41 réponses à ce sujet

[helpthisguyplease]

 You know the one were we have a great evil and we gather allies to help us defeat it. Also when they did a different one in DA2 we hated it. So what is it so attractive at this formula?

[full_metal_zombie]

It's called the hero's journey. It's a way of story telling that has existed basically since story telling was a thing. Legends of Greek heroes, Norse legends, Christianity. You name it. Jesus follows the hero's journey. Hercules. Journey to the West. Luke Skywalker. Neo. It's a form of epic storytelling that fits well into a fantasy setting, and is ingrained in our myths and legends from antiquity. It's a common trope, but one that serves so well that to mess with it in any way sort of throws a wrench into the entire works of mythical storytelling. There's even examples of the hero's journey in fantasy storytelling that tries to separate itself from tropes, such as Bran's story in Game of Thrones.

[Lamppost In Winter]

 I liked that DA2 went away from the plot formula, but it didn't feel comfortable in its shoes; mainly in its attempt to paint moral grey areas. Hawke was an attempt to deconstruct the standard all-powerful fixer Bioware hero in that he/she failed to stop what was coming, but was very much still treated like a hero and becomes a legend in the way Shepard did regardless. That could be part of the deconstruction, but in their attempts to hide the fact that Hawke is not a typical hero, he/she just comes off as a badly written hero.
 DA2 presented itself as offering moral greys; mages vs Templars and Chantry vs Qunari. The problem was that the writers very obviously pushed you to side with mages and be sympathetic to the Qunari. Your character has much more ties to magic than the Templars, and Meredith is presented as more obviously villainous then Orsino. You can see why; everybody loves an underdog, but it tries to make both sides seem to be on equal moral standing but is sheepish about supporting the Templars.

[metatheurgist]

The original D&D specifically stated it was about "Heroic Fantasy". What's more heroic and fantastic than defeating a great evil? That said, Mask of the Betrayer was about correcting a great injustice and I enjoyed that thoroughly.

[Lennard Testarossa]

 You know the one were we have a great evil and we gather allies to help us defeat it. Also when they did a different one in DA2 we hated it. So what is it so attractive at this formula?

 

I don't like it. I liked the direction they took with the plot in DA 2 (though the actual implementation was clearly lacking) and am at best indifferent to the plot of DA:O.

[Gill Kaiser]

I don't care about the great evil plotline, I care about characters and their relationships with each other in an interesting world that reacts to my decisions. You could put those elements in a story about a road trip to return a toothbrush to the Divine and I would be just as happy.

[Gothfather]

DA2's story was poor because it couldn't be told properly because the game was so rushed. You can't develop a story driven, fully voiced RPG in 18 months. The elements that would have tied the DA2 story and fleshed out Kirkwall were trimmed to the bone. The idea of DA2 was great but it simply required another year or 2 of development time.

 

Moral of the story? Any company that rushes a product will get a subpar product.

[Panda]

I liked DA2's story more than DAO's since I felt that it was less generic. DAO had it's moments created by nice world it had and with characters but story itself was nothing new in terms of: getting more powerful and getting allies to beat bad guy (who was monster you couldn't even sympathize with) and save the world. DAI seems to go into same line but I guess I will like it strategic part of building army and hopefully conflicts of mage-templar war and civil war will be more intresting.

[RiverHB]

My favorite part of the formula aside from the epic story is control I have over the party members.  Having control over an entire group's leveling and creating synergy within the party is infinitely re-playable.  

[Auztin]

It's a cliche?I don't know.I much prefer DA2 opposed to Origins.

[Mightylink]

Its the way bioware does it that I like really much, yes its the same thing we've seen a million times before but what bioware does new is add tons of choices and customization to the mix, it really makes the story a lot more interesting when you have more control over it instead of knowing that certain characters are ganna die or leave you no matter what you do.

[Lady Nuggins]

There is a great analysis of the plot of DA2 more closely fitting the storytelling pattern of the Heroine's Journey than the Hero's Journey, which I think is one reason why it turned a lot of people off.  It doesn't have the sweeping epic feel and satisfying heroic climax that we've come to expect.  The hero does all the right things--gathering allies and making tough choices--but it's never really enough.  The adversaries are all hidden until it's almost too late to stop them, the obstacles to overcome are unclear, and opportunities to race in and pummel things to save the day heroically are remarkably limited.  Even when opportunity to fight your way to victory does come up (the murderer, the Arishok, Merideth), the context isn't that you're rushing in to save the day, it's that you've tried and tried to fix things before it could get to this point, and now it's all just gone to hell.  The fighting then becomes less about heroism and more about damage control.  

 

But, the different narrative style also came in addition to the player being trapped within the narrow confines of the limited setting.  I don't just mean the recycled maps, but the fact that we spend the entire game in Kirkwall, walking the same streets over and over, and Kirkwall itself is a very confined and oppressive-feeling city.  You spend the whole game feeling trapped and like you can never get ahead, even when you're the so-called Champion of Kirkwall.  

 

Personally, I think it's a shame that DA2 had so many other problems from being a rushed game, because I think it's an interesting way of telling a story that doesn't come up as often in video games.  

 

A "gather forces and fight ultimate evil" story is appealing because it's simply very satisfying to have a clear hero and a clear adversary and clear obstacles to fight your way over.  It's the idea that even when the entire world is falling apart, you can gather the necessary strength to take control of the situation and defeat everything in your path. 

[MillKill]

 You know the one were we have a great evil and we gather allies to help us defeat it. Also when they did a different one in DA2 we hated it. So what is it so attractive at this formula?

 

What do you mean "we"? I hate stories about saving the world from evil monsters and love DA2's story.

[helpthisguyplease]

What do you mean "we"? I hate stories about saving the world from evil monsters and love DA2's story.

I mean the majority is we. You know majority decides for everybody:)

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

I think its the tiny specks of Crack they mix in to the disks personaly.

[JCFR]

I don't think, it's this formula-thing you call, which made Origins a better game.

Story and main-plot-goals aside, Origin was in almost any aspect superior.  The gameplay was not this overpaced wannabe-action-type like in DA2, where i loked more at the cooldown-timer for skills (like in traditional MMOs) than at the actual fighting and battle-situation. Tactic was not needed anymore in the sequel. 

The customisation was bare minimum and the RPG-system was extremely streamlined. No off-battle-abilities anymore, no pocket-picking or, alchemy or crafting whatsoever.

 

About the story: i actual liked the DA2-plot a bit more. Yeah, it lacked in many ways but in it's core the story wasn't about some selfless Hero who does anything to defeat the evil (this black vs. white thing). I could sympathize with Hawkes motivation to protect his/her family much more and also with his/her whish, to rise up and get out of the slums.  It was also kinda fresh and new for me, to see how he/she stumbled into things way over his/her head.

What it lacked was weight and substance. You did not feel, as if your choices had influence in the world (like all the parts of Kirkwall always stood the same and did not change the slightiest eventhough the plot enfolded about ten years).

Even the NPC-presentation was a bit better than in Origins  - eventhough they were still mostly walking, talking stereotypes and theME-like dialogue-system with it's own weaknesses did not help.

The problem is just DAO is an RPG (eventhough it's RPg-system is minimal and not as deep as AD&D or The black eye) where Da2 feels like a wannabe-RPG with even less features.

 

Look, Origins was long time promised as the heir to BG2 (which i want to mention, it wasn't). It may`ve fallen short of it's own promise but Origins was nevertheless a damn good Party-RPG with tactical combat.

DA2 is a streamlined pretender withe bare minimum RPG-elements, made for mainstream, to sqeeze the most out of it. And that is the main issue! To streamline something, you have to get rid of some features, which make the product harder to grasp, play or like for a wider field of consumers... but by doing so it also loses parts, which make the product interesting... and that is sadly a problem with every multi-platform-title lately. 

[Tinu]

While I tend to like these epic stories, the characters and sub plots take it to the next level. This is where Bioware shines the most. 

[SmilesJA]

I liked Origins more for the characters, combat and lore rather than the story. DA2's story was great as I felt it was smaller more personal tale, and was a refreshing break from the "save the world" plot that Bioware kept churning out.

[herkles]

There is a great analysis of the plot of DA2 more closely fitting the storytelling pattern of the Heroine's Journey than the Hero's Journey, which I think is one reason why it turned a lot of people off.  It doesn't have the sweeping epic feel and satisfying heroic climax that we've come to expect.  The hero does all the right things--gathering allies and making tough choices--but it's never really enough.  The adversaries are all hidden until it's almost too late to stop them, the obstacles to overcome are unclear, and opportunities to race in and pummel things to save the day heroically are remarkably limited.  Even when opportunity to fight your way to victory does come up (the murderer, the Arishok, Merideth), the context isn't that you're rushing in to save the day, it's that you've tried and tried to fix things before it could get to this point, and now it's all just gone to hell.  The fighting then becomes less about heroism and more about damage control.  

 

But, the different narrative style also came in addition to the player being trapped within the narrow confines of the limited setting.  I don't just mean the recycled maps, but the fact that we spend the entire game in Kirkwall, walking the same streets over and over, and Kirkwall itself is a very confined and oppressive-feeling city.  You spend the whole game feeling trapped and like you can never get ahead, even when you're the so-called Champion of Kirkwall.  

 

Personally, I think it's a shame that DA2 had so many other problems from being a rushed game, because I think it's an interesting way of telling a story that doesn't come up as often in video games.  

 

A "gather forces and fight ultimate evil" story is appealing because it's simply very satisfying to have a clear hero and a clear adversary and clear obstacles to fight your way over.  It's the idea that even when the entire world is falling apart, you can gather the necessary strength to take control of the situation and defeat everything in your path. 

thanks for that. I never even heard of the heroine's journey before you mentioned. 

[Taleroth]

We didn't hate DA2 for deviating, we hated DA2 for being on rails that lead directly into a mountainside.

 

I don't mind the occasional railroading, but the rails need to lead somewhere positive, not to disaster.

[Taleroth]

Who do you mean by "we"? Some of us do like DA2.  I think it's split down the middle, among players.

 

edit: I guess this applies to the OP as well.

We meaning the first person plural, that is me and at least one other person. I'm pretty sure that's true for all english dialects.

[Solid_Altair]

As someone else said (kinda), it starts with gameplay. The player must control a character who is joined by other characters, in party-based combat. Perhaps the hero's journey is just convenience for this gameplay formula.