256 réponses à ce sujet

[SnakeCode]

What has that got to do with anything. I agree that people play Bioware games more for the story and characters, I do. That in no way disputes anything i've said.

[The Hierophant]

I agree with SnakeCode. Despite DA being a dialogue based story game made by a studio renowned for it's storytelling ability, combat is the only avenue in which the player faces defeat or adversity. It's removal would result in DA being a radically different type of game. It's not superfluous like how some would try to paint it as.

Plus despite DA's combat containing an overwhelming amount of gameplay story segregation and abstraction, it's still an interactive part of DA's story.

[Gwydden]

I agree with SnakeCode. Despite DA being a dialogue based story game made by a studio renowned for it's storytelling ability, combat is the only avenue in which the player faces defeat or adversity. It's removal would result in DA being a radically different type of game. It's not superfluous like how some would try to paint it as.

Plus despite DA's combat containing an overwhelming amount of gameplay story segregation and abstraction, it's still an interactive part of DA's story.

But that's not what I'm arguing. Most certainly the game would lose a lot if combat was removed, but the argument here is about its value in how it adds to the actual story. Which it doesn't, at all, or at best, it adds very little, especially when compared to romance.

[wolfhowwl]

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.

 

The romance content is distinguished because many of them feel like tacked-on emotional fanservice that exists in a vacuum from the rest of the game and doesn't remotely resemble an actual relationship. People like to throw around the term "dating sim" but that would be an improvement from how most of BioWare's are written.

 

Things could be done better but that would require effort from BioWare and acceptance from the fans that the number of romances would be drastically limited.

[SnakeCode]

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.

What has that got to do with what I said though? Romance is a part of the story (as in it's a story in it's own right) that still doesn't make it integral to the plot, as it has nothing to do with the overall plot, combat however is woven into the very core of the plot. The story simply wouldn't work without it.

 

Romance could be taken away entirely and the crux of the story would remain intact. It wouldn't change the plot in any way. YOU may not enjoy it as much, but that's a different argument entirely.

[Falcon084]

People react differently based on the relationships, romance or not, that you have.

 

SPOILERS If Isabella dislikes you she will take the book and run leaving you to face the Arishok alone, on the other hand if she loves you she will return and help you. You can then fight the Arishok together or sacrifice her for the Arishok.

 

Based on the above the romance/hate can drastically change both the story and the combat!

[SnakeCode]

But that's not what I'm arguing. Most certainly the game would lose a lot if combat was removed, but the argument here is about its value in how it adds to the actual story. Which it doesn't, at all, or at best, it adds very little, especially when compared to romance.

That wasn't the original argument. It was whether romance was more integral to the plot than combat.

[SnakeCode]

People react differently based on the relationships, romance or not, that you have.

 

SPOILERS If Isabella dislikes you she will take the book and run leaving you to face the Arishok alone, on the other hand if she loves you she will return and help you. You can then fight the Arishok together or sacrifice her for the Arishok.

 

Based on the above the romance/hate can drastically change both the story and the combat!

Isabella can like you or loathe you regardless of whether you chose to romance her or not.

[Falcon084]

This topic is supposed to be how to make the romance better and if you like even more integral to the plot. We  are getting side tracked here...

[warden6788]

This topic is supposed to be how to make the romance better and if you like even more integral to the plot. We  are getting side tracked here...

Like I said in the past a way to make romance better is to make it more realistic like for example cullen cassandra or whoever your romancing coming up to you asking to take them on a date or cassandra reacting to a woman trying to flirt with you or you to the women. Also It would be pretty cool if there are some romance side quest such as take whoever your romancing to this area 

[SnakeCode]

This topic is supposed to be how to make the romance better and if you like even more integral to the plot. We  are getting side tracked here...

I gave my opinion earlier in the thread, which is how this whole debate got started in the first place. I said that if increasing and/or improving the romance content meant reducing content from other parts of the game, then I'd rather keep it how it is.

[warden6788]

I gave my opinion earlier in the thread, which is how this whole debate got started in the first place. I said that if increasing and/or improving the romance content meant reducing content from other parts of the game, then I'd rather keep it how it is.

Good point i agree

[Falcon084]

I gave my opinion earlier in the thread, which is how this whole debate got started in the first place. I said that if increasing and/or improving the romance content meant reducing content from other parts of the game, then I'd rather keep it how it is.

Next gen means more room. I want more of both!

[warden6788]

considering how powerful the ps4 and xbox one is bioware can put alot more romance content in though

[SnakeCode]

Ideally, but they are still on a budget. Not to mention DA:I is also being released for current (is it last now?) gen consoles. I doubt Bioware would alienate a large chunk of their audience by having more content on certain consoles than they have on others.

[warden6788]

Ideally, but they are still on a budget. Not to mention DA:I is also being released for current (is it last now?) gen consoles. I doubt Bioware would alienate a large chunk of their audience by having more content on certain consoles than they have on others.

yeah games can get pretty expensive nowadays I just hope this games really good becuase the wait for this game is too long for me personally

[Falcon084]

yeah games can get pretty expensive nowadays I just hope this games really good becuase the wait for this game is too long for me personally

According to the EA Investors report for DAO Feb 08, 2010 - "The NASDAQ announced today that Dragon Age^™: Origins has sold-in over 3.2 million* units worldwide."

 

While prices vary, in Australia a game costs $100 so discounting taxes that is $100x$3,200,000. DAII sold more. So I think that Bioware is in the black

[The Hierophant]

But that's not what I'm arguing. Most certainly the game would lose a lot if combat was removed, but the argument here is about its value in how it adds to the actual story. Which it doesn't, at all, or at best, it adds very little, especially when compared to romance.

Combat like romance is capable of stirring a sense of excitement, dread, adversity and triumph from a player.

People will have differing opinions on Romance's and Combat's importance in relation to the other but combat is still the only avenue in which the player faces defeat. While conflict is a major theme of Dragon Age's world, and a hands on interactive story element the player engages in.

[Mockingword]

According to the EA Investors report for DAO Feb 08, 2010 - "The NASDAQ announced today that Dragon Age^™: Origins has sold-in over 3.2 million* units worldwide."

 

While prices vary, in Australia a game costs $100 so discounting taxes that is $100x$3,200,000. DAII sold more. So I think that Bioware is in the black

More like $80-90.

 

And they don't stay at that price forever.

[In Exile]

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.)

 

I didn't move the goalposts. I answered your accusation: "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." Content that amounts to 70% of the game is not "deliberately picking very specific instances where Bioware could have dropped the combat". 

 

The plot of DA:O is to unite Ferelden and stop the archdemon. The "unite Ferelden" part takes up the substantial portion of the game, doesn't require combat in the strictly necessary way that you're arguing the "defeat the archdemon" part requires combat. 

 

"Combat" has nothing to do with most of the plot, even in your example. There is only one "essential" battle in a "defeat X" plot - the fight with X, and that's assuming "defeat" can only be achieved through fighting. In LOTR, the defeat didn't have anything to do with fighting - it was all about taking the MacGuffin to Mt. Doom. So defeat there didn't even involve the idea of fighting. There was fighting, but that was just a consequence. Combat was as essential to LoTR as walking, which is to say it took up a lot of the plot but wasn't anywhere near the point of the plot. 

 

Now, combat features more in an RPG, but that doesn't make it more "integral", because most of the time combat is actually completely peripheral. 

[In Exile]

I agree with SnakeCode. Despite DA being a dialogue based story game made by a studio renowned for it's storytelling ability, combat is the only avenue in which the player faces defeat or adversity. It's removal would result in DA being a radically different type of game. It's not superfluous like how some would try to paint it as.

 

The bold is totally right. DA would be a very different game without combat. But the plot could be 100% identical without any combat encounter at all. So to say that combat is integral to the plot is mistaken. To say that combat is more integral to the game is completely true, because the combat in DA is the whole point of the game. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Ideally, but they are still on a budget. Not to mention DA:I is also being released for current (is it last now?) gen consoles. I doubt Bioware would alienate a large chunk of their audience by having more content on certain consoles than they have on others.

The area the last gen consoles will have less is detail in the areas. So for example say you enter a pub. If playing on a high end PC/Xbox One/PS4 you'd see 20 people in it while if playing on a low end PC/Xbox 360/PS3 you'd see only 10. 

 

At least that's how I understood it.

[SnakeCode]

I didn't move the goalposts. I answered your accusation: "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." Content that amounts to 70% of the game is not "deliberately picking very specific instances where Bioware could have dropped the combat". 

 

The plot of DA:O is to unite Ferelden and stop the archdemon. The "unite Ferelden" part takes up the substantial portion of the game, doesn't require combat in the strictly necessary way that you're arguing the "defeat the archdemon" part requires combat. 

 

"Combat" has nothing to do with most of the plot, even in your example. There is only one "essential" battle in a "defeat X" plot - the fight with X, and that's assuming "defeat" can only be achieved through fighting. In LOTR, the defeat didn't have anything to do with fighting - it was all about taking the MacGuffin to Mt. Doom. So defeat there didn't even involve the idea of fighting. There was fighting, but that was just a consequence. Combat was as essential to LoTR as walking, which is to say it took up a lot of the plot but wasn't anywhere near the point of the plot. 

 

Now, combat features more in an RPG, but that doesn't make it more "integral", because most of the time combat is actually completely peripheral. 

And why are we uniting Fereldan? Because se need them to face the Darkspawn in battle so we can make our way to the Arch Demon, slay him in combat and stop the blight. You can twist it any way you want, combat is essential to the story of Origins.

 

And yes you did move the goalposts. We were talking about whether combat was relevant to the plot as a whole, you decided to change things by saying it's not relevant to parts of the story, which wasn't what was being argued.

 

The original argument was not even whether combat was essential to the story, but whether it was more integral to the plot than romance.

[SnakeCode]

The bold is totally right. DA would be a very different game without combat. But the plot could be 100% identical without any combat encounter at all. So to say that combat is integral to the plot is mistaken. To say that combat is more integral to the game is completely true, because the combat in DA is the whole point of the game. 

Not true at all, please tell me you aren't being serious with this post?

 

In a videogame the gameplay IS a part of the story, why do so many not understand this?

[In Exile]

And why are we uniting Fereldan? Because se need them to face the Darkspawn in battle so we can make our way to the Arch Demon, slay him in combat and stop the blight. You can twist it any way you want, combat is essential to the story of Origins.

 

No, you're wrong. Even I grant you that the fight with the archdemon has to actually involve the PC participating in any way beyond the actual killing blow, the majority of the game's plot does not require combat. There are very, very few plot sequences that are combat specific, that allow flow from the plot. The vast majority are thrash mob encounters that could be cut from the mage without changing the plot. 

 

And yes you did move the goalposts. We were talking about whether combat was relevant to the plot as a whole, you decided to change things by saying it's not relevant to parts of the story, which wasn't what was being argued.

 

The original argument was not even whether combat was essential to the story, but whether it was more integral to the plot than romance.

 

 

No, that wasn't the discussion. Here is what you said: "As the heart of the very stories themselves are about conflict, saving the world and we ALWAYS do that through combat." You're wrong. We didn't save the world through combat. We saved it through diplomacy and plot magic. There was lots of combat - it was all very fun - but the combat we encountered was only tangentially related to any specific plot. There were very, very few scenes that specifically required the Protagonist to actually engage in combat. 

 

 

Not true at all, please tell me you aren't being serious with this post?

 

In a videogame the gameplay IS a part of the story, why do so many not understand this?

 

In a Bioware game, the gameplay actively contradicts the story.