76 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

I've heard the term mature and realism thrown around a lot when browsing through the comments sections of various Dragon Age articles and reviews.

 

From what I can gather, mature is when a story features a heavy emphasis on morally ambiguous and flawed characters in tough situations. These are characters who are forced to make tough choices in moral/ethical dilemnas and must face the good and bad of those decisions. Couple this with a blatantly imperfect world with religious, cultural, social, or racial conflicts, tensions and struggles, and we have a recipe for a decently mature game.

 

I've found two definitions of realism, one being: the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. The other definition is as follows: the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life.

 

So under these terms, I can say that Origins and DA2 were both "mature" games with realism.

 

Sure, the Warden ends up saving the world at the end of Origins and beating the darkspawn. But how did they do it? Did they act with cold pragmatism or tended to take the moral high ground in key decisions? Did they support their companions or backstab/betray them for the "greater good" or just to be an evil jerk? Will Alistair really be a better king or is it better to entrust the throne to Anora? Should Loghain live or die? Take the Dark Ritual and entrust immeasurable power to a potentially untrustworthy character or Refuse and sacrifice either your life or that of Alistair/Loghain to end the Blight?

 

Some will argue that Origins played it safe since you win and become a hero regardless of your Warden's moral background. They have a point, though I'd remind them that the Warden doesn't solve everything. Think of all of the conflicts shown in Origins. The plight of the City elves; the Dalish struggle to maintain their culture; The Mage-Templar conflict; Tensions against Orlais; The inherently unfair and somewhat self-destructive caste system of Orzammar; The dwarves constant struggle against the darkspawn and the inevitability that another blight will ravage Thedas in the future.

 

Did the Warden solve all of these problems? No. Even efforts to improve the lives of City and Dalish elves after the Fifth Blight's end only exasperate deeper social and racial tensions. Preserving the Anvil may help the dwarves in the short term, but as it's in the hands of a mad woman who destroyed her own house to find it, I wasn't surprised when she started abducting elves and humans which caused tensions with the surface. Did the Warden support the right Landsmeet candidate? There's no way of knowing for certain.

 

Dragon Age 2 also featured a mature story and even heavier aspects of realism. Despite several execution problems and often freezing Hawke's agency for the sake of "forced drama", the game's story still holds up as well as Origins. In this game, there is no clear villain or even a clear hero, it's just various groups of people who all strongly believe in their viewpoints going at each other in a never-ending merry-go-round.

 

The Qunari aren't a group of evil people, they're just a stricter and regulated culture of humans, elves and horned giants who were stranded in Kirkwall by sheer bad luck. They were originally just trying to get back a sacred tome of their faith and it wasn't until Kirkwall continued to pressure and nag them that they decided to attack. But after the Arishok is dead, it's not clear as to whether he was wrong or right. On one hand, he did invade and kill several people in the city including the Viscount. On the other hand, Kirkwall had been provoking him and his people for 3 years despite the Qunari largely leaving the city's people alone.

 

Then there's the Mage-Templar Conflict; Meredith's paranoia and vigilance and Anders' Blowing up the Chantry? Do I need to say anything more? Despite several Idiot Balls tossed and the whole conflict devolving into a dark vs dark dynamic, I saw the key ideas behind everything in Act 3. Thus, I would consider the intent to have maturity and realism even if the implementation was flawed.

 

Now Inquisition is barely two months away and some are wondering what kind of game will it be. Some say that it will be less mature because it's following another "save the world from "blank" central conflict that has been seen many times before. Others would say that it will still be great because the Inquisition will have to make tough choices in the face of conflicts like the Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, and the elven uprising in addition to trying to save the world.

 

In short, the Inquisition will have to save the world from an outside threat while ensuring that said-world doesn't destroy itself first.

 

What do you need to see for Inquisition to be a "mature" game? Blurring the Lines of Good and Evil? Dilemnas that don't have easy fix-it-all answers? What makes a game's story "mature"?

[Killdren88]

I don't know where people get the notion that Mature= Dark and terrible. While yeah, that is the case sometimes, it can also mean just going through hell, but managing to stumble into the light in victory.

[HiroVoid]

B00Bs.

[SmilesJA]

[veeia]

I don't know if there is one satisfactory definition of mature. I keep trying to think of how I'd say it, and it comes down to "restrained, complex storytelling."

 

Restraint: Just...allowing the themes and stories to develop slowly. Not telling everything up front. Letting the players discover things. Not always making things obvious or telegraphed. Not going overboard with saccharine OR cynical themes. 

 

Complexity: Psychological realism in characters. Conflicts that are not forced or trite. Consistency and depth of thematic concerns. 

[Joe25]

That little M on the box that reminds me why my parents didn't let me play Smash Bros for the N64 till I was 10. 

[DrBlingzle]

Okay when I hear "mature" I think intelligent and sensible not boobs thrown in every 5 seconds. For instance I consider ASOIAF/GoT mature not because of it's excess in violence and nudity but because it's realistic (in some ways), morally grey, asks you questions and is very clever.

 

For me to consider DA:I mature then, it would have to get me agonizing over certain realistic, morally grey decisions which leave me questioning myself over whether I had done the right thing even after doing it. Choices that don't necessarily leave a "perfect" choice and force you to choose between hard decisions. I'd like DA:I to really get me to question "what do I strive for the most? And at what cost?".

Also a plot that rewards you for working out little twists and explanations would be very good.

 

DA:I does all this and I will almost certainly fall in love with it.

[Darkly Tranquil]

For it to be considered "mature" it needs to present it's ideas in a balanced way that expresses the moral ambiguities and the conflicting priorities of various antagonists participating in the narrative. There should be no clear right/wrong decisions, but rather an array of situations where the player has to find a balance between their own moral position and the necessities that the narrative places on them.

I like being confronted by choices where you do what you think is right, and it turns out to have far worse consequences than what the superficially "bad" choice would have (Bhelen vs. Harrowmont) or situations where you have a range of bad choices and you must decide which is the lesser evil (kill Connor or sacrifice Isolde). Basically, complex situations where the solution is unclear and the consequences unknown, and you must navigate through them as best you can and live with the consequences of the choices you made.

[zqrahll]

Sex & violence-- that's what the mature rating means, & that's what I want.  I am 35 years old, I don't need PG rated games anymore.  Sex & violence don't have to be excessive or overly graphic, but they should be present & acknowledged.  I would never watch a syndicated, edited version of Game of Thrones, and I don't want something like that in Dragon Age either.

 

Let me explain my favorite Origin story.  Despite being male, my first character was a female city elf, and after having her marriage broken up, her betrothed killed, & her cousin raped, I had to play the character as someone who did not like or trust humans from then on.  It wasn't until meeting Oghren that she softened up a little and started trying to befriend her companions.  It was half way through the game before I could play the character as someone who would try to just talk to people and actually maybe even make a friend or two because the mature aspects of the story had an actual effect on me and how I played the game.  That is what I want from a mature Inquisition.

[MissDragon]

Dark Evil, Corruption, Sex, Deceit, and some Nudity. Violence, Gore.  Rated M.

[AutumnWitch]

Hot, steamy, full-on F/F sex.

 

(Not that I'm biased or anything)

[TheKomandorShepard]

If bio would give us proper and realistic responses on certain situations for example i find it rather poor example they won't let us use torture in dark fantasy in game with theme "do what you need to do to achieve your goal" just because some peoples would be repulsed by that.

[TTTX]

Some dark moments while there is some funny moments to balance them out.

[Darkly Tranquil]

If bio would give us proper and realistic responses on certain situations for example i find it rather poor example they won't let us use torture in dark fantasy in game with theme "do what you need to do to achieve your goal" just because some peoples would be repulsed by that.

It's not about offending people, it's about PR (remember the tiny bit of nudity in ME?), marketing, and ratings compliance.

Basically, they have to make a game that conforms to the ratings guidelines in the countries they plan to sell the game in and the target demographics they want to reach. The higher the rating it gets, the smaller the potential audience is. That's why Hollywood blockbusters are usually fairly mild in their portrayal of sex and violence; they want to draw the widest audience possible. Smaller productions which are pitched to more niche audiences are able to worry less about offending the mainstream and are thus able to do what they want with less concern about it hitting their bottom line.

Given that AAA game development is such a costly business these days, publishers (EA) want to draw a wide audience to recoup their investment, so they have to place limits on what the developers are allowed to do if they are to fulfill rating requirements and hit target demographics. The only big name studio that seems to defy these conventions is RockStar, who don't seem to much care about controversy or who they offend. In fact, being extreme and offensive is practically the basis of their popularity, but they are very much the exception to the rule.

Bottom line, big companies wanting to shift lots of units want games that will appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and avoid controversy/bad PR. Ergo, you are unlikely to ever get your torture sim from EA or Activision, as they are all about mass market appeal.

[Azaron Nightblade]

The only big name studio that seems to defy these conventions is RockStar, who don't seem to much care about controversy or who they offend. In fact, being extreme and offensive is practically the basis of their popularity, but they are very much the exception to the rule.
 

They became a big name through doing that. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

It's not about offending people, it's about PR (remember the tiny bit of nudity in ME?), marketing, and ratings compliance.

Basically, they have to make a game that conforms to the ratings guidelines in the countries they plan to sell the game in and the target demographics they want to reach. The higher the rating it gets, the smaller the potential audience is. That's why Hollywood blockbusters are usually fairly mild in their portrayal of sex and violence; they want to draw the widest audience possible. Smaller productions which are pitched to more niche audiences are able to worry less about offending the mainstream and are thus able to do what they want with less concern about it hitting their bottom line.

Given that AAA game development is such a costly business these days, publishers (EA) want to draw a wide audience to recoup their investment, so they have to place limits on what the developers are allowed to do if they are to fulfill rating requirements and hit target demographics. The only big name studio that seems to defy these conventions is RockStar, who don't seem to much care about controversy or who they offend. In fact, being extreme and offensive is practically the basis of their popularity, but they are very much the exception to the rule.

Bottom line, big companies wanting to shift lots of units want games that will appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and avoid controversy/bad PR. Ergo, you are unlikely to ever get your torture sim from EA or Activision, as they are all about mass market appeal.

Well it is about offending peoples you just gave extended explanation how they want appeal to widest group of people.That pretty much is why most games never will be "mature" as devs won't put into it darker parts of the world focusing rather on what peoples want not what it is.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Well it is about offending peoples you just gave extended explanation how they want get appeal to widest group of people.That pretty much is why most games never will be "mature" as devs won't put into it darker parts of the world focusing rather on what peoples want not what it is.

 

Its about making more money by appealing to a wider audience, and compliance with the law in the countries you want to sell your product in. While not offending people is certainly a factor that influences their decision-making, its not the main reason, the financial bottom line is.

[Tenebrae]

It's not about offending people, it's about PR (remember the tiny bit of nudity in ME?), marketing, and ratings compliance.

Basically, they have to make a game that conforms to the ratings guidelines in the countries they plan to sell the game in and the target demographics they want to reach. The higher the rating it gets, the smaller the potential audience is. That's why Hollywood blockbusters are usually fairly mild in their portrayal of sex and violence; they want to draw the widest audience possible. Smaller productions which are pitched to more niche audiences are able to worry less about offending the mainstream and are thus able to do what they want with less concern about it hitting their bottom line.

Given that AAA game development is such a costly business these days, publishers (EA) want to draw a wide audience to recoup their investment, so they have to place limits on what the developers are allowed to do if they are to fulfill rating requirements and hit target demographics. The only big name studio that seems to defy these conventions is RockStar, who don't seem to much care about controversy or who they offend. In fact, being extreme and offensive is practically the basis of their popularity, but they are very much the exception to the rule.

Bottom line, big companies wanting to shift lots of units want games that will appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and avoid controversy/bad PR. Ergo, you are unlikely to ever get your torture sim from EA or Activision, as they are all about mass market appeal.

 

Unfortunately very true, i wish more developers/publishers/movie-makers etc would follow RockStar example and make the games they want to make instead of worrying about who they might be offending, the same people developers/publishers/movie-makers etc are working so hard to try not to offend are such whiners that they will always find something to be offended by.

 

Oh well at lest we still have RockStar.

[Elfyoth]

Grown up jokes like in DA2, better sex scences, and etc.

[KaiserShep]

Sex and violence in and of themselves are not inherently mature. Any childish nincompoop can indulge in this sort of thing with no problem. Where I find the most value is in the story itself being clever and doesn't insult our intelligence. Being dark and gritty or gut-wrenching or whatever is basically nothing without it. Like, WALL-E and Wreck-It-Ralph are films that I would consider worlds more mature than, say, any of the Transformers movies, despite the rating.

[Tenebrae]

Its about making more money by appealing to a wider audience, and compliance with the law in the countries you want to sell your product in. While not offending people is certainly a factor that influences their decision-making, its not the main reason, the financial bottom line is.

 

Most gamers care about story/gameplay/polished experience, whether or not the subject is offensive is a less then relevant point when it comes to purchasing a game.

 

Besides, if your game ends up on TV with reporters warning people that the game is evil immoral or whatever such nonsense all it does is make people want to play it even more.

 

Well as long as you have your own digital distribution software that is...

[TheKomandorShepard]

Its about making more money by appealing to a wider audience, and compliance with the law in the countries you want to sell your product in. While not offending people is certainly a factor that influences their decision-making, its not the main reason, the financial bottom line is.

I know it but as i said they won't put such stuff because they don't want offend peoples then we can get further and ask why don't want offend peoples.I rather doubt they would be harmed in any way save for offending some peoples for involving torture in inq especially that torture is already involved as we saw in demo. 

[KaiserShep]

The extent to which I'd ever expect there to be any torture you can control in these games is in dialogue options to have someone else do the torturing for you. I don't expect BioWare to start designing actual controls to allow you to twist this knife in this or put that white hot poker in that, and frankly, I don't think they should ever care to bother, because it's pointless.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Most gamers care about story/gameplay/polished experience, whether or not the subject is offensive is a less then relevant point when it comes to purchasing a game.

 

Besides, if your game ends up on TV with reporters warning people that the game is evil immoral or whatever such nonsense all it does is make people want to play it even more.

 

Well as long as you have your own digital distribution software that is...

 

You make a good point about distrubution and the effect it will have. I think publishers were much more sensitive to public outrage when then were depending on chains like Walmart to sell their products. Removing the average consumer sentiment sensitive middle-man and self distributing may allow publishers to have more freedom in what they do and to make decisions about what they put in their games with less regard to external pressures from distributors. However, I think this is still playing out, so it remains to be seen what will happen. A heck of a lot of games are still sold through bricks and mortar stores, and until the digital sales become the majority, I think publishers will remain sensitive to public opinion.

 

The other issue here is that the "average" gamer these days is an adult in their 20's-30's, not a 12-15yo child as the media tends to think is still the case. There remains a misconception in the public and the mass media about who plays games, which leads to them drawing erroneous conclusions about the suitability of content and creating controversy where there need not be any.

[Tenebrae]

You make a good point about distrubution and the effect it will have. I think publishers were much more sensitive to public outrage when then were depending on chains like Walmart to sell their products. Removing the average consumer sentiment sensitive middle-man and self distributing may allow publishers to have more freedom in what they do and to make decisions about what they put in their games with less regard to external pressures from distributors. However, I think this is still playing out, so it remains to be seen what will happen. A heck of a lot of games are still sold through bricks and mortar stores, and until the digital sales become the majority, I think publishers will remain sensitive to public opinion.

 

Thankfully digital distribution is an ever growing market and as much as people seems to dislike origin the idea behind it is sound (yes it has software issues but that's not what I'm referring to), if the company control the distribution it can provide more creative freedom (EA doesn't but the idea behind the concept is still sound), hell we might end up seeing more "adult" rated games (rpgs or otherwise) when digital distribution becomes the main avenue purchasing

 

The other issue here is that the "average" gamer these days is an adult in their 20's-30's, not a 12-15yo child as the media tends to think is still the case. There remains a misconception in the public and the mass media about who plays games, which leads to them drawing erroneous conclusions about the suitability of content and creating controversy where there need not be any.

 

Well the mass media is all about creating conflict and controversy where there is no need for it to be it all about ratings, hell the mass effect side boob fiasco is a prime example or the hot coffee incident.