183 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Kesica wrote...

Just once wouldnt it be fun to play a evil character helping something succeed.

KotOR and KotOR 2.
BG2.
All the GTA's.
Thief series.
Assassin's Creed series.
Syndicate.
Those are just off the top of my head - games you might want to try because you can either be evil or can ONLY be evil.

As for wouldn't it be fun?
My answer is, for me, no.

I played evil in BG2 once and ended up just being selfish and supporting an evil god and not taking quests to help people, but I didn't do anything "evil" unless refusing to help or asking for more money is "evil."
In KotOR I played evil, as evil as I could, in my second playthrough.  Let me just say that what I had Z do to Mission haunts me to this day.
In Mass Effect, playing my Renegade playthrough, I fully intended to kill the rachni queen.  I sat with my finger on the button to push "kill her" for like five minutes of agony before I switched to "let her go" and decided, then and there, I wasn't going to "play evil" just to see all that there was in a game.  Somethings, while I'm glad they are there for those who want to experience them, are just not fun for me to experience.

[Monica21]

lummoxybez wrote...

I don't think Kesica was demanding that Bioware cater to the evil-overlord players, rather that there should be more choices to take the less-saintly path.
In BG1/2 you could become the God of Murder if you wished, which is obviously the evil route. However, most players would take the good path and not give the jerk responses to every conversation with NPCs.
With DA, although the game box and every piece of advertising or review ever had "HERO" written all over it, I did assume that there would be some more distasteful choices to be made rather than playing a straight goody-two-shoes. Maybe I haven't played enough of the game yet to make an unbiased decision. We'll see.

Yes, there are quite a lot of non goody-two-shoes decisions you can make. One thing to remember though, is that there isn't really an good or evil. You're a Grey Warden so your job is to do what you need in order to prevent the Blight. (Even as an evil character, the Blight isn't beneficial to you.) Some methods of achieving your goals are more expedient than others.

[David Gaider]

Kesica wrote...
I noticed my Me 2 has shipped and looks like sheppard will be saving the galaxy again, Look, Bw designs great games but this storyline of being the only person who can save everyone is just getting old.

We billed Dragon Age as a "dark heroic fantasy" for a reason. You are a hero... an anti-hero, if you wish, but still a hero. If you're looking to play a villain, you are looking in the wrong place.

[Poleaxe]

Try The Witcher.



Fantastic game which I'm playing right now. It's dark/adult in a manner that BW has never achieved. The writing is better (with all due respect), yet you don't feel like you're on rails to the extent that you do in DA. Also, as BW has gotten bigger their games have become more accomidating of the Lowest Common Denominator. The Witcher is oldschool in that it doesn't assume you're a moron.

[BeljoraDien]

But you CAN be a complete ass in Dragon Age... but at the end of the day, the premise of the entire game is that you're a Grey Warden... I don't think you're given the choice of joining forces with the darkspawn since they'd probably rather hang you from a tree than have you along.
I know there's an exception, but from your character's point of view that's definitely the case... so I would say if you're playing a psychotic evil man/woman whose only purpose is to help the darkspawn take over Ferelden, you should probably rethink your character and add a little depth to that character's thoughts.

Anyway, I loved BG, and when I played it it seemed like there was no story at all... frankly, though, I was just a kid at the time, and wasn't picking up on the kind of patterns I find in RPGs now. I think if I probably replayed it today I would see there are certain plot lines I just have to do... but good for the BG developers for disguising that fact so well. Dragon Age will get a lot less linear soon, and even if it doesn't turn out the way you remember BG, I should think you should be happy they are attempting to bring RPGs back to that direction.
Now in DA's defense, I honestly don't remember BG's choices having much affect on my ending. DA really takes into account all the choices you made throughout the game, and not just for one quest line. So it very well may be better than BG overall... or, if not, I think it's atleast in the same league.

Edit:When I say I don't remember BG having a 'story' I really mean a 'linear story' like a book; don't take it that I didn't think BG had a good plot.

Modifié par BeljoraDien, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:28 .

[BroBear Berbil]

David Gaider wrote...

Kesica wrote...
I noticed my Me 2 has shipped and looks like sheppard will be saving the galaxy again, Look, Bw designs great games but this storyline of being the only person who can save everyone is just getting old.

We billed Dragon Age as a "dark heroic fantasy" for a reason. You are a hero... an anti-hero, if you wish, but still a hero. If you're looking to play a villain, you are looking in the wrong place.

But the games do seem to follow a basic formula. In every BioWare game you are the center of attention and the one hope for the Galaxy/Kingdom/Empire etc. You're accompanied by a group of henchmen to assist you and to have sex with you. Not that I'm complaining about the formula. Most games place the burden of someone's salvation on the main character because it's just heroic.

In fact the only game I can think of that had the main character take a back seat in importance to somebody else is Final Fantasy X.

Anyway, sorry to spin off-topic.

Modifié par OnionXI, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:34 .

[tmelange]

Abriael_CG wrote...

In Oblivion you could wander whenever you wanted in an edxtremely small "empire" that you could cross in half an hour on horseback (totally killing any sense of realism) and made mostly of empty forest and recycled assets (the caves were all the same, the aileyd ruins were all the same, the keeps were all the same, you get the gist of it). On top of it, the price to pay for that "fake" freedom, was that the story sucked, majorly, and the characters were as flat as a frying pan, as per Bethesda standards.

Personally, I prefer a game with an awesome story and characters like DA:O, and that lacks the roaming freedom, but that it's set in a world where every environment is characterized and refined to be unique and great looking, and you can't spit from a border of the realm and hit a soldier on the opposite border.

Also as someone already told you thinking that "every choice will have a consequence" means "every choice is allowed" seem to show some serious understanding problems.

x2. I don't know how you can compare DA to Oblivion. I've only played through Oblivion once (an ungodly number of hours), and by the time I finished I was so thoroughly bored, and cared not one iota about any other character or thing in the game, that I can't even remember to this day what the main storyline was about. Though, certainly, Oblivion had its high points, and, certainly, DA could benefit in some respects by a study of the way some things like the guild sidequests were handled, I'd GLADLY give up wandering aimlessly through duststorms, falling off cliffs and swimming in water to have a story and companions that I have to re-visit again and again and that I care about as much as I do the characters in a favorite and well-loved book.

I respect the OP's opinion but I also respectfully think the OP is nuts.

[David Gaider]

OnionXI wrote...
But the games do seem to follow a basic formula. In every BioWare game you are the center of attention and the one hope for the Galaxy/Kingdom/Empire etc. You're accompanied by a group of henchmen to assist you and to have sex with you. Not that I'm complaining about the formula. Most games place the burden of someone's salvation on the main character because it's just heroic.

In fact the only game I can think of that had the main character take a back seat in importance to somebody else is Final Fantasy X.

Anyway, sorry to spin off-topic.

The player is the heroic protaganist, and what you speak of is essentially the Hero's Journey if you want to break it down into a generalization. Someone might not be interested in playing a hero (or even an anti-hero), and that's fine I think, but we're not going to change the entire nature of the games we make to satisfy the jaded who value novelty above all else. It's fine to request, if you wish, but expressing disappointment that an apple orchard doesn't make oranges because you're so tired of apples now doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

But that's my two cents, anyway. I'm sure everyone has their own ideas of what we should/should not be making.

[MoSa09]

lummoxybez wrote...

I don't think Kesica was demanding that Bioware cater to the evil-overlord players, rather that there should be more choices to take the less-saintly path.
In BG1/2 you could become the God of Murder if you wished, which is obviously the evil route. However, most players would take the good path and not give the jerk responses to every conversation with NPCs.
With DA, although the game box and every piece of advertising or review ever had "HERO" written all over it, I did assume that there would be some more distasteful choices to be made rather than playing a straight goody-two-shoes. Maybe I haven't played enough of the game yet to make an unbiased decision. We'll see.

Let me get this straight: you're complaining about the lack of free will in your game while you probably finished like 10% of the whole game, not yet even the extended tutorial? Plz don't take this as an offense, but why not play the game through one time or get at least close to the end before complaining about such things as a lack of freedom? If you would complain about graphics (not that i would, i like them), but that is something you see in the first few minutes, but what the gameplay has to offer or not to offer can only be experienced and judged if you really play the game.

And as you said, BG 2 indeed offered the chance to be evil. But if i remember correctly, it offered it in the end, and then it was done. DAO is not yet done, so maybe those who like it will get their choice to turn their "hero" really evil when the story of DAO comes to an end.
And yes, i admit it publicly, i like playing the hero, so i like DAO and ME, and i'm equally looking forward to Awakeming and ME 2 where i can save the world/galaxy again.
Call me boring, i can stand it

Modifié par MoSa09, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:04 .

[BeljoraDien]

OnionXI wrote...
But the games do seem to follow a basic formula. In every BioWare game you are the center of attention and the one hope for the Galaxy/Kingdom/Empire etc. You're accompanied by a group of henchmen to assist you and to have sex with you. Not that I'm complaining about the formula. Most games place the burden of someone's salvation on the main character because it's just heroic.

In fact the only game I can think of that had the main character take a back seat in importance to somebody else is Final Fantasy X.

In Final Fantasy X your presence still decides the fate of the world. Atleast, I think so, I couldn't finish that game. That's definitely not a game I would hold up as giving the player choice though.
If the thought is that the story is too 'grand' in that the fate of the country rests on your actions, leading you to stop evil in one epic final battle, then I would actually agree with that. Though, that's every RPG. If the the thought is that you should be given the choice to play a malevolent tyrant, then I can't agree with that.
As for the first point though, look how difficult it is to give players 'motivation' as it is. There are countless posts of people saying they didn't want their character to be a Grey Warden, or that once they became one they just want to run away. So here we have a plot where an entire country will be destroyed if you flee and people are still thinking "What exactly is motivating my stupid, lazy, apathetic character?" Now just imagine if the plot was just to save your sister or something.
Really makes me wonder what people think of criminals in real life. If a thief was tasked with something great like this, wouldn't he/she atleast consider that he/she can finally make a difference in the world? I don't think anyone but the insane would just shrug off that responsibility. Now a person who was a thief his/her entire life will probably do things differently from a war hero or some such, but I can't imagine anyone being so shallow as to run away at that point, or worse, helping the destruction.

Modifié par BeljoraDien, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:52 .

[Peeker2009]

Everyone has different expectations of an rpg game, notwithstanding what is written on the box. The way a player can achieve hero status might be more or less open-ended, or largely pre-determined. Each company is handling it differently, which is fine. but I am still looking for the "perfect" combination of the two.

Someone mentioned the similarity to the "choose your own adventure" books - those things never enticed me at all. When they first came out, I had already experienced the thrilling chaos of PnP AD&D, and those books just seemed cheesey to say the least. I want the feeling of a certain amount of freedom, even if it is just an illusion, when gaming. The closer a game gets to "choose your own adventure" style, the more I'm tempted to stop playing and read a good book instead. I do read quite a lot anyway.

It seems we now have split in the genre - sand-box or story driven. Bathsheda and Bioware are often brought up as respective examples. I would like to include the Gothic series for comparison also. For all it's flaws (and it has quite a few), I do admire the way they tried to combine the two play styles. It is an open world with almost no transitions, the foes aren't leveled at all (adding some realism imo), and it allows you to side with whomever you like. You can conquer the land or save it, and neither choice is catered for more than the other.

Tbh, I don't even like having pre-made companions as much as others seem to. I really get a kick out of making a whole party. I am quite happy for much of the role-playing element to be the story I make up in my head as I go along, as I experienced in PnP and in some early crpgs.

I don't even particularly want my emotional buttons to be pushed. The only time people cried in PnP from my experience was when the character someone had built for years died (a failed ressurection) or when there were personality clashes between the players. Other than that, there was a hell of a lot of terrific over-acting and laughter. I wasn't unmoved by the story in DA:O by any means, but was I in tears at the end? Nope. Am I hardened? Probably to some extent, but a beautiful sad song can still bring tears to my eyes.

Yep I admit it: I'm a dinosaur gamer wanting to recapture the past

Modifié par Peeker2009, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:55 .

[Abriael_CG]

Poleaxe wrote...

Try The Witcher.

Fantastic game which I'm playing right now. It's dark/adult in a manner that BW has never achieved. The writing is better (with all due respect), yet you don't feel like you're on rails to the extent that you do in DA. Also, as BW has gotten bigger their games have become more accomidating of the Lowest Common Denominator. The Witcher is oldschool in that it doesn't assume you're a moron.

I disagree on all points. The witcher is a good game, but the writing doesn't even come close to DA:O, like basically no other element of the game.
Allowing the player to play a chaotic dtupid character isn't a necessary part of creating a "dark fantasy" world. Quite the contrary, since in most "dark fantasy" novels the hero or hanti-hero comes out as quite good, expecially compared to the rest of the world.
DA:O is one of the games released lately if you're put on rails the least, given that your choices change the outcome of the game, and several elements in betwen much more than what The Witcher allows.

Finally, catering to the vast majority of gamers doesn't mean catering to the "lowest common denominator" (which is quite insulting by the way). personally, I'd dare say that the vocal minority of evil wannabe that costantly demand games to be tailored to their own tastes  while disregarding the majority might be nearer to the meaning of "low".

In any case, great response David. I'm glad to see that you guys like to mantain your creative independence. Personally, I didn't play (or read) a story better than the DA:O one since the Elenium/Tamuli saga by David Eddings. Looking foward to what's going to come next.

[Pious_Augustus]

I agree, one thing about Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Mass Effect you can see the difference in the choices. It's amazing how many powerful and additional scenes there were depending on the choice you made. I was thinking about this earlier actually.

[Abriael_CG]

Pious_Augustus wrote...

I agree, one thing about Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire and Mass Effect you can see the difference in the choices. It's amazing how many powerful and additional scenes there were depending on the choice you made.

Which is exactly what happens with DA:O, scratch that, it actually happens more in DA:O, with the additional fact that in DA:O the choices aren't always clearly "good" or "evil" like in ME (that is almost ridiculous in how it simply tells you "click up for good, click down for bad"), but there are many grey areas and choices that might be good, bad, in-between or plain unpredictable.

[Macadami]

Did i find DA:O a fun game? Yes. Do i think it's a spiritual successor to BG2? No.



It lacks complexity, challenge, and variety...all of which they seem to be working on via DLC's and already made expansions....for a price obviously.



I think getting as much from a game as the RPG's of old is just never going to happen again. They provide a taste, and charge you for a bite now days...but you really can't blame them for making money :/



I would've loved to have 5 races, 10 classes, and 30 specializations and a difficulty 2 notches above the current nightmare with a loot table that's reminiscence of Diablo 2 and maybe after spending $200 it will be a possibility.

[BroBear Berbil]

BeljoraDien wrote...

OnionXI wrote...
But the games do seem to follow a basic formula. In every BioWare game you are the center of attention and the one hope for the Galaxy/Kingdom/Empire etc. You're accompanied by a group of henchmen to assist you and to have sex with you. Not that I'm complaining about the formula. Most games place the burden of someone's salvation on the main character because it's just heroic.

In fact the only game I can think of that had the main character take a back seat in importance to somebody else is Final Fantasy X.

In Final Fantasy X your presence still decides the fate of the world. Atleast, I think so, I couldn't finish that game. That's definitely not a game I would hold up as giving the player choice though.

Right. This is what I mean. You still save the world but the focus and the savior of FFX is Yuna. Ultimately the game is all about getting her where she needs to go. I understand it'd be a challenge to pull off such a role in a game while maintaining the level of choice that BioWare games provide.

I'm not saying the games shouldn't funnel you towards a main objective; just that the focus of the story and the salvation of whatever place is in trouble need not be the player's character every time. I can see where what I'm saying could be confused since there's another point being made about playing villains by another poster.

To DA's credit I think it does break the mold a good deal whereas Mass Effect seems to adhere to the basic formula. Without posting spoilers there is one character in DA I almost feel less important than and in most of my playthroughs I have a great deal of loyalty to that character. Maybe it's just my personality but I find that to be pretty refreshing since I never like to be in the forefront.

Modifié par OnionXI, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:15 .

[Abriael_CG]

MerinTB wrote...
Assassin's Creed series.

Mmmh actually there's really nothing "evil" about assassin's creed. The ethos of the assassins ("Nothing is Real, Eveything is Permitted") is basically the same as that of the Grey Warden: "Do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission".
While Altair could have been seen as "kinda" in a grey area (definitely not evil, he simply doesn't have a visible alignment at the start, and steers towards good towards the end of the game), Desmond and Ezio are definitely good aligned. It's quite visible (and evident in the fact that you get desynced if you kill innocents).

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:19 .

[MrELB]

The topic's creator and I are at odds. 

While I certainly appreciate the appeal of a "do as you please" open world, looking for a computer game to deliver it is, to put it nicely, unwise.  I don't need to explain this at length — video games are wonderful in many ways; catering to the player's imagination isn't one of them.

In fact, video games thrive in a "closed" world.  A perfect example being a driving simulator.  You've got a track and a bunch of cars that go one way on it.  In such a world the PC can account for nearly all the variables it needs to and deliver an extremely satisfying, finely tuned, challenging experience.  

As you begin to remove such restrictions video games tend to go out of whack.  So-called "RPG elements" — allowing you to customize your own character — are attractive because they promise to let us play our own way and to define how our character approaches the world (usually combat).  But, as we all know, these elements also often significantly imbalance the game (Wait, that's waaaayyyyy overpowered!).  That's because the world can't adjust to the different combinations the game allows.  And exploits are often easy to find.

The topic's creator mentioned Oblivion.  An ambitious game, to be sure.  And it was impressive in a good many ways.  But the openendedness of it actually bothered me.  Too often it felt like I had no goal, no purpose, no reason to keep going or see what the next cave contained.  As the archetypal actor pleads, "What's my motivation!?!"

So, I say let the video game does what it does best (or, at least, well).  Give us pretty graphics and high production values.  Give us an involving story with amusing characters.  Give us tactical, visceral combat, as in a real-time strategy game.  And don't insult us with obviously limited gameplay masquerading as "nonlinear story"...what game developer really has the time to develop so much content that they can afford for us to pick and choose and enjoy tens of distinctly different game experiences?  None, that's how many. 

Realistically, would you want to spend time and money, blood and tears crafting an area or quest only one in ten players uncover and pursue?  Remember, for every branch of the content tree (the elements of a computer RPG's "choice"), there's a whole host of man hours.

My opinion, therefore, is that Dragon Age pretty much nailed it.  The story and characters are just enough to make you invest in your mission.  The world is pretty and "alive" enough to make you want to explore it.  And the combat is engaging and challenging enough to satisfy our desire to prevail. 

If you want the satisfaction of truly open-ended gameplay, where you can play "evil" and the world will really respond in kind, where you can spike the duke's wine with a slow-acting poison, where you can span the spike pit with the door your barbarian just ripped off its hinges, play D&D (or any dungeon-mastered pencil and paper game).  Sure, it's old school, but no computer game to date or in, at least, the near future is going to equal it.

- E.

[David Gaider]

Macadami wrote...
I would've loved to have 5 races, 10 classes, and 30 specializations and a difficulty 2 notches above the current nightmare with a loot table that's reminiscence of Diablo 2 and maybe after spending $200 it will be a possibility.

If we made such a game and charged $200 for it, I'm certain that the utter devotion and gratitude from those who played and happened to enjoy it would warm our hearts on the unemployment line.

[Setz69]

Imo. A game where I wasn't the hero would suck. Day 1: I've followed around the hero playing a supportive role. Meet some cool people who didn't notice me. Sat in camp and waited until the hero was done talking to everyone. Day 2: Offered my advice on a world changing decision. Hero didn't agree, decided to do it his own way. Day 3: Hero tried to bribe me with cake to like him more, I accepted it. Keeps asking me about licking lamp posts...



Its cool to think "Oh I wish I wasn't always the hero" But what else are you going to be? The apprentice? Follow around somewhere more important who makes all the decisions?



As for the Final Fantasy comments, you ALWAYS play the hero in FF games. You need to realize that in oblivion, fallout 3, and DA:O you CREATE your character and make decisions based on that. In FF you play someone else characters that they've already decided on. Yuna was the hero but you didn't have your own character to be the hero with. So essentially Yuna was your character and you did once again save the world.

[Abriael_CG]

David Gaider wrote...

If we made such a game and charged $200 for it, I'm certain that the utter devotion and gratitude from those who played and happened to enjoy it would warm our hearts on the unemployment line.

I'll bring you a blanket. I promise

Personally, I'm playing Baldur's gate II again at the moment, and I can definitely see that, while it's an awesome game, many think of it as the holy Grail of RPGs due to nostalgia. I'm enjoying it decidedly less than what my memories led me to believe, and it's not even a matter of graphics (I still play and love SNES games). Memories are always better than reality

[bzombo]

i know that da is fairly linear, but it seems sometimes people speak as if everything is predetermined for you. once you get out of ostagar, things are fairly open to your preference. you can choose where to go first, when to go, and so on. if someone wants to do a ton of sidequests between each major plot point, they can. heck, that's what i've been doing in my second playthrough. now, it's not open ended in the sense of bg1, but if not done right that can get old very quick. da is kinda like bg2 in that there are certain map locations to travel to, but you can do a lot of sidequests and such all while delaying the main plot.

[Shadowwot]

I honestly don't mind saving the world in games - almost all of my favorite books/movies are some variation of that theme (Star Wars, LOTR, Wheel of Time, Magician). But with that said the KOTOR games and Jade Empire you could be as evil as you wanted - and even DAO and ME1 it was more of saving the world so that you didn't die. You can be a jerk in both games but essentially you just don't want to die (That was why my Dalish Elf and Dwarf Noble joined the Grey Wardens).



Honestly, the only RPG I can think of where you are the villain is Wizardry 4 - I would love to see another one - but I still loved DAO and NWN2 and other "Hero" games.



Fallout 3 was a great game where you could play the villain (significantly better than Oblivion in my opinion - it still had the big open world but removed 95% of the crappy useless quests).

[Pious_Augustus]

Shadowwot wrote...

I honestly don't mind saving the world in games - almost all of my favorite books/movies are some variation of that theme (Star Wars, LOTR, Wheel of Time, Magician). But with that said the KOTOR games and Jade Empire you could be as evil as you wanted - and even DAO and ME1 it was more of saving the world so that you didn't die. You can be a jerk in both games but essentially you just don't want to die (That was why my Dalish Elf and Dwarf Noble joined the Grey Wardens).

Honestly, the only RPG I can think of where you are the villain is Wizardry 4 - I would love to see another one - but I still loved DAO and NWN2 and other "Hero" games.

Fallout 3 was a great game where you could play the villain (significantly better than Oblivion in my opinion - it still had the big open world but removed 95% of the crappy useless quests).

Only thing I couldn’t stand about Fallout 3 was them trying to force you more then ever to go First Person only which still to the surprise of Bethesda as they would say it an ‘alarming’ number of people still play it in the broken 3rd person mode which they made broken on purpose because of their lust for FPS.

Bioware loves its point and click WSAD controls and Bethesda sure loves it’s FPS mode. At least though Bethesda honored itself as a GFWL as advertised and supported the use of the Xbox 360 controller and just had the same features as the 360 version if you choose. Mass Effect 1 and 2 and Dragon Age again go back to the same old formula for the PC version. A broke chase cam if you want but it’s point and click unless you use the horrid WSAD.

Oh Bethesda’s new FPS just sunk as well, when are they going to get it through their heads the Elder Scrolls Series and their games didn’t become insanely popular with the rest of Western RPGs till they ditched FPS only RPGs and added in the option in Morrowind. Daggerfall was the largest Elder Scrolls by far but it didn’t become popular till Morrowind had a 3rd person mode.
By the way Bioware if you and the Polish Developer who made The Witcher who used your engine advertise GFWL please support the 360 controller.

Modifié par Pious_Augustus, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:40 .

[Macadami]

David Gaider wrote...
If we made such a game and charged $200 for it, I'm certain that the utter devotion and gratitude from those who played and happened to enjoy it would warm our hearts on the unemployment line.

Heh, well the lack of variety in character builds and really really short skill trees is my main complaint about the game. Oh and nightmare feeling like BG2 normal.

Fear not of the economic doom, the pay to play MMO model hasn't shrunk, and it was just a natural progression for SP games to follow suite.  I just miss popping in a disc(or 8) and having access to more game than i could've possibly expected without the need to 'update' every month or two.

It's a big world, nice map, and I can only assume that in the coming years it will all be revealed....i do hope DA:O breaks ground by making it all accessible via 1 game though.