47 réponses à ce sujet

[VoidOfOne]

Bioware seems to have always done better with the smaller stories, while being just okay with the main story. I still enjoy it; not having great expectations helps. But, I do see the flaws, mainly because I really see how well they do the characters and the little bits. It seems that they really need to solidify how to tell a grand story. Generic is fine, as long as you tell it well, as we have seen with The Last Of Us.

 

I prefer there being a solid good and a solid evil rather than everything being gray (grey), but I get while people feel otherwise. Fortunately, we have the Witcher for that, if you can stand the gameplay.

[Lancane]

One of the reasons that I believe and have mentioned that Bioware needs to scrap it's standard approach to Add-On Content and instead of releasing two or three DLC's with nothing more then another side story or two - make an actual in game expansion that evolves the entirety of the game and the main storylines. DLC's add a few hours of additional game play, a good expansion adds twenty-five plus hours of gameplay but forces the main storyline to evolve and change the dynamic of choices for a gamer.  

 

Inquisition had so much potential, especially once it got GOTY Awards and other such accolades. Then again, ME3 had similar accolades as well, until the fans started an outcry that made headlines - one so loud that you would think it would make Bioware and their parent company EA a lot more cautious regarding their games and making sure they matched gamer's (consumer) standards. Not that GOTY is the end all be all, like the Academy Awards it does not mark a film a success or even great in the mind of most filmgoers. LOTR - War in the North, Kingdom of Amalur and Witcher II: Assassin of Kings were great RPG titles and were never mentioned for such, then of course there are those games like Skyrim which more then deserved the honor.

 

Is it because EA is too demanding? I have a hard time believing Electronic Arts is the main cause for the downgrade in Bioware's writing and software flaws - especially given the success EA has garnered with titles developed by other sub-companies they own or have partnered with. It's more like the writers for Bioware are disjointed from the base who actually purchase their titles.

[Br3admax]

So, you're saying that if something or someone fails to attain certain goals it's not a failure? Sure, the failure may one be in the eyes of a single individual and his expectation, but it's still a failure for that individual.

You don't set goals for BioWare, so no, it's not a failure. BioWare sets goals for itself, and EA set goals for BioWare. You're judgement of it's quality is one thing, calling it a failure is another. 

[Isaidlunch]

I don't think the main plot had much chance in DAI with how little content it got, e.g. the Orlesian Civil War being resolved within one mission. The main plot was clearly not their focus in DAI and I wouldn't expect that to change in future games.

[dreamgazer]

With the way some folks talk, you'd think there's hardly any plot writing in Inquisition, which simply isn't the case.

I undoubtedly prefer the main and sub-plot writing in DAI above DA2.

Origins has the overall edge in the writing department, but I also prefer several key plot elements in Inquisition above it, too.

[berrieh]

I don't really get why it's bad "plot" that all Cory does is fail after Haven. You are whittling away at him. It's how you win and it makes your win believable and earned. You take what's his away piece by piece, just after he took what was yours. 

 

Are y'all still operating on the idea that there is ONE plot map with ups and downs at set places.

 

http://io9.com/the-u...vonn-1526559996

 

This seems like a classic "Man in a Hole" story to me, with Haven as the low point. But it seems like people want a "Cinderella" or a "New Testatment" story. Or maybe a "From Bad to Worse" story. And there are even more stories than these types, really. 

[Dakota Strider]

Not a bad story line, but not anywhere near what I would have considered to meet Bioware standards (I am re-evaluating what their standards are).  A good premise, that they just let fall flat.  The sad thing is, they had the ability to make it a far more interesting story.  It seemed that even though the battle of Haven was a tiny setback, for the most part, the Inquisition did nothing but succeed, over and over again, and the forces that were allied against us did nothing but fail.  Even the loss of Haven resulted in us acquiring the super, bad-ass, ancient elven castle of SkyHolde.  Sounds like a win to me.  So, basically, we just kept gathering power, and mopping up enemy forces, everywhere we went.  Never felt like the opposition had a chance. 

 

And thus, without the feeling that we could fail, the urgency to push forward was just not there.  Instead, we literally had time to stop and pick the flowers (and the weeds, and the rocks), to try to make the spiffiest set of armor and weapons.  We could look through every little nook and cranny for bottles of booze or broken pieces of art.  Being able to do all those things are all well and good...but I was under the impression we were on a deadline.  But nothing was ever done to reinforce that.  I don't ever recall getting a setback at the War Table...if we had a half way competent foe, would they have not been having successes there, too?

 

And without even a mini Origin at the beginning of the game, to get to know our character, get to know some companions.... and to actually experience the loss of some friends and companions in the destruction of the Enclave, Bioware's writers lost the opportunity to make the loss personal, and give us incentive to try to defeat the main bad guy. 

 

It didn't have to be that way...the premise of the story was good enough, but they did not carry through, by making it tough on us.  No counter-attacks, whether by an enemy army, spies, assassins, or even diplomats.  Instead, it was just coast to the finish.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

I haven't read the whole thread yet. I assume somebody has already clocked the irony of someone criticizing writing while making a basic grammatical mistake in the thread title, right? If not, I volunteer to do so.

[Spectre Impersonator]

Yeah, the story is bollocks, but mainly because their isn't enough of it. It's super rushed because, as Bioware admitted, they didn't have time to do it justice.

[TMA LIVE]

Bring up where I think ME3 and DA:I failed main plot wise:

 

When it comes to ME3's main story, I thought it was mostly held together. Sure, a lot of it was following the same outline of ME1's storyline (Meet with Anderson and see an attacks by Reaper by shotty cameramen, investigate a prothean ruin, pick up companion under attack, save the plot device from bad guy, meet the Council, etc), it still held mostly together. I felt urgency, and I felt sacrifices where happening everywhere, and many of the scenes were very emotional. "I have to stop the Reapers, and I have to find a way now" never felt dropped for majority of it (until Citadel DLC that is). Sure, stuff like the Krogan storyline felt rushed and underdeveloped, mainly because characters like the Salarian dalatrass and Eve made their appearance in this game, and really they should've been introduced in ME2. And sure there were issues and mistakes with the story here and there. But you felt like every mission was related to what needed to be done for ME3's main plot.

And then you get the ending, which opened a whole can of worms. As much as I liked the ending, it doesn't change the fact that they introduced a new character at the very last minute out of left field, and change the story from one soldier trying to stop the Reapers from Harvesting everyone, to Synthetic vs Organics being the main theme, and here's how to solve it? (though not really, since Synthesis is cheating). You were given endings that had no proper setup. And it was so bad it even made Bioware need to make an Extended Cut on it. Plus the plotholes on how the catalyst even fits in ME1's continuity, Harb being nothing more then a glowing Reaper, you picking Anderson for Councilor treated like it never happened outside of a Codex entry, Cerberus getting Reaper tech regardless of what you did in ME2, choices in general being the same besides some pallet swapping, Dark Energy setup being thrown out, etc. I felt like ME3 existed on it's own more, instead of feeling like it was the final part of a trilogy that your choices were building up to.

 

And now about DA:I

For the intro, they did a pretty good job hooking me. Sure I wanted more backstory setup for my character, but overall, they got me. They gave me a clear objective that I can see just by looking up at the sky, and telling me to fix it, because I'm the only one that can. Plus the mystery of who was responsible, why they did it, and stopping the chaos they caused so I can put the world back together again, I had every reason to push forward, and gather the group I gathered. I even had every reason to do stupid fetch quests, because at the time I was just the mascot, and we needed to win hearts, spread word, gain power and allies, etc. The intro to Haven worked very well. And the Mages vs Temp war I felt was able to get explained enough through your comrades, and the quests themselves.

And then you closed the Breach. Which was surprising. I think that's what they wanted. But it was surprising in a bad way, because what they did next never lived up to it. I'll give ME2 this: Though it didn't have a good bad guy, it had a good threat which was the Suicide Mission. You knew if you didn't prepare, and prepare by a certain time, characters you cared about were gonna die. So it became this big thing you had to worry about, and work against. Well, imagine if you did the Suicide Mission during the middle of the game, and turns out it was very easy and no one could die, and then the final mission was the Collector Ship mission? You'd be really disappointed, right? Well, so was I in this case. I felt like they abandoned the plot they started out with, and then started a new one. Because after closing the Breach, apparently the Mage vs Temp wars goes with it. That storyline pretty much is wrapped up behind the scenes, without much closer.

And that's one Bioware pattern right there that keeps repeating. They make a great intro, and then under develop the conclusion. And then randomly start a new storyline that barely connects with what you started out with, with not a proper setup.

Anyways, so they then start a new threat, which is the guy who caused the breach. He looks like a hermit doing a Mark Hamill impression. He does have a cool dragon though. And his backstory is really good for a story about a Holy War. You're stuck with the group that believes in the Maker, and he's the one that went to the Golden City, and saw it black and empty. So on paper, he sounds like a good Villain. But in the end, he's just a guy who taunts. He doesn't have anything more interesting to add beyond "I'm your GOD NOW! OBEY ME!". Which I can deal with if he showed to be a real threat. And his attach on Haven does accomplish that... until you bury his army under snow. Then the rest of the game he's mostly in the shadows, either trying to build a new army, or trying the cause chaos. He doesn't try to be a threat like he did before. You stop fearing that he'll attack Skyhold. Sure, at first you might. But after a while, you realize he's a threat that's never going to come.

And that is a big issue with DA:I. If you make a threat not threatening at all, then why am I still doing what I'm doing? Why is it me taking care of this business, and not the Lords of the land? Because he has a Dragon? Well, I solo kill Dragons on Nightmare mode, so I have less reasons to fear that. And if we can have 3 "world changing dudes" running around, then someone else can clearly do this job. The mark is not needed to beat Coryfish. Hell, why am I still doing fetch quests? Because it doesn't matter anymore. Me doing those quests have nothing to do with him. Heck, you're the leader now. Someone should be doing them for you, just like how the Shadow Broker should have done those ease dropping quests in ME3. For some reason, ever since DA2, Bioware is obsessed with making you do a scavenger hunt, and calling them side quests.

The new narrative doesn't help the last half of the game. It's still build around you needing power, when it fact, you don't need it. You're not really trying to get allies anymore. So what you're really doing is being the cleanup guy.

It doesn't help that the last 2 story missions before the final missions feel unconnected. They feel like DLC mission in the sense that they're short, self contained, and only have one small connection (aka Coryfish wants to make an Army, or cause Chaos). They introduce all the politics for in Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts, and then drop it for the rest of the game till the epilogue. They introduce new characters like Hawke, Grey Warden Who guy, the Empress, Morrigan, etc. Give them very little screen time, and then get rid of them. Or they force them on you like Morrigan, where you can't get rid of her (as far as I can tell). You have Flemith, which again, I feel comes out of left field.

But the final issue I have is how Bioware treats there continuing stories. How they retcon a person's death (Leli), but it leads to nothing. Or setup that Hawke and the Warden disappearing is not a coincidence, when in fact it is a coincidence. Or the possibly start of a Qunari war. It really is annoying how loosely connected everything is. Or how setups seem to get dropped.

Beyond all that, I do consider the game the second or third great Bioware game next to ME2. As Alice says, as much as I didn't like the final 5 hours of the main plot, there's still hundred of hours of fun. I just think Bioware needs to do a better job putting together their main plots.

[ghostz82]

I wouldn't say failure since everything in my storyline from DAO up till DAI and ME1 to ME3 has worked and made sense always in one way or another but I will say maybe get back to being as good at it as they were with their original and first games like DAO and ME 1 for example yes. And just because you may not like it that doesn't mean they failed or didn't make sense just means it wasn't what you wanted or eecteexpected then what you want might not at all what other people want either.

[helpthisguyplease]

Well what think about it this way maybe the writters at Bioware are great at making a great story when they start a new universe because they are not confined by any lore they made. But the story of the next game from the franchise has to respect the lore which limits the writers because they do not perform well when they have boundries to their creativity. Look at ME2 it shined because it focused on the companions lets be honest I did not played ME2 for the main plot but for the well written companions. That is I played DA2 and DAI. Bioware writers are good at making a main story good in the first game of a franchise but they do not have the ability to equal that in the sequels that is why they focus on characters and companions where it seems they are good in making very interesting ones.

At least they are not like the writer of the Sword of Truth series where after the first book the story was worse and worse and worse and it became **** and no interesting new companions.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

I am truly confused by what exactly is the problem. The plot writing in this game was actually incredible. Prime example being how you become the Inquisitor, you don't just walk out of the fade and "Hurr durr you're our leader now!~", you walk out, you're hated by some, idolized by others. You attempt to help; for your own reasons then after you've been declared innocent the Inquisition offers you to join, again you can join for your own reasons. You cannot negotiate with either the mages or templars and you get denounced by the chantry, something you attempt to address immediately. Once you choose who's side you're on, you gather up the forces and seal the breach. The people celebrate but you still don't know who's responsible who coincidentally appears the second you address the issue with Cassandra. He came with the bulk of his force and your forces get overrun, fortunately you're in a tactical position and your commander takes advantage of that, granted you doom Haven, but you still save as many people as possible, and cut down the big bad's numbers significantly. That act of heroism, your journey and the choices you've made along the way has influenced people to see you as more than just this religion figure, but a leader and again you choose what kind of leader you want to be, the kind of Inquisition you want; all through your actions. 

Also fastforwarding, I'm really glad this game managed to find the balance between closure and still leaving us on the edge of our seats, and I'm adoring this expansion on the lore.

DA:I's plot writing is even better than DA:O imo. I swear this forum hasn't brought up a single aspect of the game without discrediting it, you'd think the game is even worse than DA2. 

[10K]

I will agree on some points (i.e. the stories from each game are disconnected), but I can't agree about Flemeth. It is not Inquisition's job to explain to players what has already been explained, but rather expand upon it. If new players coming in are confused about whom Flemeth is, they should be. There are two other titles in the series that have already done this. Coming into a third installment of any game, the player should be confused. Given the fact they did not play the previous games. Explaining something a third time, which have already been explained, is just a waste of time. Shepard in ME3 was an idiot, because he would ask questions he already knew the answer to. This was annoying, not innovative, and it only helped out the people who didn't play the previous games.

 

I remember someone at BW saying: "The third installment is the best place to start." The truth of the matter is, it's not. The best place to start will always be the beginning.  

[AlexiaRevan]

I love this game , I really do . 

 

But I still say they could've done better . The game is huge , we have so many map and so many quest . 

 

for one : the main quest is way too short . 

 

second : None of the part of the main quest made me either teary or wanna rage . (well save for the mage and that was only because of Leliana) . 

 

third: The war between Mages and Templar ? They told us we will deal with that early in the game . They told us we will have a say . What they didn't tell us , is how both side stink . The Mage was a bit better though , but the Templar ?? it was...argh there was nothing there that make you wanna save the lot of them . 

 

fourth : This is no big deal for me , but still . While the whole time they said 'You can refuse to be the Herald of Andraste' and while I kept choosing the reply that say 'I'm not Jesus'....it didn't seem to matter . When I say 'Not this chosen one nonsense' I get the reply 'Well watever you believe , you are what we needed when we needed . The Maker sent you to us ' . Like really ??? 

 

fifth : coryphinus . This whole 'wanna crack the black city again , become God yada yada' . The ending could have been better . It could have been more edgy , more stressing . Instead of fighting on a floating rock where in a last ditch effort..he cry out to a God he renounced......losing any 'good impression he may had' . 

 

Sixth : flemeth . I love flemeth , and I always believed she will have a bigger role then showing to take a gift from her grand Son . Then..do something weird in the end.....

 

Seventh : I think what the game lack is emotions mostly . If a game doesn't ****** you off , make you vow revenge on the big final boss , or make you feel dread at facing him/her then it doesn't deliever THAT Story . 

 

eight: I think the issue nowday , is that they focus too much on Graphic . Sure the graphic are gorgeous . Amazing!! beautiful!! stunning !!! but an RPG is just bone without the story to back up all that visual awesomness . An RPG Game Thrive and survive years because of the Story that leave you wanting more , asking questions and remembering your adventure . If you remember what the last boss screamed , what your companions said to you when you made them mad , what some NPC replyed to a finished quest ? then yeah the game was worth playing and will be played again and again . 

[PaiSand]

I agree that there is not their or they're.

Lets just ignore those are different words and present ourselves like some kind of expert on words...

 

Also, DLCs.

[sunnydxmen]

i like the story as soon as we found what cory was going to do i knew kick his butt at every turn i find people complaining we won too many times silly, heroes always kick the villains butt at every turn this not the first it happen in a game or any other media, like my inquisitor said cory his arrogance blinds him even when he lost everything he still thought he was going to win. it was not until he was about to die in was begging dumat for help did he realize  he is losing cory pride in arrogance was his downfall from the very beginning he thought he was invisible  i brought him back to reality.

[madmantheonly1]

Keep in mind, I'm more of criticizing Bioware's plot writing since ME2. ME2 I consider the best Bioware game I ever played (though I have yet to play the Balder's Gate games, so who knows, maybe those might change my opinion). But majority of fans agree ME1 had a better plot. Some even claim ME2 doesn't have a plot at all. It was just a simple setup that gave you an excuse to recruit and explore the galaxy. And though it was still an amazing game, it didn't change the fact that Harb was a bad guy that had no buildup or development. It didn't change the fact that he was just a "thing" to fight, who's dialogue was just taunts. Though the characters were well written, it didn't change the fact that they have barely any connection to the plot beyond hired guns, and their stories were separate from everyone else's story, like they existed on separate islands. And it didn't change the fact that lore was constantly being changed and retconned, like how the Mass Relays could survive a supernova, and yet a giant rock could take one out in a DLC. And last, it didn't change the fact that ME2's main story had almost nothing to do with the main story of ME1 and ME3, which is stopping the Reapers from coming. You were instead saving random colonist from drones of the Reapers, which again, was underdeveloped. You weren't really given much reason to care about the faceless colonies. You died and came back, and yet no one seems to care beyond "It's great that your back!". You find a dead Reaper, which is a pretty big thing to find, only for it to be destroyed like it meant nothing just as fast. There was all kinds of stuff like that.

 

Then you got DA2, which was a game that was very different from Origins, and had a very forced narrative. Yet that same narrative was underdeveloped. You had a framed narrative, that didn't really matter. It was there mostly for just an interesting intro, and nothing more. You get a family, but yet they seem to take them away from you just as fast. They were telling a story that was 7 or 10 years long, and yet Kirkwall and it's characters pretty much remained the same beyond minor differences. The story could have been told in 3 years instead of 7, and not really change anything. It also felt weird how a storyline took 2 or 3 years to move to it's next step for every single character, including with Hawke, and thus felt disjointed. You become the Champion, and yet it doesn't mean anything beyond a title. You could play a mage, and run around a town run by Temps, and yet majority of them seem to never notice you or your other fellow mages, or care. The plot itself felt more like a GTA plot, where you're just doing random missions for people just because "I'm a dude who likes doing side quests for random strangers". And it forced plot devices to make characters do insane things. Anders blows up a church and starts a war. Why? Because he's crazy and wants people to start killing each other. Why does Orsino become a blob monster? Because he gives up last minute, and thinks turning into a blob monster that attacks you is better. Why does Meredith want to kill every mage in Kirkwall, despite me killing Anders, the dude that blew up a Church? Because she's crazy from getting her hands on a red lightsaber from hell. DA2 also had it's own retcons, like bringing Leli back, despite killing her in DA:O.

 

I'll continue with my thoughts on how ME3 and DA:I bad or underdeveloped main storyline telling later when I get more time.

 

I think your assassment about ME2 was mostly correct, I think you are leaving out a very important details though, which I think made the game easier to digest and altogether much much easier to like even with the shortcomings you mentioned story-wise, and that is the protagonist. The fact that you could continue playing Shepard made it not neccessary to actually make you like him, you liked him already from ME1. BW didnt have to introduce your character to you, make you care for him, etc. It was like a good mid-season episode of 24, where you came into the game excited to see what happens to Jack Bauer next, that's an incredible starting enthusiasm. The DA franchise however made this - in my opinion - mistake that they continuesly put you in the shoes of a random unknown character, so every game has to earn your interest in the character you are playing (and on my opinion DAI failed on this front altogether).

[Calders]

I think your assassment about ME2 was mostly correct, I think you are leaving out a very important details though, which I think made the game easier to digest and altogether much much easier to like even with the shortcomings you mentioned story-wise, and that is the protagonist. The fact that you could continue playing Shepard made it not neccessary to actually make you like him, you liked him already from ME1. BW didnt have to introduce your character to you, make you care for him, etc. It was like a good mid-season episode of 24, where you came into the game excited to see what happens to Jack Bauer next, that's an incredible starting enthusiasm. The DA franchise however made this - in my opinion - mistake that they continuesly put you in the shoes of a random unknown character, so every game has to earn your interest in the character you are playing (and on my opinion DAI failed on this front altogether).

 

I think you have two choices, either you do a series with the same protagonist or you tell independent stories in the same world that enables you to not be limited by previous games and player choices in those games.  One of the mistakes with DAI is that it is doing neither... it doesn't have the same protagonist yet at the same time it features a large number of returning characters and plot threads that overlap with previous games (it even sometimes trashes the decisions you made in those games).  Make you mind up DA team its one or the other not some messy compromise in the middle.

[Calders]

Really? People complain about Kia-what's his name in ME 3 robbing them of their player agency for "plot purposes".

 

You mean Kai Leng... I think his problem was more in plot details than overall plot because he made Sheppard and squad look stupid in cut scenes when you always felt he should be beatable.  But I'm not sure what the point you are making is.

[In Exile]

Said this in another thread, but they badly need Obsidian's writers (or someone similarly capable).

Bioware's current MO for storytelling --and this is especially egregious in Inquisition-- seems to be to make every other faction in the world apart from the player's faction incredibly stupid and/or pantomime villains. Making everyone else --Rebel Mages, Templars, Orlesian Empire and especially the Grey Wardens-- so comically inept just undermines the entire setting. All of these factions are now a joke and the Inquisition ends up feeling like a babysitting service.

For a series which started out inspired by the ASoIaF books, Dragon Age now feels about as far from that tonally as it can get. Inquisition is half comic book, half village panto.

DA is based on incompetent and idiotic antagonist who are defeated more by the inertia of their own stupidity than the protagonist. Loghain is defined by his incompetence. His total inability to run a military compaign (based on what we see in DAO, not what we are constantly told) is exceeded only by his almost unthinkable political incompetence.

Everything Loghain does is a failure. The only person who was ever even remotely competent in all of DA is Bhelen. Everyone else is an idiot.

And other Bioware games are no exception.