhere

They created it all, it took them years to do it, and the lead writer is still here doing his thing.  How can there be any excuse to retcon in this situation?

That they don't have perfect foresight and may find that what they wrote once doesn't fit what they do now.  Retcons shouldn't be done lightly, but sometimes they are necessary - and I think they're preferable to something that's obviously no more than a contrived excuse, and that ends up breaking down very frequently.  In the specific example of thermal clips, it made no sense for this technology to suddenly be absolutely ubiquitous, and the explanation totally broke down when you encountered stuff like the guys who were stranded long before ME1 took place.

I'm sorry, were we talking about in general and not specifics? 

I'm happy to talk generally, the second half of my comment was certainly a general statement

But I think that is what we were talking about... was it really necessary to make that change (thermal clips)?  I would be curious to know the particulars.

Would they have done the change if they didn't consider it necessary? I doubt they were just sitting around their offices brainstorming ways to mess with the lore just for the hell of it. They probably were not satisfied with the feeling and feedback on the combat in ME1, which I can personally share, and wanted to improve it. After testing several options, the heatsinks became for them the necessary change and thus it was implemented.

I think that ultimately this discussion will run in to the fact that necessary changes are always very subjective matters. If one really likes the system in ME1, then the change will feel much more jarring compared to someone who was just okay with it. And thus the bar for necessary change will be very different for those two people.

So, if you may, can I turn the question around and ask what justifications would have been suitable enough for you to consider the change from ME1 to ME2 to be necessary?

[DarthLaxian]

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?

well, to put it like that:

yes and no.

because on the one hand it might be bad, if mages became "i win" characters (if they were as powerfull in-game as the lore says they are (even more so, if you have blood-mages!)) on the other hand, it is just bad if lore is blatantly ignored (meaning a spell that should rip throug enemies just annoys them like an insect or something)....

so i am unsure - i would love them to be able to go without that fancy show off crap, go by the lore if possible (meaning things like: give lockpicking to all classes - because in RL any mook can learn that (doesn't mean everybody will be cracking highest degree locks all of a sudden...it takes practice!), not just people wearing fancy leather-armor and carrying daggers or ranged weapons - and not artificially restricting things (weapons, armor) to a single class)

greetings LAX