256 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

Meh, i'm not too fussed about Bioware adding more romance content than we already have, I think there's plenty already. I'd rather they spend that money on making the actual game as great as it can be. I think people tend to forget that these games aren't actually about the romance content. That is an added bonus to an already great game.

 

Not to mention these forums are already dominated by romance discussion. Can you imagine if even more romance content was added into the game? We'd never see another non-romance related thread again!  

 

This is just a little pet peeve of mine, but I hate it when people distinguish between "romance content" and "the actual game", as if romance content were not part of the game.  It is as much a part of the game as the tactical combat or the character development or the crafting or the upcoming resource management aspect for DA: I.  All of these features are part of the "the actual game".  Some people prefer different parts, but it doesn't make the other parts any less part of the game.  I guess one reason why it irks me is because it's always used against romance content.  You never see anyone saying, "I wish they'd spend less time on the tactical combat, so that they could spend more time on the 'actual' game."  I'd argue that Bioware games are more about story than combat and romance is definitely more related to story than combat.

[SnakeCode]

This is just a little pet peeve of mine, but I hate it when people distinguish between "romance content" and "the actual game", as if romance content were not part of the game.  It is as much a part of the game as the tactical combat or the character development or the crafting or the upcoming resource management aspect for DA: I.  All of these features are part of the "the actual game".  Some people prefer different parts, but it doesn't make the other parts any less part of the game.  I guess one reason why it irks me is because it's always used against romance content.  You never see anyone saying, "I wish they'd spend less time on the tactical combat, so that they could spend more time on the 'actual' game."  I'd argue that Bioware games are more about story than combat and romance is definitely more related to story than combat.

I think this is a little unfair, I never actually said that the romance content was a separate entity from the game itself. What I meant by "actual game" was the core mechanics, engine, graphics, not anything to do with the plot, characters or the overall package, I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough.

 

I disagree that Bioware games are "more about story than combat" though. As the heart of the very stories themselves are about conflict, saving the world and we ALWAYS do that through combat. Combat and story aren't mutually exclusive. So I feel that combat actually IS more related to the story than the romances, which often have little to do with the story at large.

 

I am really sorry if my post offended you. I tried to explain my stance better in my later post. 

 

I understand that my opinion is a VERY unpopular one on these boards, but this is just how I feel on the matter.

[Maraas]

I disagree that Bioware games are "more about story than combat" though. As the heart of the very stories themselves are about conflict, saving the world and we ALWAYS do that through combat. Combat and story aren't mutually exclusive. So I feel that combat actually IS more related to the story than the romances, which often have little to do with the story at large.

I see your point (or I'd like to think I do), and I actually like the combat in BioWare games, but to be honest it always serves as an obstacle to overcome in order to advance the plot rather than meaningful addition to the story per se. Whereas romances (being optional and all that) really do add to the story itself. They're not mandatory, it's true. Yet at the same time they have more to do with it than combat. Furthermore, they're stories in and of themselves.

 

Not that combat is not a story at all, but that's another matter.

[SnakeCode]

I see your point (or I'd like to think I do), and I actually like the combat in BioWare games, but to be honest it always serves as an obstacle to overcome in order to advance the plot rather than meaningful addition to the story per se. Whereas romances (being optional and all that) really do add to the story itself. They're not mandatory, it's true. Yet at the same time they have more to do with it than combat. Furthermore, they're stories in and of themselves.

 

Not that combat is not a story at all, but that's another matter.

I understand what you're saying, but i'm afraid I do disagree. I'm in agreement that the romances are little stories in their own right, but if we're talking story as in the plot, then the combat does have more to do with the plot than the romances do. That could all change, but as it stands I don't really see how someone can disagree with that. The combat is an integral part of the plot, whereas the romances rarely have anything to do with it at all.

[ladyoflate]

I understand what you're saying, but i'm afraid I do disagree. I'm in agreement that the romances are little stories in their own right, but if we're talking story as in the plot, then the combat does have more to do with the plot than the romances do. That could all change, but as it stands I don't really see how someone can disagree with that. The combat is an integral part of the plot, whereas the romances rarely have anything to do with it at all.

 

Some combat is integral to the plot. Like various fights with dragons, and strategically placed darkspawn. Random mook #5 and various spiders are pretty worthless plot-wise. Just because something makes sense (spiders in caves, etc) doesn't mean it adds anything to the story. They're the bits that would be edited out of a novel first.

[SnakeCode]

Some combat is integral to the plot. Like various fights with dragons, and strategically placed darkspawn. Random mook #5 and various spiders are pretty worthless plot-wise. Just because something makes sense (spiders in caves, etc) doesn't mean it adds anything to the story. They're the bits that would be edited out of a novel first.

I agree, I've not said otherwise. 

[Maraas]

I understand what you're saying, but i'm afraid I do disagree. I'm in agreement that the romances are little stories in their own right, but if we're talking story as in the plot, then the combat does have more to do with the plot than the romances do. That could all change, but as it stands I don't really see how someone can disagree with that. The combat is an integral part of the plot, whereas the romances rarely have anything to do with it at all.

Well, as it stands (in other words: gameplay-wise) you're absolutely right. Moreover, even if translated to other media, the game would still require combat, described or shown. But what if you could bypass the combat? What if you could sneak around it or talk your way out of it? What then? I understand this is all academic, but still.

 

I'm just really interested where do you think narrative ends and gameplay begins. I personally always thought combat was the latter and romances (among other things) were the former. You?

[SnakeCode]

Well, as it stands (in other words: gameplay-wise) you're absolutely right. Moreover, even if translated to other media, the game would still require combat, described or shown. But what if you could bypass the combat? What if you could sneak around it or talk your way out of it? What then? I understand this is all academic, but still.

 

I'm just really interested where do you think narrative ends and gameplay begins. I personally always thought combat was the latter and romances (among other things) were the former. You?

It depends entirely on the game. As far as Dragon Age, (and most video games in general) the gameplay IS a part of the narrative.

[In Exile]

I disagree that Bioware games are "more about story than combat" though. As the heart of the very stories themselves are about conflict, saving the world and we ALWAYS do that through combat. Combat and story aren't mutually exclusive. So I feel that combat actually IS more related to the story than the romances, which often have little to do with the story at large.

 

 

Except that in DA:O, diplomacy was actually integral to the plot. But because it is an RPG, Bioware shoved that off into a corner and instead made it about running errands and killing things. But it could easily have been a feature motion picture with nothing more than political negotiation, with very, very rare action sequences as the Warden sits down to negotiate and discuss the finer points of freeing mages to contribute to the war effort with Gregoire, re-negotiates a lasting deal with the new King of Orzammar after patiently waiting for him to be elected, and alongside Arl Eamon convinces the Dalish that there would be concessions available for them in Ferelden if they added their own armies to the Grand Alliance against the darkspawn. 

 

The same applies, in fact, in ME3. And in ME1, you're chasing a fugitive - there's no need for there to be any substantial combat at all. 

 

Stories can be about conflict without anyone ever raising a fist. Look at DX:HR or Dishonoured - you can ghost your way through the games, and basically never fight. But the core of the game is about "conflict". 

[SnakeCode]

Except that in DA:O, diplomacy was actually integral to the plot. But because it is an RPG, Bioware shoved that off into a corner and instead made it about running errands and killing things. But it could easily have been a feature motion picture with nothing more than political negotiation, with very, very rare action sequences as the Warden sits down to negotiate and discuss the finer points of freeing mages to contribute to the war effort with Gregoire, re-negotiates a lasting deal with the new King of Orzammar after patiently waiting for him to be elected, and alongside Arl Eamon convinces the Dalish that there would be concessions available for them in Ferelden if they added their own armies to the Grand Alliance against the darkspawn. 

 

The same applies, in fact, in ME3. And in ME1, you're chasing a fugitive - there's no need for there to be any substantial combat at all. 

 

Stories can be about conflict without anyone ever raising a fist. Look at DX:HR or Dishonoured - you can ghost your way through the games, and basically never fight. But the core of the game is about "conflict". 

None of that disproves what I said though. As far as Origins, you're deliberately picking very specific instances where Bioware could have dropped the combat if they had felt inclined to do so.

 

The main narrative remains, however, destroying the arch demon and stopping the blight. Darkspawn don't negotiate, and attack/kill anything that isn't them on sight. So yes, combat is absolutely integral to the plot of Origins.

 

The same goes for ME3, the main plot is about trying to stop the harvest cycle. Like the darkspawn, Reapers don't negotiate, try to kill Shepard on sight, and are trying to wipe out humanity. Again, combat is integral to the plot.

[In Exile]

None of that disproves what I said though. As far as Origins, you're deliberately picking very specific instances where Bioware could have dropped the combat if they had felt inclined to do so.

 

The main narrative remains, however, destroying the arch demon and stopping the blight. Darkspawn don't negotiate, and attack/kill anything that isn't them on sight. So yes, combat is absolutely integral to the plot of Origins.

 

The same goes for ME3, the main plot is about trying to stop the harvest cycle. Like the darkspawn, Reapers don't negotiate, try to kill Shepard on sight, and are trying to wipe out humanity. Again, combat is integral to the plot.

 

I'm not "picking specific instances". I have listed every single treaty quest, which makes up 70% of the game. The biggest example of shoehorned combat is when you do the Landsmeet - for whatever reason Loghain has a "duel" option, which makes no sense and in fact makes a mockery of the whole idea of a democratic debate about who the leader of Ferelden should be in the end. It's literally a moment where, apparently, despite 100% of the Landsmeet potentially being against Loghain he'd still somehow properly be in charge of Ferelden if he just murdered the right person.  

 

A huge army on army encounter is necessary to defeat the darkspawn, but that doesn't mean that combat is "integral" to the majority of the plot. You needed fleets in ME3 to defeat the reapers, but that didn't mean that ME3 had to have RTs-like fleet-to-fleet combat simulations against the Reapers. Fleet combat is essential to the plot - you spend 90% of the game gathering fleets to assault the reapers. But that's it. You have no role with the fleet. It's just a cutscene. Fleet combat is not featured. 

 

So, no, you're wrong. Conflict, military confrontation, all of these can be essential - and indeed the whole point of the plot - and still the game isn't required to actually have you participate in them. 

[Gwydden]

Again, combat is integral to the plot.

I completely disagree. I tried reading Salvatore's The Dark Elf series a few years ago. They're fantasy classics of sorts, after all, and pretty hyped in some circles. I found them incredibly boring. This was simply because they read as an endless succession of combat encounters in a DnD session. There were barely any pages dedicated to the actual plot or to character development. Instead I got detailed descriptions of the rather flat protagonists fighting endless hordes of random mooks or engaging in duels with more skilled antagonists (aka boss fights).

 

And I found it dull. And I didn't care. Because ultimately (and I say this as a writer) the combat itself doesn't say anything substantial about the story or the characters, especially not in a video game where it is the player controlling them. It's just filler. It can be fun filler, but it's rather useless. Saying "A kills B" achieves the same effect with less chances of harassing the audience with details they don't care about. If I were to translate DAO to novel format, I would cut most of the combat, probably leaving only the most plot relevant boss fights.

 

Romance, on the other hand (and take into account I don't consider myself a fan), does say a lot about the characters, both Bioware's and the player's. A scene of two characters talking about any topic at all is already a ten times more substantial contribution to the story than one of two characters hacking at each other. If in the former case the two characters are talking about something as personal and emotional as romantic engagements even more so.

 

It's not that I don't like combat in DA. But I most definitely see it as very separated from the actual story. I doesn't really add anything to it. It's just an obstacle I have to get through, and my reward from doing so is further access to the story and characters.

[SnakeCode]

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that combat isn't integral to the plot of Dragon Age.

[ladyoflate]

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that combat isn't integral to the plot of Dragon Age.

 

I think it's more integral to the setting, not the plot. The plot could do with a great deal less hack-n-slash with war more as the looming background.

[SnakeCode]

I'm not "picking specific instances". I have listed every single treaty quest, which makes up 70% of the game. The biggest example of shoehorned combat is when you do the Landsmeet - for whatever reason Loghain has a "duel" option, which makes no sense and in fact makes a mockery of the whole idea of a democratic debate about who the leader of Ferelden should be in the end. It's literally a moment where, apparently, despite 100% of the Landsmeet potentially being against Loghain he'd still somehow properly be in charge of Ferelden if he just murdered the right person.  

 

A huge army on army encounter is necessary to defeat the darkspawn, but that doesn't mean that combat is "integral" to the majority of the plot. You needed fleets in ME3 to defeat the reapers, but that didn't mean that ME3 had to have RTs-like fleet-to-fleet combat simulations against the Reapers. Fleet combat is essential to the plot - you spend 90% of the game gathering fleets to assault the reapers. But that's it. You have no role with the fleet. It's just a cutscene. Fleet combat is not featured. 

 

So, no, you're wrong. Conflict, military confrontation, all of these can be essential - and indeed the whole point of the plot - and still the game isn't required to actually have you participate in them. 

Now you're moving goalposts. Majority of the plot=/=the plot?

 

The fact remains that the plot of Origins is to slay the Arch Demon and stop the blight, as a grey warden YOU must fight the Arch Demon. Combat is completely essential to the plot.

 

And who cares about if it was in a different medium? It isn't. As it stands the player is forced into combat situations in order to progress and advance the story. Romance doesn't do that. Combat is more integral to the plot than romance is (which is the original point I was  making btw.)

[Gwydden]

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that combat isn't integral to the plot of Dragon Age.

The fact that people fight, and the resolution of said fights? Sure. How they fight? Who cares about that? It could just happen off-camera and nothing would be loss story-wise, other than maybe pacing.

[SnakeCode]

I think it's more integral to the setting, not the plot. The plot could do with a great deal less hack-n-slash with war more as the looming background.

I agree it could do with less. I have argued many times that there should be the options to settle more situations through diplomacy. No combat at all however? The plot wouldn't work, maybe for some games, but for Bioware games combat is an essential part of telling the story. Romance never has been.

[Gwydden]

I agree it could do with less. I have argued many times that there should be the options to settle more situations through diplomacy. No combat at all however? The plot wouldn't work, maybe for some games, but for Bioware games combat is an essential part of telling the story. Romance never has been.

My point is, combat is an essential part of playing the game. It has nothing to do with the story, it doesn't tell us anything about the story, it doesn't contribute to it in any way. Your archdemon example is flawed because the archdemon is not even killed in combat. It's killed in a cinematic, right after dialogue.

[SnakeCode]

My point is, combat is an essential part of playing the game. It has nothing to do with the story, it doesn't tell us anything about the story, it doesn't contribute to it in any way. Your archdemon example is flawed because the archdemon is not even killed in combat. It's killed in a cinematic, right after dialogue.

In a videogame, the gameplay IS a part of the story.  The two aren't seperate entities, they are intertwined.

[Gwydden]

In a videogame, the gameplay IS a part of the story.  The two aren't seperate entities, they are intertwined.

I would say that in a Bioware game, the story IS part of the gameplay. I'm pretty sure most people play DA for the story and characters, not the groundbreaking combat.

[SnakeCode]

I would say that in a Bioware game, the story IS part of the gameplay. I'm pretty sure most people play DA for the story and characters, not the groundbreaking combat.

What people play the game for is irrelevant.

[Maraas]

I'm pretty sure most people play DA for the story and characters, not the groundbreaking combat.

Be that as it may, there really is no way around combat in DA for the most part. I'm not sure if it constitutes a story, though.

[Falcon084]

I would say that in a Bioware game, the story IS part of the gameplay. I'm pretty sure most people play DA for the story and characters, not the groundbreaking combat.

Definitely!

[Falcon084]

Let me ask you this. If there was no story in Dragon Age would you play it?

[Gwydden]

What people play the game for is irrelevant.

Sure it does. The game is meant to be played for the story first and foremost. It's designed that way. That's its main selling point, and therefore what it moves around. No story, no game.  As it is meant to be played for the story, the story IS the gameplay.