203 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

The most epic story I played was nwn2 motb. And it wasn't a story about saving the world, it was a story about saving your own butt.

[AresKeith]

There's nothing wrong with old stories, any more than there is with new stories.

 

What's important is how well it's told.

 

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

[txgoldrush]

This is a BioWare game.  You'll be able to play bingo with the plot points.

Or Mad Libs?

[txgoldrush]

I'm not sure what you expect from BioWare at this point, because, to be honest, they've been doing the same formula for their games since Baldur's Gate. There's nothing wrong with that mind you, because it works for them (seemingly), and they, in my opinion, should simply refine their formula and make it better and more polished (so they can try to avoid...responses similar to what they got for Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2, as well as STAR WARS: The Old Republic).

 

The formula BioWare uses for their games (i.e. the character personality types, the story structure and progression), what you call cliched and formulaic (the formulaic part being true), is what made BioWare the company that they are today (or, if you're one of those people who hold that opinion, what they were before the release of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2). And, lets be honest here for one a second, almost ALL game companys follow a formula when designing and developing their games anyway, not just BioWare.

 

No, Bioware should continue to branch out and leave their formula. Yes, fans may complain, but Bioware must realize that some fans will be left behind when you make changes.

 

And really, has any Bioware game ever been as good as Baldur's Gate II? I don't think so. You know how to surpass Baldur's Gate II? By not standing in its shadow.

[CIA]

Well Bioware tried to stray from this in DA2, and since it sucked and got such a bad backlash(not because of the plot layout but because of many other reasons), I assume they're weary of moving away from that sort of plot formula

[txgoldrush]

Well Bioware tried to stray from this in DA2, and since it sucked and got such a bad backlash(not because of the plot layout but because of many other reasons), I assume they're weary of moving away from that sort of plot formula

So they learn the wrong lesson, from interviews it seems that way.

 

If Bioware plays it safe, they WILL be surpassed by other RPG studios. I keep telling Witcher fans that do bash Bioware that CDP is not yet on Bioware's level, but if Bioware keeps sticking to formula, CDP WILL surpass them.

 

Bioware cannot become a fan service company, and they are risking doing this. The more you commit to fan service, the less creative you get. Part of being creative is not being afraid to feature things that the fanbase may not like.

[pengwin21]

No, Bioware should continue to branch out and leave their formula. Yes, fans may complain, but Bioware must realize that some fans will be left behind when you make changes.

 

And really, has any Bioware game ever been as good as Baldur's Gate II? I don't think so. You know how to surpass Baldur's Gate II? By not standing in its shadow.

 

Baldur's Gate II wasn't much of a 'gather the armies/artifacts and stuff, defeat ancient evil' formula either. So it's not as if Bioware has been trying to emulate BG2's story over and over again. 

[CIA]

So they learn the wrong lesson, from interviews it seems that way.

 

If Bioware plays it safe, they WILL be surpassed by other RPG studios. I keep telling Witcher fans that do bash Bioware that CDP is not yet on Bioware's level, but if Bioware keeps sticking to formula, CDP WILL surpass them.

 

Bioware cannot become a fan service company, and they are risking doing this. The more you commit to fan service, the less creative you get. Part of being creative is not being afraid to feature things that the fanbase may not like.

 

I agree with they learned the wrong lesson, but it seems they've also learned the right lessons(I haven't played the game yet).

 

Not to turn it into a Witcher v DA thread, but I feel CDPR have already become equal, but they are different games.

 

I'm just pointing out, the story structure wasn't the bad thing about DA2 but there were many things wrong with it.

[ShadowLordXII]

So they learn the wrong lesson, from interviews it seems that way.

 

If Bioware plays it safe, they WILL be surpassed by other RPG studios. I keep telling Witcher fans that do bash Bioware that CDP is not yet on Bioware's level, but if Bioware keeps sticking to formula, CDP WILL surpass them.

 

Bioware cannot become a fan service company, and they are risking doing this. The more you commit to fan service, the less creative you get. Part of being creative is not being afraid to feature things that the fanbase may not like.

 

The lesson learned from DA2 is that doing something different doesn't automatically mean it will be good. They learned that they couldn't rush into things without thinking things through regarding a game's execution or completely abandoning the things that were good in your previous game. Not only was DA2's story poorly executed in a lot of ways, but it also stripped out gameplay, crafting, equipment and customization options that made Origins deep and memorable.

 

Perhaps CDP will surpass Bioware, we won't know for certain till Witcher 3 comes out. The problem with comparing the two games (Witcher and Dragon Age) is because they are fantasy games on completely different sides of the RPG spectrum. Arguing that one is better just because it's different is somewhat short-sided, you have to judge these games based on how well they present the story, characters, gameplay and tone of their respective games.

 

Both Witcher and Origins were good, but they were both different types of RPGs. Witcher 2 was better than DA2 because it presented itself better than the latter, not just because it wasn't "formulaic or clique". Will Witcher 3 be better than Inquisition? There's a chance that it will be, but that won't be because it's not "clique and formulaic", it will be because CDP crafted the game that they wanted to make better than Inquisition.

 

Change is good and inevitably change is necessary. But it has to be change that improves the target; makes sense or was an inevitable result from natural evolution. If a creative change causes more harm than good, then there's nothing wrong with stepping back to what works and then starting over from there. That's what happened after DAII, Bioware took a step back so that they could take 5 steps forward with Inquisition. 

 

Don't like a formula that works because it's clique? Too bad. There's plenty of other games out there that defy such conventions that you may enjoy. As for the rest of us, we'll give Inquisition a fair shot and enjoy it whether it's clique or formulaic or not.

[KaiserShep]

1) Did Hawke really stand there and do nothing while Carver/Bethany was bashed around like a ragdoll by that ogre in the prologue? Add in that we never really knew that character dying and this scene just comes across as a forced attempt at drama.

 

 

Actually, as this scene happens pretty quickly, Hawke wouldn't have had time to jump in front of the ogre or yank the sibling out of the way anyway. Granted, this makes more sense for Carver, since he has to charge ahead with his sword, whereas Bethany should be casting spells from afar. For this reason, among a few others, Carver is the one that usually dies in my playthroughs.

 

 

 

2) How come Carver/Bethany gets sick from the taint in the Deep Roads yet no one else ever does despite bathing in darkspawn blood after cutting them into pieces? (Anders makes senses as he's a warden, but what about everyone else?)

 

 

Yeah, this is one of those "because plot" things, but it also is part of the reason why I'm not a fan of the games having our non-Warden PC's or followers gallivant around the Deep Roads, constantly splashing around in darkspawn blood with no effects. I mean, DA:O had us mowing through hordes of them in the tunnels and no one gets sick. Thankfully, DA2's exposure to darkspawn is much more limited, so we can just chalk up the sibling's sickness as really bad luck, like Wesley in the prologue.

 

3) Hawke can fight a whole platoon of templars to save a group of runaway mages, but does nothing while Bethany is taken by less than half a dozen templars?

 

Bethany is being escorted out by the Knight-Captain. If Hawke opposes this decision to the point of taking action, it would have to lead to Cullen's death, in Gamlen's home. This would likely lead to the jailing or execution of Hawke's entire family, if Meredith has anything to say about it.

 

 

4) Instead of telling someone in her clan what she's doing, Marathari walks up to the sealed the demon and lets it possess her rather than trust Merrill and her demon slaying friend/lover and company to take care of it? Even though said company has killed many demons by this point in time?

 

Well, in fairness, Marethari doesn't really know how many demons Hawke & company have killed, since she usually just stayed isolated in the Dalish camp. Also, this is kind of a gameplay segregation thing, because these giant demons are supposed to be horrific monsters that your average person would have no hope of slaying. Abominations are supposed to be the same thing, but here we are mowing through them too.

 

5) After everything that he's conquered and beaten (dragons, demons, magisters, templars, abominations, mages, and etc), Hawke should not feel intimidated into picking sides between Crazy Meredith and crazy Orsino.

 

Eh, this one kind of varies. If Carver or Bethany is a Warden, then Hawke doesn't really have as much of a stake in any of this, unless he/she still cares about this city. In my playthrough, Bethany was in the Circle, so that alone would be enough incentive to fight the Templars, but if not, I would have preferred the option to tell everyone to screw off and leave, even if that means fighting through both.

 

 

6) The red lyrium idol was a cop-out.

 

Yeah, Meredith kind of suffered the same thing TIM did, being addled by something sinister or mind-bending, reducing their faculties. If anything, Meredith should have simply been a considerably powerful but "ordinary" opponent, with a complement of above average Templar henchmen. DA2 already had plenty of outlandish combat mechanics. If Meredith was basically as powerful as the warrior class Hawke, that would do me just fine. What I find more frustrating, however, is the fact that Meredith's motives are not fleshed out fully unless you're supporting the Templars.

 

[ShadowLordXII]

Actually, as this scene happens pretty quickly, Hawke wouldn't have had time to jump in front of the ogre or yank the sibling out of the way anyway. Granted, this makes more sense for Carver, since he has to charge ahead with his sword, whereas Bethany should be casting spells from afar. For this reason, among a few others, Carver is the one that usually dies in my playthroughs.

 

 

 

Yeah, this is one of those "because plot" things, but it also is part of the reason why I'm not a fan of the games having our non-Warden PC's or followers gallivant around the Deep Roads, constantly splashing around in darkspawn blood with no effects. I mean, DA:O had us mowing through hordes of them in the tunnels and no one gets sick. Thankfully, DA2's exposure to darkspawn is much more limited, so we can just chalk up the sibling's sickness as really bad luck, like Wesley in the prologue.

 

 

Bethany is being escorted out by the Knight-Captain. If Hawke opposes this decision to the point of taking action, it would have to lead to Cullen's death, in Gamlen's home. This would likely lead to the jailing or execution of Hawke's entire family, if Meredith has anything to say about it.

 

 

Well, in fairness, Marethari doesn't really know how many demons Hawke & company have killed, since she usually just stayed isolated in the Dalish camp. Also, this is kind of a gameplay segregation thing, because these giant demons are supposed to be horrific monsters that your average person would have no hope of slaying. Abominations are supposed to be the same thing, but here we are mowing through them too.

 

 

Eh, this one kind of varies. If Carver or Bethany is a Warden, then Hawke doesn't really have as much of a stake in any of this, unless he/she still cares about this city. In my playthrough, Bethany was in the Circle, so that alone would be enough incentive to fight the Templars, but if not, I would have preferred the option to tell everyone to screw off and leave, even if that means fighting through both.

 

 

Yeah, Meredith kind of suffered the same thing TIM did, being addled by something sinister or mind-bending, reducing their faculties. If anything, Meredith should have simply been a considerably powerful but "ordinary" opponent, with a complement of above average Templar henchmen. DA2 already had plenty of outlandish combat mechanics. If Meredith was basically as powerful as the warrior class Hawke, that would do me just fine. What I find more frustrating, however, is the fact that Meredith's motives are not fleshed out fully unless you're supporting the Templars.

 

1) Maybe, but it still comes off as forced and rushed. You barely knew the dying sibling for less than 5 minutes before they die and then we're supposed to mourn their loss? You want to kill a character and make us care that they died? Give us time to actually get to know that character (like with a prologue segment with Hawke in Lothering before going to Ostagar or something) or wait until we know that character until we lose them so that it will be genuinely sad (for instance Leandra's death)

 

2) In Origin's defense, the team did plan to address this issue, but didn't have enough time to implement it.

 

3) Still makes the scene feel forced. Remember, Hawke had earlier murdered an entire squad of templars and faces no repercussions for it. Hell, he'd killed another squad when helping Anders in his recruitment mission. So he'll slaughter entire squads for strangers, but just let his younger sister get taken by half that number? He won't even appeal to the fact that Cullen owes him? At least with Cullen, he choose to join the templars so I can understand why Hawke wouldn't do anything there. But if that were my little sister about to be taken into a system that I know to be horribly flawed and oppressive, I and the average big brother would've given him one warning.

 

4) Still dumb that Maratheri didn't tell anyone else in her clan which leads said-clan to possibly be slaughtered when Hawke and Merrill defend themselves.

 

5) The game tries to make it appear as though Hawke has no choice, but to side with either templars or mages. But considering that he's got just as much influence as Meredith at this point, what's stopping him from rallying the non-crazies from Kirkwall, templars and mages and fighting both Orsino and Meredith?

 

6) At least the IM becoming indoctrinated made sense considering that reaper indoctrination through their technology was a major threat in Mass Effect's story and this was established in the story. Meredith and the red lyrium sword? That came completely out of left-field.

[Marshal Moriarty]

The disparity in development time and funding for DA2 and DA:O makes meaninfgul comparison difficult. What (I assume) the OP and people like him (such as me) would say is that a great many of DA2's problems would have been solved with more dev time and more money. It wasn't the artistic/design/narrative decisions they took that were wrong - it was simply not giving the team enough time and resources to make the game properly. The instincts shown by David Gaider, Mike Laidlaw etc to change things up and break Bioware outrageously overused formula were entirely correct. Gaider has himself stated with some regret in interviews that the relative failure of DA2 has meant they won't try anything as experimental for a good long while. And that is terrible news, because Bioware's reuse and recycling of so much content and ideas, has seen them make the exact same game for decades.

 

The problem is that people want AAA production values and they won't accept anything less. Great RPGs have come and gone with criminally poor reception, because they didn't have the budget or dev time to deliver the full package. Dragon Age 2 is one such game, KOTOR 2 is another (I maintain that Obsidian's KOTOR sequel even in its unfinished state, is still better than any BIoware games - and I say that as someone who loves Bioware's games!) Indeed KOTOR 2 is a great example, because it shows how you can still keep the same basic formula, but do so much more with it, with the characters etc. Its richness of storytelling was, is and always will be one of the real high points of the genre. Same with Fallout: New Vegas, which soared heads and shoulders over Bethesda's Fallout 3, but which didn't have the budget or dev time to finish the job and claim its rightful place at the very top of this genre.

 

Nobody is saying that Bioware should just be forgotten, or that they haven't made remarkable advances. Without their influence, without KOTOR 1, there would be no KOTOR 2, after all. For all that I decry Mass Effect 2 dubious status as an RPG, there's no doubting that the game was a seriously impressive package, showing that Bioware could take a big budget and deliver a big experience. Whether you agree with the narrative decisions they made or not (and I certainly didn't), the game told one hell of a rollicking space adventure. I just think that ME2 showed where single player action games should go, and what their future should be, rather than RPGs. By the same token, ME2 was everything that RPGs should *not* become.

 

So to close, Bioware have done some great work, but they need to change things up to stay relevant - they've been lucky over the last decade, because nobody has really stood up or had enough money to try and dethrone them. But it will happen eventually, and the only answer is to keep changing and evolving yourself - don't make yourself an easy target for these guys to just blow right past you. Because after one truly standout game (KOTOR), they've been playing it safe and recycling the same ideas, characters, plots, etc for decades. They've proved they can do it on a bigger scale, but its still the same old same old. Without a different approach, things will just stagnate. ME2 saw them go overground and gain a mainstream audience, but you can't keep such an audience, as they inevitably move on to the next big thing (its already happening and it will just get worse). Yet the onus from the powers that be (most obviously from everyone's favorites -  dear old Uncle EA), is to keep trying to get them on board, so the priorities becomes spend more and more money, to make it look better and better and better, whilst playing it more and more safe to protect the investment.

 

Gamers don't really know what they want. They know what they think they want, but its the duty of good writers and visionary developers to give them what they *should* want, and what they didn't even know they wanted, before they know it themselves. Bioware got burned on DA2, but they learned the wrong lessons as the OP said. They should have realized that their instincts were entirely correct, and that the game just needed more time and money. Because that's actually a really good place to be - most games wouldn't really improve significantly, even if you splurged huge amounts more money, and gave it limitless dev time, because the whole premise is unsound. DA2 just needed more resources and time, and if the devs made any great mistakes on that game, it was in not fighting EA and their own executives hard enough to make sure it got that. I'm sure its not easy, and I'm sure its frustrating to see your project fail for reasons you didn't control, only to be told you had the wrong idea, and must now stick to the formula.

 

Because if that is the case, then well... let's just say I couldn't work under such conditions. I'd have to resign and seek my fortunes elsewhere. The only reason to join up with a Chronos like EA, is their money and associated resources. If you can't ultilize those, because they insist on allocating them in the wrong places (SWOTR - some might like it and that's great for them, but for me... I lost KOTOR to this multiplayer cash cow rubbish - am I supposed to be happy about that?!) If that's the case, then honestly what's the point? Either they need to stand up to EA and say ;You bought us to make great RPGs - how about letting us do it?' or they should do the decent thing like Drew Karpshyn did. Because Bioware are not what we need them to be right now.

[Urazz]

Well Bioware tried to stray from this in DA2, and since it sucked and got such a bad backlash(not because of the plot layout but because of many other reasons), I assume they're weary of moving away from that sort of plot formula

Nah, it didn't suck based on that, it sucked because the rushed the development of the game.  Truth be told, I felt Act 3 should've been much longer than it was.

[txgoldrush]

The disparity in development time and funding for DA2 and DA:O makes meaninfgul comparison difficult. What (I assume) the OP and people like him (such as me) would say is that a great many of DA2's problems would have been solved with more dev time and more money. It wasn't the artistic/design/narrative decisions they took that were wrong - it was simply not giving the team enough time and resources to make the game properly. The instincts shown by David Gaider, Mike Laidlaw etc to change things up and break Bioware outrageously overused formula were entirely correct. Gaider has himself stated with some regret in interviews that the relative failure of DA2 has meant they won't try anything as experimental for a good long while. And that is terrible news, because Bioware's reuse and recycling of so much content and ideas, has seen them make the exact same game for decades.

 

The problem is that people want AAA production values and they won't accept anything less. Great RPGs have come and gone with criminally poor reception, because they didn't have the budget or dev time to deliver the full package. Dragon Age 2 is one such game, KOTOR 2 is another (I maintain that Obsidian's KOTOR sequel even in its unfinished state, is still better than any BIoware games - and I say that as someone who loves Bioware's games!) Indeed KOTOR 2 is a great example, because it shows how you can still keep the same basic formula, but do so much more with it, with the characters etc. Its richness of storytelling was, is and always will be one of the real high points of the genre. Same with Fallout: New Vegas, which soared heads and shoulders over Bethesda's Fallout 3, but which didn't have the budget or dev time to finish the job and claim its rightful place at the very top of this genre.

 

Nobody is saying that Bioware should just be forgotten, or that they haven't made remarkable advances. Without their influence, without KOTOR 1, there would be no KOTOR 2, after all. For all that I decry Mass Effect 2 dubious status as an RPG, there's no doubting that the game was a seriously impressive package, showing that Bioware could take a big budget and deliver a big experience. Whether you agree with the narrative decisions they made or not (and I certainly didn't), the game told one hell of a rollicking space adventure. I just think that ME2 showed where single player action games should go, and what their future should be, rather than RPGs. By the same token, ME2 was everything that RPGs should *not* become.

 

So to close, Bioware have done some great work, but they need to change things up to stay relevant - they've been lucky over the last decade, because nobody has really stood up or had enough money to try and dethrone them. But it will happen eventually, and the only answer is to keep changing and evolving yourself - don't make yourself an easy target for these guys to just blow right past you. Because after one truly standout game (KOTOR), they've been playing it safe and recycling the same ideas, characters, plots, etc for decades. They've proved they can do it on a bigger scale, but its still the same old same old. Without a different approach, things will just stagnate. ME2 saw them go overground and gain a mainstream audience, but you can't keep such an audience, as they inevitably move on to the next big thing (its already happening and it will just get worse). Yet the onus from the powers that be (most obviously from everyone's favorites -  dear old Uncle EA), is to keep trying to get them on board, so the priorities becomes spend more and more money, to make it look better and better and better, whilst playing it more and more safe to protect the investment.

 

Gamers don't really know what they want. They know what they think they want, but its the duty of good writers and visionary developers to give them what they *should* want, and what they didn't even know they wanted, before they know it themselves. Bioware got burned on DA2, but they learned the wrong lessons as the OP said. They should have realized that their instincts were entirely correct, and that the game just needed more time and money. Because that's actually a really good place to be - most games wouldn't really improve significantly, even if you splurged huge amounts more money, and gave it limitless dev time, because the whole premise is unsound. DA2 just needed more resources and time, and if the devs made any great mistakes on that game, it was in not fighting EA and their own executives hard enough to make sure it got that. I'm sure its not easy, and I'm sure its frustrating to see your project fail for reasons you didn't control, only to be told you had the wrong idea, and must now stick to the formula.

 

Because if that is the case, then well... let's just say I couldn't work under such conditions. I'd have to resign and seek my fortunes elsewhere. The only reason to join up with a Chronos like EA, is their money and associated resources. If you can't ultilize those, because they insist on allocating them in the wrong places (SWOTR - some might like it and that's great for them, but for me... I lost KOTOR to this multiplayer cash cow rubbish - am I supposed to be happy about that?!) If that's the case, then honestly what's the point? Either they need to stand up to EA and say ;You bought us to make great RPGs - how about letting us do it?' or they should do the decent thing like Drew Karpshyn did. Because Bioware are not what we need them to be right now.

KOTOR II is great, better than the original, however, things hold it back from being a masterpiece and I am talking about the finished version (TSLRCM). The influence system really does not make sense, the pacing is off in a lot of places, the difficulty spike of controlling party members, the game isn't as grey as it wants to be as it encourages you to be as dark or light as possible, and while Kreia is a great character, her plan to wound the force itself is silly.

 

Obsidian also gets my criticisms like Bioware does, but for different reasons. Not only are they hit and miss....Fallout New Vegas, Mask Of the Betrayer, and South Park were great, but Storms of Zehir, Alpha Protocol, and Dungeon Siege III, not so great. Also really all they do is either other peoples sequels, games on someone else's engine, or do games that basically pine off other games. It seems like they aren't really original, they never tell the industry where to go like Bioware or Bethesda. They don't influence anything, and Pillars of Eternity will be no different (especially with the possibly far more influential Tides of Numenera coming, done by ineXile). I like Obsidians sequels better than their Bioware and Bethesda predecessors, however, I cannot put Obsidian as an elite RPG studio. They need to get more creative and have an influential new IP. they lack a Mass Effect, which has influenced many games.

 

As for Bioware, they do have unparalleled strengths in the WRPG genre. They are unrivaled when it comes to the human element and the emotional side of their writing. For example, a couple of quests in ME1 highlight this, several ME2 loyalty stories, and pretty much a lot of ME3. What they should do is double down on that strength and have a story revolve around this, make a more personal story, instead of another recycled clichéd Mad Libs storyline. They may never be as brainy as say Obsidian, but they have a strength on the heart side others lack.

 

As for SWTOR, don't underrate it. Due to the epic size of the storyline, I think it had to be an MMO. It should have never been a subscription based MMO, that was the mistake. And really, many class stories do break the Bioware mold, especially the Imperial Agent.

[olgaroni]

The disparity in development time and funding for DA2 and DA:O makes meaninfgul comparison difficult. What (I assume) the OP and people like him (such as me) would say is that a great many of DA2's problems would have been solved with more dev time and more money. It wasn't the artistic/design/narrative decisions they took that were wrong - it was simply not giving the team enough time and resources to make the game properly. The instincts shown by David Gaider, Mike Laidlaw etc to change things up and break Bioware outrageously overused formula were entirely correct. Gaider has himself stated with some regret in interviews that the relative failure of DA2 has meant they won't try anything as experimental for a good long while. And that is terrible news, because Bioware's reuse and recycling of so much content and ideas, has seen them make the exact same game for decades.

Your whole post is really good and contains a lot of truth.

One thing that gets forgotten often in my opinion is that DA2 proves how good Bioware are as developers. Sure it is unfinished and there is no denying it would have needed polishing, but it was made in only one to one and a half year. For DA:O they had four or five years.

With that in mind I am amazed how good DA2 actually is. I don't think many studios would have been able to create a similar experience.

 

Inquisition had a much longer development time than DA2 and will be much more polished, so it wont fail to please a larger group of people.

[HellaciousHutch]

No, Bioware should continue to branch out and leave their formula. Yes, fans may complain, but Bioware must realize that some fans will be left behind when you make changes.

 

And really, has any Bioware game ever been as good as Baldur's Gate II? I don't think so. You know how to surpass Baldur's Gate II? By not standing in its shadow.

 

To be honest, BioWare isn't really...good at change, as is evident by them stripping down Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 of several RPG elements, and instead, going for a more action game approaching with some RPG flavor. Their (recent) change seemingly seems to be changing their games from games based on vast player input and choice, to, games focused on cinematic experiences and guided paths. And to be honest, Baldur's Gate II (on an unrelated note, Planescape Torment is better than Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 in my opinion, not made by BioWare mind you; love that game) being the best BioWare game is completely based on opinion, one of which, I personally do not share. 

[SnakeCode]

On the question of originality, there are good ways to do it and bad ones.  When I did my literature degree, we had to wade through a lot of awful writing considered "great writing" by professors, because it "broke all narrative conventions."  Which is literary-speak for being unreadable.  This was particularly true of some writers labelled Modernist and some labelled Post-Modern.

 

(James Joyce and Julia Kristeva, I'm looking at you >_<)

 

Certain things are just needed for a great story.  And for a great hero story.  You need all-consuming stakes to involve the reader/listener/viewer/player.  There needs to be a real sense of immanent threat.  And you need to feel that the hero's actions matter, that in the end the world was saved because they were there.

 

That said, there is room for originality.  The Monomyth's details change with time and place.  The Ancient Greeks or the Tokugawa Japanese would not have told Dragon Age Inquisition's story even in another format.  There are very modern elements here, even in what we know.  Female and gay heroes possible - sadly a rarity in the world's Monomyths.  The hole in the sky almost seems to have environmental overtones.   The peace conference being disrupted by someone hellbent on war - the racial unrest with the elves - everyone squabbling over power while real crises get ignored - all that is very modern, and so original.

 

So are the specific characters who step into the archetypal roles.

 

But if there's one thing Ive learnt about BSN, someone out there hates everything.  This is the game fans clamoured for after DA2.  If you don't like it, you're welcome to play something else.

 

 

The bolded isn't original, it reeks of Game of Thrones.

[Steelcan]

The bolded isn't original, it reeks of Game of Thrones.

it reeks of irl history, the Romans bickered and killed each other in civil war and squabbles while the frontiers were overrun leading to having to take in various barbarian groups and attempt to assimilate them.

 

The Byzantines suffered similarly against the Turks

[Milan92]

There is no story that is original these days. Everything gets borrowed from something older.

 

And as others have said, its not the tropes they use that can ruin a story, its how its executed.

 

If anybody for example would try to make a game out of Memento , and had no clue how to do it properly, then it would have failed.

 

No matter how original Memento was a film.

[txgoldrush]

There is no story that is original these days. Everything gets bored from something older.

 

And as others have said, its not the tropes they use that can ruin a story, its how its executed.

 

If anybody for example would try to make a game out of Memento , and had no clue how to do it properly, then it would have failed.

 

No matter how original Memento was a film.

That's not the point, its Bioware recycling their stories over and over again.

 

Just like how SquareEnix recycles FFVI and elements of FFVII in later Final Fantasy games. Hell FFVII is "FFVI is cyberpunk land".

 

To be honest, BioWare isn't really...good at change, as is evident by them stripping down Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 of several RPG elements, and instead, going for a more action game approaching with some RPG flavor. Their (recent) change seemingly seems to be changing their games from games based on vast player input and choice, to, games focused on cinematic experiences and guided paths. And to be honest, Baldur's Gate II (on an unrelated note, Planescape Torment is better than Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 in my opinion, not made by BioWare mind you; love that game) being the best BioWare game is completely based on opinion, one of which, I personally do not share. 

 

However, objectively, Baldur's Gate II is considered one of the greatest RPGs ever made.

 

And no, Mass Effect 3 actually added back RPG elements that Mass Effect 2 stripped away, however, you have to admit, the RPG elements did not go well with the gameplay of ME1, especially the combat system. That's why it was changed. It was broken.

 

And guided paths and cinematic experiences started right with KOTOR, so nothing has really changed since.

[wolfhowwl]

There is no story that is original these days. Everything gets borrowed from something older.

 

And as others have said, its not the tropes they use that can ruin a story, its how its executed.

 

If anybody for example would try to make a game out of Memento , and had no clue how to do it properly, then it would have failed.

 

No matter how original Memento was a film.

 

Yes, ideas will be borrowed and repeated. Current industry darling TLoU has some very obvious (and admitted) inspirations from recent Hollywood films. BioWare's own Mass Effect heavily borrowed from earlier sci-fi as well. But there weren't very many people complaining that the developers were influenced by and referencing other works like Children of Men or Revelation Space.

 

Of course those situations are a little different than a single developer rehashing the same concepts across multiple consecutive games. It's very safe but also stagnant.

[Milan92]

Yes, ideas will be borrowed and repeated. Current industry darling TLoU has some very obvious (and admitted) inspirations from recent Hollywood films. BioWare's own Mass Effect heavily borrowed from earlier sci-fi as well. But there weren't very many people complaining that the developers were influenced by and referencing other works like Children of Men or Revelation Space.

 

Of course those situations are a little different than a single developer rehashing the same concepts across multiple consecutive games. It's very safe but also stagnant.

 

The entire story of The Last of Us is actually a slightly altered version of Children of Men.

[txgoldrush]

The entire story of The Last of Us is actually a slightly altered version of Children of Men.

And elements of The Road

[AlanC9]

And really, has any Bioware game ever been as good as Baldur's Gate II? I don't think so. You know how to surpass Baldur's Gate II? By not standing in its shadow.

I dunno. Last time I played BG2 it hadn't aged all that well. I don't think any Bio game has exceeded the current state-of-the-art at the time of release as much as BG2 did when it was released, but that's not quite the same question.

[txgoldrush]

I dunno. Last time I played BG2 it hadn't aged all that well. I don't think any Bio game has exceeded the current state-of-the-art at the time of release as much as BG2 did when it was released, but that's not quite the same question.

The Enhanced Edition was released not too long ago with added new characters.