454 réponses à ce sujet

[Corto81]

But Skyrim was side quests. The mage sidequests, assassin sidequests, and thief sidequests were all quite fun to play through. They were all quite a bit better than the main quest, especially because the way that shouting was implemented completely contradicted how shouts should have worked according to the game's story.

A TES game is never about the story. I have no idea how there are people who still don't get that.

It's about exploration and freedom and immersing yourself in a huge, open world.

And then there are side quest lines.

And honestly, every one of them (Brotherhood, TG, College, etc.) had better characters and better writing than DA2.

[Ieldra]

Honestly, at this point I think they're not doing it because they've defended the paraphrase for so long and don't want to go back on that.

It has the vibe of an entrenched feature, indeed. Paraphrasing to some degree appears to be pretty much the standard for games with voiced protagonists, but there are a few examples for giving us at least parts of the spoken line instead of the super-vague version Bioware has been using. 

[Boboverlord]

A TES game is never about the story. I have no idea how there are people who still don't get that.

It's about exploration and freedom and immersing yourself in a huge, open world.

And then there are side quest lines.

And honestly, every one of them (Brotherhood, TG, College, etc.) had better characters and better writing than DA2.

 

What. I almost laughed when you pointed out at College of Winterhold quests... One of the most unsettling quests ever especially when all the geniuses in the college are less intelligent than one Thalmor agent who appeared to know how to use Eye of Magnus out of nowhere. And I believe for each MAJOR side quests, I can remember the names of NPCs less than 3. 

 

Oh, and don't let me start at Companion quests...

[Chuvvy]

Ones with good stories.

 

Which isn't to say they've ever been great, it's just as gaming has gotten more mainstream, there have been more "pop" stories. Meaning, gaming is getting its own blockbuster movies, big budget stuff with mass appeal. What happens in the movie industry is that WB or whoever will use the money made from blockbusters to fund more artsy or "deep" movies, (in an effort to win awards for the prestige more than to fund the arts I'd imagine) most of them won't bomb, but they won't make the money Transformers does either. Games publishers don't seem to do that, all games EA releases have to be blockbusters, so they have to be designed with mass appeal in mind which will inevitably lead to, well, trying to appeal to everyone.

 

Of course gaming also isn't the destination of most writers, I'd imagine most start out with ambitions of being the next Fyodor Dostoyevsky, or, well I can't think of a great film writer at the moment, Coen Brothers I guess. Though mentioning them side by side with Dostoyevsky is a bit of a disservice to him because he's arguably the most important writer in the past 200 years.

 

The point remains, gaming doesn't have the same draw as being an author, or writing films. Both will get you much more recognition than being a games writer, games still aren't a respected medium, and an Oscar or Nobel Prize in literature will always look better on your mantel than an IGN player's choice award.

 

Also there's the issue of money. While I'm sure Gaider isn't struggling, it's safe to assume had he been lead writer on a number of big name movies he'd be making substantially more money than what he makes at Bioware. Of course you also live pay check to pay check writing films, so there's a certain level of comfort DG has over that, being a full time employee is much easier on your stress level than freelance I'd imagine, though I've never worked in a freelance type situation.

[Shahadem]

Ones with good stories.

 

Which isn't to say they've ever been great, it's just as gaming has gotten more mainstream, there have been more "pop" stories. Meaning, gaming is getting its own blockbuster movies, big budget stuff with mass appeal. What happens in the movie industry is that WB or whoever will use the money made from blockbusters to fund more artsy or "deep" movies, (in an effort to win awards for the prestige more than to fund the arts I'd imagine) most of them won't bomb, but they won't make the money Transformers does either. Games publishers don't seem to do that, all games EA releases have to be blockbusters, so they have to be designed with mass appeal in mind which will inevitably lead to, well, trying to appeal to everyone.

 

Of course gaming also isn't the destination of most writers, I'd imagine most start out with ambitions of being the next Fyodor Dostoyevsky, or, well I can't think of a great film writer at the moment, Coen Brothers I guess. Though mentioning them side by side with Dostoyevsky is a bit of a disservice to him because he's arguably the most important writer in the past 200 years.

 

The point remains, gaming doesn't have the same draw as being an author, or writing films. Both will get you much more recognition than being a games writer, games still aren't a respected medium, and an Oscar or Nobel Prize in literature will always look better on your mantel than an IGN player's choice award.

 

Also there's the issue of money. While I'm sure Gaider isn't struggling, it's safe to assume had he been lead writer on a number of big name movies he'd be making substantially more money than what he makes at Bioware. Of course you also live pay check to pay check writing films, so there's a certain level of comfort DG has over that, being a full time employee is much easier on your stress level than freelance I'd imagine, though I've never worked in a freelance type situation.

 

And yet artsy games do get made.

 

On the other hand a lot of "artsy" movies really just feel more pretentious or poorly storyboarded.

[Chuvvy]

And yet artsy games do get made.

 

On the other hand a lot of "artsy" movies really just feel more pretentious or poorly storyboarded.

 

Because as we all know, no artsy game has ever felt pretentious. And what I mean by artsy, is higher brow than the average, PTA or Terrence Malick for instance, not avant garde stuff. Though you could probably argue Terrence Malick can get a bit avant garde from time to time. Not like Tarkovsky who's stuff certainly isn't for everyone though.

 

Also worth mentioning that I was referring to the bigger publishers and not the independent developers of smaller titles like papers please.

[Ieldra]

Ones with good stories.

 

Which isn't to say they've ever been great, it's just as gaming has gotten more mainstream, there have been more "pop" stories. Meaning, gaming is getting its own blockbuster movies, big budget stuff with mass appeal. What happens in the movie industry is that WB or whoever will use the money made from blockbusters to fund more artsy or "deep" movies, (in an effort to win awards for the prestige more than to fund the arts I'd imagine) most of them won't bomb, but they won't make the money Transformers does either. Games publishers don't seem to do that, all games EA releases have to be blockbusters, so they have to be designed with mass appeal in mind which will inevitably lead to, well, trying to appeal to everyone.

 

Of course gaming also isn't the destination of most writers, I'd imagine most start out with ambitions of being the next Fyodor Dostoyevsky, or, well I can't think of a great film writer at the moment, Coen Brothers I guess. Though mentioning them side by side with Dostoyevsky is a bit of a disservice to him because he's arguably the most important writer in the past 200 years.

 

The point remains, gaming doesn't have the same draw as being an author, or writing films. Both will get you much more recognition than being a games writer, games still aren't a respected medium, and an Oscar or Nobel Prize in literature will always look better on your mantel than an IGN player's choice award.

 

Also there's the issue of money. While I'm sure Gaider isn't struggling, it's safe to assume had he been lead writer on a number of big name movies he'd be making substantially more money than what he makes at Bioware. Of course you also live pay check to pay check writing films, so there's a certain level of comfort DG has over that, being a full time employee is much easier on your stress level than freelance I'd imagine, though I've never worked in a freelance type situation.

I...don't know.

 

Indeed, the ME trilogy embodied a trend towards crafting stories with blockbuster-like mainstream appeal. It has a few interesting elements, but also everything I don't like in blockbusters, including a protagonist of less than average intelligence (as of ME3), appeal to emotion at the expense of intellect and an (original) ending that appeals to a traditionalist mindset and people who aren't invested in the setting.

 

However, DA has not been part of that trend so far. DAO was old-school and DA2 was experimental in its storytelling. I'm not sure what to expect in DAI, but even it will feature elements I dislike, I expect to be able to roleplay my way out of thematic messages I detest, and at this time, I don't think we'll have a canonically stupid protagonist again. Unless we so choose, that is.

 

In general, it is my impression that the way Bioware designed their stories changed a great deal at the time when they sold their souls were acquired by EA, as if they had to learn new tools of the trade. DAO is the last of the old world, ME2 the first of the new one. At this point, I'm wondering if good stories can be told under the new paradigm, whatever it is. I guess we'll learn with DAI. 

 

Edit:

DA2 had a good story, but it was experimental. I take it that means that experiments are still being made under the new paradigm here and there. it's just unfortunate that DA2 was riddled by so many other problems that players' experience of the story suffered from it.

[berrieh]

A TES game is never about the story. I have no idea how there are people who still don't get that.

It's about exploration and freedom and immersing yourself in a huge, open world.

And then there are side quest lines.

And honestly, every one of them (Brotherhood, TG, College, etc.) had better characters and better writing than DA2.

 

I thought DA2 was one of the most interesting stories in video games.  It used a wider array of narrative techniques and had a stronger, cohesive narrative than anything in Skyrim does. I love Skyrim, but I find the characters unmemorable in Skyrim and the story laughable at most parts. The only questline that had a potentially decent story was the Brotherhood, and DA2 had sidequests better than that, let alone the excellent main story. 

 

I *liked* the companions less in DA2 than in DAO but I thought they were far better written and seemed more like their own people. None of the characters in Skyrim seemed like people to me. I couldn't delve into their complex pasts and motivations. I couldn't deeply analyze them. Unlike the mages/templars, where I can see both sides of a necessarily complex situation, the Civil War in Skyrim was a joke. Both sides were written with very little depth or internal motivation, and there were not nuanced characters on both sides but rather simply two party lines. Even someone like the Jarl of Whiterun who was in the middle was not given a complex view on the situation you could analyze - he just kind of wanted to be left alone, it seemed.

 

This is not to denigrate Skyrim because character depth is not what the game was designed to do, nor was narrative consistency. As you say, it is not about the story.

 

However, DA2 has an excellent story and great characters. It had flaws and it told a more personal story that may not have appealed to some who prefer to save the world from a Big Bad, but I think it definitely surpasses any Bethesda game and, frankly, I think it's a better story than DA:O (which is a simpler, much more traditional story - a good, satisfying one, but not particularly fresh). 

[Ieldra]

@berrieh:

I agree that DA2 had one of the most interesting stories in video games, but I don't agree about the companions. They were much more recognizably "of a type" than DAO's ever were. DAO's came across as real people to me, DA2's as incarnations of certain tropes. Both were far better than anything Skyrim ever did, but I don't blame Skyrim for that since it was made with different goals.

[dlux]

A TES game is never about the story. I have no idea how there are people who still don't get that.

A game doesn't have to have a good story to be good. The problem with Skyrim is that the world is full of badly designed and boring content as well as level scaled enemies and items. The most interesting thing to find in that game is the fresh cabbages and tomatoes in ancient crypts. 

[berrieh]

@berrieh:

I agree that DA2 had one of the most interesting stories in video games, but I don't agree about the companions. They were much more recognizably "of a type" than DAO's ever were. DAO's came across as real people to me, DA2's as incarnations of certain tropes. Both were far better than anything Skyrim ever did, but I don't blame Skyrim for that since it was made with different goals.

 

I don't think tropes are a bad thing per se. 

 

The motherly wise woman.

The devious witch. 

The lowborn prince. 

The devilish assassin. 

The drunkard warrior. 

The honorable outsider. 

The dark lord clouded by ambition. 

 

I mean, those are fairy tale classics there. I think DA:O did some nice spins. But I don't think they were without tropes. They did a nice bit of world-building that made the characters feel whole, and I agree the characters weren't only that, but I personally felt the tropes more in DAO because of the story type. 

 

As to DA2, I see tropes for sure, but I also think characters like Bethany, Merril and Varric don't fit into neat boxes and even characters who do, like Aveline, surprise you and show you other sides (like getting Aveline a new husband - that is not a quest I expected). I do think the rivalry/friendship system made the characters appear less whole than they were if you ignore it. I'm glad that system is gone. 

[PinkysPain]

Open world and storytelling are mostly orthogonal, for an example of a game doing it better take RDR.

 

Skyrim flaws and all was a quintessential TES game though. If it disappointed you, you had not been paying attention.

[Heimdall]

As to DA2, I see tropes for sure, but I also think characters like Bethany, Merril and Varric don't fit into neat boxes and even characters who do, like Aveline, surprise you and show you other sides (like getting Aveline a new husband - that is not a quest I expected). I do think the rivalry/friendship system made the characters appear less whole than they were if you ignore it. I'm glad that system is gone.

I agree that the friendship/rivalry system was very flawed, but not without its bright points. Merril's rivalry romance is potentially brilliant if you Roleplay it the right way (Mostly because of a decision in Act 2 that reverses most of her friendship into rivalry if you refuse to give her the Arulinholm (sp?) for her own good)

[JeffZero]

I'm not qualified to make a judgment as I don't spend much time looking for them. But I will say that they're the only types of games (story-driven) I enjoy outside of Smash and such with friends, and I only play video games about three hours a week these days, so on the surface, that's fairly telling.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's how every Elder Scrolls game is. It's kind of a household staple for TES. The pros are the exploration, the ability to physically go everywhere, and the ability to mod it to death. The characters have always been wooden, and Skyrim was one of the first games in TES series that hired a few more voice actors for NPC's. Lol you should see the voice actors in Oblivion or Morrowind.

In a way, I kind of high five Bethesda for not giving a flying rat turd and just clinging to their trusty old formula. Their goal isn't to tell a story as much as it is to puzzle solve, craft, and level up.

I love all varieties of video games. TES has a special place in my heart with its "zero f*cks given" attitude about change.

This (bolded). This, this, this, a thousand times THIS.

Has the TES formula changed over the years? Of course. However, as much as the Morrowind purists would love to bash Oblivion and Skyrim, they definitely are the same types of game. You have a strong idea what gameplay you are going to get with each iteration of the series.

The DA series? No, you don't. Sure, you'll get lots of dialogue with companions, but other than that? It's a toss up. Party based combat or combat that favors controlling a single character? A story that lets the player feel in contr or a linear plot that heads the same direction without deviation? Mechanics that support tactical play or that favor action? Skills that can be used outside of combat or a variation of a Diablo skill tree? Attributes that can create a different type of character or set variables that allow for no flexibility? Ability to roleplay many different character types, mindsets and personalities, or mix and match three set personality types?

For every one of these questions and more, the player does not know for DA. And each iteration of the game has taken drastic steps in one direction to the next. The changes seen in the TES games were gradual, pushing the formula slightly in directions with each game, watching a progressive evolution instead of painfully bewildering redirection every game.

Bioware needs to figure out what they want the DA series to be and stick with it. Sure, the series can grow and change depending on changes in design philosophy, etc., but do so in baby steps. Skyrim is the result of an evolution of six games and nearly twenty years of relative consistency. Dragon Age has been the result of a hodge podge of design decisions, each one of which is part of the studio's artistic vision one day, then being completely revamped the next.

Throwing out everything and re-inventing wheel every game is a reckless way to build brand identity, let alone polish features.

[budzai]

I thought DA2 was one of the most interesting stories in video games.  It used a wider array of narrative techniques and had a stronger, cohesive narrative than anything in Skyrim does. I love Skyrim, but I find the characters unmemorable in Skyrim and the story laughable at most parts. The only questline that had a potentially decent story was the Brotherhood, and DA2 had sidequests better than that, let alone the excellent main story. 

 

I *liked* the companions less in DA2 than in DAO but I thought they were far better written and seemed more like their own people. None of the characters in Skyrim seemed like people to me. I couldn't delve into their complex pasts and motivations. I couldn't deeply analyze them. Unlike the mages/templars, where I can see both sides of a necessarily complex situation, the Civil War in Skyrim was a joke. Both sides were written with very little depth or internal motivation, and there were not nuanced characters on both sides but rather simply two party lines. Even someone like the Jarl of Whiterun who was in the middle was not given a complex view on the situation you could analyze - he just kind of wanted to be left alone, it seemed.

 

This is not to denigrate Skyrim because character depth is not what the game was designed to do, nor was narrative consistency. As you say, it is not about the story.

 

However, DA2 has an excellent story and great characters. It had flaws and it told a more personal story that may not have appealed to some who prefer to save the world from a Big Bad, but I think it definitely surpasses any Bethesda game and, frankly, I think it's a better story than DA:O (which is a simpler, much more traditional story - a good, satisfying one, but not particularly fresh). 

well that is you opinion... mine is that da2 had a boring story with boring characters... I think Kotor 2 made the not save the world from a big bad story right... your character there was both a special one and an average one there (which is amazing imo even it is sound stupid first). she was special cuz she was a wound in the force which are rare (but it isn't a positive special thing which also great and never seen something similar in any other game) but she was an average jedi she wasn't a prodigy like Revan

[umadcommander]

However, DA2 has an excellent story and great characters. It had flaws and it told a more personal story that may not have appealed to some who prefer to save the world from a Big Bad,

pfft, you clearly misunderstood its problem, it wasnt that there was no great evil, its that it made little sense and was heavily on rails

 

and the characters, i liked 1 maybe 2 at a push, even hawke annoyed me i dont want to have to play a dopey moron just to advance the plot

[MrMrPendragon]

RPGs with memorable stories are the best.

 

No one's going to remember how this one x set of spells or swords, or how many areas does one game have. People are going to remember the characters that you liked or disliked. People are going to remember how the story went.

 

The story aspect of an RPG is the one I appreciate the most.

 

Having said that, I want good, unique stories. Not "protagonist as a force of nature stories" because that's all been done before - "you are the last ______ , you are an incarnation of _____, you alone can gather ____ to defeat ____, you have _____ and you alone can stop ______" Every RPG has that.

[umadcommander]

*sigh* morrowind and KOTOR seem like ever such a long time ago now....

 

jeremy soule is the man

[Heimdall]

This (bolded). This, this, this, a thousand times THIS.
Has the TES formula changed over the years? Of course. However, as much as the Morrowind purists would love to bash Oblivion and Skyrim, they definitely are the same types of game. You have a strong idea what gameplay you are going to get with each iteration of the series.
The DA series? No, you don't. Sure, you'll get lots of dialogue with companions, but other than that? It's a toss up. Party based combat or combat that favors controlling a single character? A story that lets the player feel in contr or a linear plot that heads the same direction without deviation? Mechanics that support tactical play or that favor action? Skills that can be used outside of combat or a variation of a Diablo skill tree? Attributes that can create a different type of character or set variables that allow for no flexibility? Ability to roleplay many different character types, mindsets and personalities, or mix and match three set personality types?
For every one of these questions and more, the player does not know for DA. And each iteration of the game has taken drastic steps in one direction to the next. The changes seen in the TES games were gradual, pushing the formula slightly in directions with each game, watching a progressive evolution instead of painfully bewildering redirection every game.
Bioware needs to figure out what they want the DA series to be and stick with it. Sure, the series can grow and change depending on changes in design philosophy, etc., but do so in baby steps. Skyrim is the result of an evolution of six games and nearly twenty years of relative consistency. Dragon Age has been the result of a hodge podge of design decisions, each one of which is part of the studio's artistic vision one day, then being completely revamped the next.
Throwing out everything and re-inventing wheel every game is a reckless way to build brand identity, let alone polish features.

To be fair, they've only had two games, the second of which was essentially one big experiment (On several different levels, from development time to dialogue to story structure, even Laidlaw referred to it as highly experimental in a recent interview I read). And it should be said that some of the drastic changes, like the addition of a voiced protagonist, were direct results of feedback from fans and critics complaining that the Warden was a card board cutout disconnected from the world. Sequels of a good original that bomb completely or soar are common as the devs try to parse through all the diverse feedback and figure out a response (And I suspect getting hit with a release deadline that was less than they needed...)

I actually like that Bioware is so willing to experiment and change up its formula between installments. There are too many AAA series that are mostly stagnant. Perhaps they could stand to be a bit less drastic, but I haven't had a major problem so far. I hope the contrast of the two games and their reception helps them find a sweet spot.

[Fast Jimmy]

To be fair, they've only had two games, the second of which was essentially one big experiment (On several different levels, from development time to dialogue to story structure, even Laidlaw referred to it as highly experimental in a recent interview I read). And it should be said that some of the drastic changes, like the addition of a voiced protagonist, were direct results of feedback from fans and critics complaining that the Warden was a card board cutout disconnected from the world. Sequels of a good original that bomb completely or soar are common as the devs try to parse through all the diverse feedback and figure out a response (And I suspect getting hit with a release deadline that was less than they needed...)

I actually like that Bioware is so willing to experiment and change up its formula between installments. There are too many AAA series that are mostly stagnant. Perhaps they could stand to be a bit less drastic, but I haven't had a major problem so far. I hope the contrast of the two games and their reception helps them find a sweet spot.

it still boils down to Bioware not having an identity. They don't know whether they want to tell a deeply intricate story or let the player feel they can control their own narrative. They don't know whether they want their experience to feel flashy and responsive like an action game or methodical and slow like a tactical one. They don't know if they want to offer loads of customization with races and classes or keep the player on a relative safe path with set attributes and iconic appearances.

Even if the answer with DA:I is a perfectly happy medium between all of those (and many other) items, it still will be a constantly moving brand image. What if the new WoW expansion is the most successful of all time - will DA4 then become an MMO? What if an indie studio with the most classic of RPG elements and next to no cinematic quality winds up the best selling RPG of the year - will the next DA remove the voiced main character? What if DA's MP is more successful than the base game - will they abandon the SP campaign and focus on a story-heavy MP, like an RPG Titanfall?

The complaint isn't that Bioware is always wrong... the complaint is that Bioware doesn't even know what Bioware stands for. Let alone what fans should expect from a DA game.