59 réponses à ce sujet

[Abraham_uk]

The game isn't particularly relevant to me, but I'm Dragon-Curious.

Regardless of whether it turns out to be lacking innovation, a 'passe storyline' or whatever, I know BioWare has a talented team and is capable of quite a bit. Based on the previews, information, and the amount being invested into this game, I'd be very surprised if the game recieves the same critical/commercial issues that Dragon Age 2 recieved.

I think it'll do very well. How well is going to depend greatly on the final product. But yes, they're still relevant.

 

 

Is that a theory?

A Game Theory?

 

 

I love that Youtube show!

[In Exile]

Agreed. But there's limits. The whole point of emergent gameplay/narrative is to allow the underlying systems to work with the player to create outcomes that weren't specifically intended by the developers. I tend to like the reputation systems in games like F1/2 and Arcanum as they can show reactivity to the player by allowing the player to play with the systems in an emergent fashion without attaching narrative context to it.

 

i.e in Arcanum, if you run around naked in Tarrant, NPCs will have negative commentary about you, you gain a reputation for being a pervert and it can affect future interactions with NPCs since it plays to the underlying disposition system. Troika probably didn't intend for the player to be refused quests or have situations where you are attacked by NPCs because you are an ugly streaker, but it can happen.

 

I think the ideal is to have reactivity to the point where the player can connect the dots, and see the cause-effect. That there's genuine change that the player can identify as a result of their actions that isn't apart of typical play. You don't need NPCs giving soliloquies about how they're going to kill you because you are an ugly half-ogre exhibitionist, but if each part of the equation has it's own reactivity, then it's easy to understand how it all comes together.

 

As for the topic at hand, BioWare will be relevant until EA chooses to shut down a franchise prematurely. If that happens, BioWare may be up **** creek without a paddle as that indicates EA's lack of confidence in the IP and it could all spiral from there. We've seen it happen to countless development studios in the past.

 

But until that happens, I don't see how BioWare won't be relevant. Even if Bethesda is making mega bucks and CDPR are making in-roads with the Witcher series, BioWare is still a big player in the AAA RPG market. They probably aren't pulling the numbers EA would like to see (Skyrim mega bucks level), but ~5 million copies a game is nothing to sneeze at.

 

I disagree with you about your description of games like, say, Arcanum. You say that Troika didn't except your reason for gathering some form of reputation penalty with some faction, but that's clearly not true - the reputation mechanic is there, and the ways in which you gain or lose reputation are scripted in advance. I don't think Troika even needed to direct their mind to the many ways you could lose reputation - just create a robust enough system for you to gain or lose it. 

 

I absolutely agree that Bioware RPGs need to move beyond "everything happens in dialogue" which has become a bit of an obsession. There's more to the world's verisimilitude than just talking. But on the other hand, lots of RPGs don't understand that interact with people and expressing yourself is a critical part of your character - even games like Arcanum (that are so highly regarded for their flexibility in character design and quest outcomes) do not allow your character to really be a person in dialogue. 

 

That's what Bioware, IMO, does well: they create characters that are real people interact with other people on a persona level. Other RPGs focus so much on quest creation and info-dumps that interpersonal relationships do not feature in the game at all (cf. Skyrim). 

[In Exile]

Uldred is indeed an example of the crazy possessed blood mage phenomenon plaguing DA2, and I agree with you that Loghain is overrated as a supposedly "grey" villain (he has always seemed plenty evil and stupid to me). Still, I feel it was handled in a less jarring way than in DA2 and complete insanity was used more sparingly while DA2 constantly had to go down this route to throw another mini antagonist at you. DAO also had characters like Bhelen, Harrowmont and even Zathrian who did not go outright crazy on you (you could argue about Zathrian's sanity if you want, but I'd say he is still not the type of crazy so common in DA2). The number of crazy people in primary quests in DA2 was just ridiculous. Decimus, Grace, Orsino, Meredith, Bartrand, Tarohne, nameless elf in Blackpowder Courtesy, Quentin, Anders... even the Arishok needs to have a fit of crazy to break his Qun character. Now, in the case of the latter is was handled fairly well, so I don't have a problem in this particular instance, but when the writers cannot come up with another motivation apart from insanity for a character to get in Hawke's way, that is very poor quality. I don't recall this many outright insane antagonists in DAO, and you are not confronted with jarring situations in which a person/faction you've helped turns on you moments later due to said insanity. 

 

Perhaps this is more up to personal taste, but I also felt Hawke's personal story was done less well than the personal stories of the Warden. I'm not sure what you find detailed about Hawke's situation, because I have always felt that the family situation was poorly fleshed out and have never been able to care much about Leandra and her faith. The most sympathy I could muster stemmed from me liking my Hawke and therefore feeling sorry for him/her, rather than for Leandra. I felt more connected during the Dalish, Cousland or City Elf origins. The overall story of DAO might be less personal for the Warden, but the Guardian's question in the Gauntlet and the ghost of the past you encounter during that quest, plus returning to your respective origin location for a main quest felt personal and I did not feel forced in the hamfisted way of DA2 to care. 

 

I agree with you completely that Bioware overdid it on the enemies that are complete loons (or who go coo-coo for cocopuffs during the game). I will, however, vehemently disagree with you on the Arishok (he's a frustrated hypocrite; the whole point is at the end he's not consistent because he just hates Kirkwall so much and wants to kill 'em all). You're also focusing on the wrong examples in some cases. The lunatic antagonist in DA:O's dwarf quest lines wasn't either Bhelen or Harrowmont: it was Branka. She was nuts. The people in Haven? Completely nuts. Howe? He was pure evil as opposed to crazy, but I'm not sure that's "better" writing. Bhelen and Harrowmont come off sane because they're not really antagonists. So we have less of them. But all the mages are pretty much crazy (or idiots, in Jowan's case). 

 

The other problem that Bioware had in DA2 (which you also see in ME2-ME3) is that they do not understand how reactivity works. They talk about it and sell it, but I honestly think they do not grasp that "reactive" means more than just referencing what I did in the past briefly and then giving me the identical conclusion. 

 

When I say that Hawke's story was more detailed, I mean it literally had more detail than any origin in DA:O. Whether or not you felt more sympathy for it isn't the point. The point is that Bioware wrote and designed it in the same way as they did the origins. You have a few trickles of detail about the plot-relevant background but absolutely 0 detail on any other part of your life so you could make it up in your head, the characters do not feature at all in any part of the story but the "origin" (or "family") specific plots, you have a pre-existing relationship with every character given to you by the designers, and you're basically trapped into one ending with each relationship with some minor variation. 

 

I get that you hated the execution in DA2. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how Bioware wrote the DA:O origins in comparison with DA2. Whatever they reason for failing in DA2, they didn't change (radically) how they wrote anything. So it's hard, IMO, for them to even point out what went wrong other than to say that it failed to come together. 

 

If you ask me, the failure was the plot. Not how Bioware sees it - it wasn't that it was too experimental for the audience - but rather because Bioware's always been kind of mediocre at writing political or personal plots. This isn't a big deal in a game like DA:O where these are all side projects... but suddenly they made this plot the central feature of the game and Bioware just cannot execute those sorts of plots well enough to carry a game. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Go play Mass Effect 2, the best game in this Neo-Bioware era (among the bioware games I mean)!

[In Exile]

One problem I have with Bioware characters is that they seem to wear their entire identity on their sleeve. From the moment you meet a Bioware character, they very rarely change their personality, they are pretty straightforward from the moment they are introduced. While in TW2, there is a depth of character writing that seems much more human and believable. Characters in TW2 have their own beliefs and goals, and they often conflict with the goals and beliefs of the player. Yet, these characters lie, they deceive, they hide details, they manipulate in a wide variety of ways. Everyone in TW2 has a secret, everyone has their own goal that is separate from the protagonist, while Bioware characters feel like they exist strictly to serve and accommodate the protagonist. 

 

The big difference is that Bioware's cast of characters focuses a great deal on your team and possee. They've yet to experiment with shady companions, which is the only way you'd see (IMO) equivalent content in a Bioware game. Whereas Geralt's "allies" aren't really the party - both Iorveth and the Blue Stripes are independent players, as are the various regional powers in Act II and III. Geralt's completely on his own, aside from his few friends, who are only occasionally around. 

[wolfhowwl]

I agree with you completely that Bioware overdid it on the enemies that are complete loons (or who go coo-coo for cocopuffs during the game). I will, however, vehemently disagree with you on the Arishok (he's a frustrated hypocrite; the whole point is at the end he's not consistent because he just hates Kirkwall so much and wants to kill 'em all). You're also focusing on the wrong examples in some cases. The lunatic antagonist in DA:O's dwarf quest lines wasn't either Bhelen or Harrowmont: it was Branka. She was nuts. The people in Haven? Completely nuts. Howe? He was pure evil as opposed to crazy, but I'm not sure that's "better" writing. Bhelen and Harrowmont come off sane because they're not really antagonists. So we have less of them. But all the mages are pretty much crazy (or idiots, in Jowan's case). 

 

The other problem that Bioware had in DA2 (which you also see in ME2-ME3) is that they do not understand how reactivity works. They talk about it and sell it, but I honestly think they do not grasp that "reactive" means more than just referencing what I did in the past briefly and then giving me the identical conclusion. 

 

When I say that Hawke's story was more detailed, I mean it literally had more detail than any origin in DA:O. Whether or not you felt more sympathy for it isn't the point. The point is that Bioware wrote and designed it in the same way as they did the origins. You have a few trickles of detail about the plot-relevant background but absolutely 0 detail on any other part of your life so you could make it up in your head, the characters do not feature at all in any part of the story but the "origin" (or "family") specific plots, you have a pre-existing relationship with every character given to you by the designers, and you're basically trapped into one ending with each relationship with some minor variation. 

 

I get that you hated the execution in DA2. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how Bioware wrote the DA:O origins in comparison with DA2. Whatever they reason for failing in DA2, they didn't change (radically) how they wrote anything. So it's hard, IMO, for them to even point out what went wrong other than to say that it failed to come together. 

 

If you ask me, the failure was the plot. Not how Bioware sees it - it wasn't that it was too experimental for the audience - but rather because Bioware's always been kind of mediocre at writing political or personal plots. This isn't a big deal in a game like DA:O where these are all side projects... but suddenly they made this plot the central feature of the game and Bioware just cannot execute those sorts of plots well enough to carry a game. 

 

While Branka and Kolgrim certainly didn't come off as well-balanced individuals, these characters still had an agenda they were trying to accomplish and the player was given the choice to help them or not. The writing may not have been good, they may have seemed insane, but if the player helped them achieve their objective they did not turn on the Warden seconds later.

 

In Dragon Age II, Meredith was certainly quite the fanatic and the attempts to characterize her and justify her zealotry were rather feeble. But she still had an agenda and goal in the endgame that Hawke could help her with. A player that sides with Meredith is slapped in the face by having her turn on you based on a tired "corruption" gimmick that is obviously done just to shoehorn in a shitty boss fight. A mage player experiences something similar with Orsino also going insane and attacking his allies for the same reason. It's transparent and extremely frustrating.

 

You wrote earlier that the writers hadn't really changed what they had been doing from DA:O to Dragon Age II. In both games we had rather lackluster characters, but in Origins when the writers asked us to choose sides between Branka and Caridin they stuck with our choice and didn't have Branka as another boss fight immediately afterwards. Is it too much to ask of Bioware that they handle Meredith and Orsino in the same way?

[In Exile]

While Branka and Kolgrim certainly didn't come off as well-balanced individuals, these characters still had an agenda they were trying to accomplish and the player was given the choice to help them or not. The writing may not have been good, they may have seemed insane, but if the player helped them achieve their objective they did not turn on the Warden seconds later.

 

In Dragon Age II, Meredith was certainly quite the fanatic and the attempts to characterize her and justify her zealotry were rather feeble. But she still had an agenda and goal in the endgame that Hawke could help her with. A player that sides with Meredith is slapped in the face by having her turn on you based on a tired "corruption" gimmick that is obviously done just to shoehorn in a shitty boss fight. A mage player experiences something similar with Orsino also going insane and attacking his allies for the same reason. It's transparent and extremely frustrating.

 

You wrote earlier that the writers hadn't really changed what they had been doing from DA:O to Dragon Age II. In both games we had rather lackluster characters, but in Origins when the writers asked us to choose sides between Branka and Caridin they stuck with our choice and didn't have Branka as another boss fight immediately afterwards. Is it too much to ask of Bioware that they handle Meredith and Orsino in the same way?

 

No, it's not, and it's a good point that the end-game was a steaming pile, with a forced-fed boss battle. I wasn't thinking of that aspect. 

[Dutchess]

While Branka and Kolgrim certainly didn't come off as well-balanced individuals, these characters still had an agenda they were trying to accomplish and the player was given the choice to help them or not. The writing may not have been good, they may have seemed insane, but if the player helped them achieve their objective they did not turn on the Warden seconds later.

 

In Dragon Age II, Meredith was certainly quite the fanatic and the attempts to characterize her and justify her zealotry were rather feeble. But she still had an agenda and goal in the endgame that Hawke could help her with. A player that sides with Meredith is slapped in the face by having her turn on you based on a tired "corruption" gimmick that is obviously done just to shoehorn in a shitty boss fight. A mage player experiences something similar with Orsino also going insane and attacking his allies for the same reason. It's transparent and extremely frustrating.

 

You wrote earlier that the writers hadn't really changed what they had been doing from DA:O to Dragon Age II. In both games we had rather lackluster characters, but in Origins when the writers asked us to choose sides between Branka and Caridin they stuck with our choice and didn't have Branka as another boss fight immediately afterwards. Is it too much to ask of Bioware that they handle Meredith and Orsino in the same way?

 

That was going to be my argument as well. I'd also like to add that, even though Branka was obsessed with finding the Anvil, she actually can be reasoned with (albeit after siding with her). You can convince her that preserving the Anvil is wrong and she will destroy it. That, plus the fact that she honors her deal with you if you let her use the Anvil sets her aside from the long row of DA2's loonies. I would argue that in Branka's case her obsession and ruthlessness is really needed for the story as well. Considering where her goal was hidden and how much had to be sacrificed to get there, a less devoted person would never have made it as far as she has. Having mentally unstable characters doesn't have to bad and can be interesting. Again in Branka's case it makes choosing for the Anvil and having an army of golemns more uncertain because you have seen what kind of person she is. You could say it's a forced way of making the choice more difficult, but because I can see it making sense I can live with that. 

 

In DA2 insanity was pretty much the defining characteristic of the antagonists. It was a cheap excuse to force you to fight and kill them without further thought. You cannot side with them, there's little or no clarification as to why they would be so crazy. Sarcastic Hawke says it pretty aptly when encountering the crazy elf in Blackpowder Courtesy: "Good thing to know you're barking mad. That will make it much easier to kill you." That's a fine description of the reasoning behind the writing in DA2. 

 

 

In Exile, I was wondering if you can illustrate your point of Hawke's personal story being more detailed, because I have been thinking about it and can't come up with much. You and your family have been on the move for years because of the mages in your family, but for some reason decide to stop in a village with a Chantry and templars and live there from then on. Apparently your father was awesome and very similar to you, and he is dead when the game starts. One of your siblings gets killed in the prologue after having spoken maybe four sentences, all of which have to do with darkspawn and running, and a little on mages and templars. Other than that you don't know the person who just got crushed and it didn't feel like much of a loss to me. I had talked more with Tamlen in the Dalish origin, or with the members of the Cousland family. Heck, you've exchanged more words with the human man or elven woman you can invite to your bed as a Cousland. 

Conversations with the remaining sibling and your mother are very limited and I don't feel you had much of an opportunity to establish your relationship with Leandra. Most conversations with her are about your siblings (the death of the first one, then she begs you not to take the second one into the Deep Roads ("they might die. Oh, but you have fun, dear!"), then she gets to be sad about losing that second sibling one way or another. Finally you get the great foreshadowing of her gruesome murder). Funnily enough I felt Gamlen was more interesting and more real than Leandra.

I am not remembering a great amount of detail here. Your mother used to be a noble and so you are noble to and get to live in a big mansion once you have the coin. What else is there to know?

[ObserverStatus]

 

Inquisition looks fun, but from what I've seen of the story in trailers so far...also kind of passe. I am sure the voice acting will be top notch, and I'm sure it'll have some damn fine dialogue too, but will it be enough to compete with all these other games we see coming out? I mean, am I going to be able to care about yet another generic supernatural foe when I think about the baggage of games like The Walking Dead and The Last of Us. I mean, the Inquisition itself, another 'elite gang', are we just going to end up with Wardens 2.0, and do you believe Bioware is going to do anything new or dangerous with it, or just tell the same old goofy high fantasy story we've seen 100 times?

I love it how first you say you're worried you won't be able to feel invested in a game about "yet another supernatural foe" and then name two games about "yet more zombies" as being emotionally engaging.