56 réponses à ce sujet

[Spitz6860]

       It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Bioware has been using the same formula ever since probably the first KOTOR. The exiciting beginning that changes the protagonist's life forever (Jedi, Spectre, Grey Warden). an robust main quest part that involves the protagonist going to 3-5 different places in any order, while doing do you would encoounter people you can ask to join your cause and during the jouney you can talk to them and get to know them. and then end with a epic conlusion or sometimes an inconlcusion. KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon all followed that formula strictly. now i'm not saying that it's a bad formula. in fact it's actually an execellent formula that has been working for Bioware fans for many years. it works for the action-RPG ish KOTOR, a third person shooter like Mass Effect and a tactical RPG like Dragon Age.
     
      But how long do you think this formula will last? In future Bioware games do you want to see more of the same, or do you want to see Bioware trying new things? perhaps going back to a more linear storyline like BG or more open world like Fallout, or something entirely different?
     
      For Mass Effect 2 if i'm correct it will still let you go to several planets and do some quests there just like ME1.what's different is that in ME2 the sole purposes of you going there will be to recruit the person of interest, instead of solving problems for the people living there. so those quests will be revolving around the person you want to recruit, and their personality and morality will have a huge influence on the your decision.  so it''s becomes more than just your moral choices, and that's something that i think is new and innovative. so if that turns out to be the case for ME2, i think Bioware is off on a very good start.

Modifié par Spitz6860, 26 janvier 2010 - 09:33 .

[Erakleitos]

In literature it's called Bildungsroman and it's working since 1750 so i guess it will work on all Bioware games in the future ;p



http://en.wikipedia....i/Bildungsroman

[wwwwowwww]

Linear would be NWN2 and while I enjoyed the game, I hated how forced everything was, so no I don't want to see it go back to that.



I think it's fine how it is, if anything maybe a little more feeling of freedom, but not so much that you start to feel lost.

[Erakleitos]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Linear would be NWN2 and while I enjoyed the game, I hated how forced everything was, so no I don't want to see it go back to that.

I think it's fine how it is, if anything maybe a little more feeling of freedom, but not so much that you start to feel lost.

Agree. The only thing which is really linear in this game it's level design, expecially for dungeons. You enter a dungeon, and all you have to do it's go forward till you reach the end (not that i'm saying that other game's dungeons aren't)

I would like to feel like i'm in a maze or something, with tons of secret doors, shortcuts, dead ends (maybe deadly)... After all it's storytelling that too.

[SusanStoHelit]

Is the Hero's Journey working for me? Why not? It's worked for people around the globe for millennia at least. The Odyssey is a classic example (please excuse the unintended pun); but so is the entire Star Wars saga and much more besides.



If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

[AntiChri5]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Is the Hero's Journey working for me? Why not? It's worked for people around the globe for millennia at least. The Odyssey is a classic example (please excuse the unintended pun); but so is the entire Star Wars saga and much more besides.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

This.
A little more freedom would be nice but they only have so many resources and i love this game because of its differences to Oblivion (which i also love).

[Lakmoots]

uh...

Joseph Campbell says "yes".

End of Line (always wanted to say that!).

[Allattar1]

Lets do a "If I was going to design a storyline"



I think I would fall back on the Buildungsroman, but I would like to twist it a little.

I would want to try and start the game with the PC being an established and respected individual.



Mission starts would be a simple political section, whether space or fantasy, involved with a supposedly simple scouting scenario.



Then throw the twist in for the character. At this point I would throw in a number of different choices, areas they can visit, or things to do. Each mission involves learning something of what is happening, but only part.

The sneaky bit is I would have an internal game timer keeping track of game time. Also have mission evolution/ expiration. For example the enemy forces build in some areas, or overrun, or just flat out mission can't be done anymore becuase the conditions are gone. The idea of This quest is urgent, doesn't work when an rpg can be gone through at any pace.

Next part is don't explicitly tell the player that this game is different and urgent means urgent. Let them figure it out for themselves. An example here would be Redcliff going off to the circle, saving the circle and coming backto find the demon has retaken Redcliffe.

Basically what you do and when you do it has an effect, and some things cannot be gone back o if your too late. Going to the Dalish first could mean you experience the werewolves attack first hand, going last means finding a lot less Dalish in camp.



The idea being is at this point you cannot get the full story, and if your slow and dawdle you may only find part of the story. Too quick and you may miss information from one mission.



Then I would kill the PC. Shock factor here, and the pc does not come back.



This first part of the game in my mind would be a third long. Then the other two thirds is the revenge factor. The player gets a new PC, by way of an involved person in the dead PC's life.

This is now a bildungsroman for the new PC, but trying to put an edge in here of, does the PC play now for the right thing, or to revenge themselves .



Then as they get used to revenge, throw in the twist. The twist being that the enemy they are fighting has a viewpoint that could be right, that has the potential to be the just cause, they have the moral highground. Your side, what you have been fighting for is morally on shaky ground.



Its still a Bildungsroman, but I am wondering if you could build in a story of descent into it.

The coming of age as it where involves the choices and decisions of the pc being trapped, forced to make uncomfortable decision, until the twist reveals they are on the wrong side.



Of course such a story could be a complete disaster if mishandled, but shocking and enlightening if written well.

[Creature 1]

Allattar1 wrote...
The sneaky bit is I would have an internal game timer keeping track of game time.


Next part is don't explicitly tell the player that this game is different and urgent means urgent.


The idea being is at this point you cannot get the full story, and if your slow and dawdle you may only find part of the story. Too quick and you may miss information from one mission.

Then I would kill the PC. Shock factor here, and the pc does not come back.

You'll make millions! 

The original Fallout had a timer and a nuke went off if you were too slow.  It's my understanding that later games do not have this "feature"? 

[wwwwowwww]

Creature 1 wrote...

Allattar1 wrote...
The sneaky bit is I would have an internal game timer keeping track of game time.


Next part is don't explicitly tell the player that this game is different and urgent means urgent.


The idea being is at this point you cannot get the full story, and if your slow and dawdle you may only find part of the story. Too quick and you may miss information from one mission.

Then I would kill the PC. Shock factor here, and the pc does not come back.

You'll make millions! 

The original Fallout had a timer and a nuke went off if you were too slow.  It's my understanding that later games do not have this "feature"? 

I don't know about millions, because if I take the time to make a character and get attatched to it only to be put into a no win situation forcing me to play another character that I did not develop I'd not buy the game.

I like the internal timer thing as it gives a sense of urgency.

[SusanStoHelit]

Hehe - and it's still the Hero's Journey.

[Allattar1]

wwwwowwwww

Yes its a tough call, and interestingly its one that Bioware is exploring in ME2, although the effects will only be noticed in ME3.

The thing is though to allow the player to create the new character. Ideally you want the player to invest a portion of themselves into the PC that will die, becuase you want them emotionally involved with the events after.

Yes there is a danger that such a situation will turn players off. You are right that making a scenario that forces a player death will be seen as unfair and awkward.



I think there are means and ways around that problem.

If the right choice is an Heroic death to save others. If at least part of a characters belief system has already been hinted at that death is not to be feared.

The problem though is when players want to do the opposite, and try to stay alive. Its not an insurmountable problem.



Lets say the PC death is the result of an unwinnable battle, but it gives time for a town to be evacuated. If they run away then their own sides can look unfavourably on them and you can make them an outlaw. Then its how long can you keep running for , this route may be possible to give a slightly different story where they can redeem themselves eventually, whilst staying faithful to the plot of killing the PC. Either by swapping to the new PC who is then trying to discover what happened, and its up to them to save them. Or by eventual capture of the old PC and then hanging them for desertion.



Second may be seen as forced though, so I would try to bank on both scenarios, and see if the PC can make a very tough journey to a safe haven, outside game borders.



No win situations do happen unfortunately, but it has to be important to give players options, some options may play out longer than others, but the outcome could be made inevitable. eg: they don't meet their fate at death scene 1, they survive somehow, but oh look here comes death scene 2,

[Lakmoots]

Thats interesting...

I played a game recently where you had to make that kind of decision.

It was called "Dragon Age" I think...

And the internal clock idea is fraught with peril... You do know these games are designed for people to take leisurely, right?

ESPECIALLY Bioware games, it is about immersion, not rushing. Most of your game would be rushed through, and elements would be missed.

Otherwise, only hardcore gamers would have the time to do a time-clock trial.

The whole idea is abit anti-rpg. Good for an "action adventure" though.

Maybe a Demon's Souls... or a soul-less DA:O...

I will be with the fifty percent of your audience that switches off when MY character dies... see, I am already attached to him!!

That is what these games are about. A producer would probably tell you that.

I do remember having Fallout 3 characters die in the wilderness because I was half way around the world and they got jumped by Deathclaws...

It is now a drink coaster... you may need to think about it... *carefully*

EDIT: Sorry, that seemed really harsh... er... have a cookie?

Modifié par Lakmoots, 26 janvier 2010 - 12:14 .

[wwwwowwww]

Lakmoots wrote...


And the internal clock idea is fraught with peril... You do know these games are designed for people to take leisurely, right? 

I agree, but you don't have to make the internal clock end up killing the character, but instead change the way encounters occur, their strength or even their existance.

For instance in DA:O you find out about Arl Eamon's sickness in Lothering and how he's on deaths bed, now in one scenario you rush str8 to Redcliff and your able to save him.
However, say you decide to go to Denerim and Orzamar first then head back down to Redcliff, well now the town has an extremely different make up and the Arl and his family are dead, and Bann Teagan is now the man in charge, but in order to get his help you have to clear out the castle of the evil who have taken it over. The Demon has pulled back attacks and is now forming a formable force to finally overtake redcliff completely.

[Lakmoots]

Dude... this guy is talking about killing you character no matter what... I think *it* cannot be saved...



And frankly, if important storylines were dependent on whether you rushed or not, I would go *blech*.



If I cannot enjoy the character, graphics, setting...



Heck... would any of the codex be read?



As in this: I looked at the world map and decided it made *more* sense for my *character* to head to the Brecillian Forest first...



Why? Because there is a blight on the way and it is *CLOSER* than any other treaty quest...



The Arl isn't even on the treaty list... and you do not know if he *can* even recover...



In-game justifications like this vary as much as an individual player...



This is simply a restriction in my book, and rather regressive for a rpg... Fallout 3 was billed as "open" I found it well, empty...

[wwwwowwww]

I understand what he is talking about, and I disagree with it. What I do agree with is that things change as time goes on. If I choose to do the Mage tower first one game it should be drastically different than if I choose to do it last then next. That's what I'm on about.

[Allattar1]

Lak, I dont think you grasped the idea of the internal game time.

Killing the PC as a game device is something that could be done if written carefully as a way of involving the player in the storyline even more. I have agreed with all of you here, that mishandled it would be a game destroyer, but handled correctly has a lot of potential. Just imagine you started DA as Duncan and had to choose your potential candidates (eg you got to create one of those candidates as well as taking Jory and Daveon). Then you got into the battle, and Cailan ordered your candidates to a different job whilst you where in the battle with Cailan. Thats the kind of start I am talking about.



Internal game time is not so much based on you must rush everything, the idea is that events are happening, are continously happening and you cannot do them all. Take DA, you have a lot of wander around time, you could carefully plan that and avoid spending too much time on the road to be able to meet a few other quests.



The end result should be though that a game time mechanism is present as a way of making your choices and actions impact the game more.



Its about evolving the rpg and evolving game styles, its about moving away from just fixed gates that move the plot forward. A gate that will wait forever for you to pass by it, but to move to move towards putting your pc into a world that is evolving around you.

[Sabriana]

I understand what you are saying. All main quests start out as people needing help. If you delay the mages too long, they'll all be dead/the Rite of Anullment is about to start. Orzammar goes from seething political sniping to full out civil war, etc. About the only quest that could stay static is WK.

It's an interesting concept, but I doubt it's doable. It would be a scripting nightmare for starters. Also, RPing is more than the sum of its quests. I don't want the interactions and interpersonal relationships to fall by the wayside.

Any conventional time-keeper in an RPG is really not a good thing. I was royally mad at FO/Black Isle for doing that, and judging from the major blow-ups around the forum world, I was definitely not the only one.

[SeanMurphy2]

I like the Bioware structure. I think it was done well in Mass Effect. You uncover a different aspect of Saren's plan in each of the planets.

I think Dragon Age was more complicated to design. In the middle game there is a lot going on.

1) Loghain, civil war, why Loghain retreated from Ostager
2) Darkspawn invading Ferelden
3) Unrelated events happening in the treaty locations. Desire demon at Redcliffe, abominations at Calenhad, werewolf problem, urn quest and dwarven king dying.
4) Referencing the player's origin story.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:23 .

[Matshelge]

One could even argue that Bildungsroman is partially used in the greek epic poems.



So, my guess is that complaining about how Kotor was original and Mass Effect and DA:O is less of a game, due to using the same structure, will grow old faster then Bildungsroman will.

(Also, Baldur's Gate did the whole thing way before Kotor)

[Allattar1]

Sabriana wrote...

I understand what you are saying. All main quests start out as people needing help. If you delay the mages too long, they'll all be dead/the Rite of Anullment is about to start. Orzammar goes from seething political sniping to full out civil war, etc. About the only quest that could stay static is WK.
It's an interesting concept, but I doubt it's doable. It would be a scripting nightmare for starters. Also, RPing is more than the sum of its quests. I don't want the interactions and interpersonal relationships to fall by the wayside.
Any conventional time-keeper in an RPG is really not a good thing. I was royally mad at FO/Black Isle for doing that, and judging from the major blow-ups around the forum world, I was definitely not the only one.

No doubt its a more complicated structure than standard.  Yes it would be a scripting nightmare as in a basic form you have to create 2 or maybe 3 different styles of encounters for each game location, double or triple dialogues, depending on when you get to an area.  Ok you can cut some of that down by closing some areas off and opening others.
You can see how it could work though by the 2 different Redcliffe environments in game.  Pre-landsmeet and Post-landsmeet. 

I would still say a time-keeper is eminently possible as long as it works well.
If it works well it wouldnt clash with personal development at all, it only reacts to how your moving through the game world.  Why should a time keeper affect talking to anyone in camp, its just a one night in camp and you can discuss as long as you like.  Unless your using your camp as a cheap healing mechanism.  In which case you provide other methods for keeping everyone going.

RPGing is more than the sum of its quests (unless its an MMO, but most of those are not rpg's they are just mmogrinds).  Surely though it makes the RPGng aspect much more important if your choices of what you where doing first, or where you where going, and how long you took affected your world.  As a Dwarf would you save the Dwarves first, or save the circle first... Suddenly that choice is not, it doesn't matter which I do, its which one is more important to me, and which is more important to do first.  That has to be a fundamental question for any character.

[soteria]

I'm really not sure how killing off the PC partway through the game could ever be spun well for the player. You'd have to work hard to keep players from ever getting attached to the character, because anyone who gets attached to their character is never going to forgive you for making them switch partway through the game. I think I would probably play for another third of the game in denial, and, once I realized my character was really dead, quit.

[Lakmoots]

Whats the point? He/She dies!



I think you over estimate how people will care about choices once you arbitrarily take it away from them.



On one hand you want to make it about tough choices - on the other, you force people onto a clock and then kill the lead character.



It is an emotional contradiction, I think.



However, the idea of impact from you decisions is great - we have that now, though.

[Allattar1]

The point Lak, you dont take the choice away from them, you give them choice, but none is optimal. So what do you do? Ultimately it has to come down to consequences of your actions. Certain actions can leader to honour and doom, and others dishonour and disgrace (whether its your fault or not). If there is a contradiction its becuase life is full of them.
Plus whilst we have some consequences of our actions, we don't have all of them.  It doesn't matter when I go to save the circle of mages.  I could tell Bann Teagan I am going to get some mages to save connor, go shopping in Denerim, clear out Wardens peak.  Go visit the Dwarves and find them a paragon, then visit the circle and mention afterwards, oh it may be important but.. Get back to Redcliffe a year after I said I would go and still have Connor subdued and Arl Eamonn still on his deathbed. 

Soteria, isnt that what we have the potential for currently? with the expansion coming up if viewed as one game, its entirely possible you killed your character and are then continuing anew.
I absolutely understand the concern about why would I want to continue, prolong the removal of the first PC and it will be bad. Too short and you wont care. You want it just right so that the new player character gets a taste for wanting revenge .

As I was trying to insinuate there has to be some very good writing to make it work, and very good balancing.

I would also add to this that there has to be an attitude of "you wont please everyone" and certainly going ahead anyway. Those that do see the rest of the game after such an event can tell others how good it is.

Modifié par Allattar1, 26 janvier 2010 - 02:00 .

[Erakleitos]

There is one even which is time related (sort of). If you choose to not help Redcliffe against the undeads attacks, and you leave the area, the attack occurs and you lose forever the chance to save Redcliffe.