28 réponses à ce sujet

[QweenBeen]

So this is not a dis on the dragon age style of rpg, at all. Love the land, the lore, the characters, the novels, comics, everything about it. But I started playing witcher 2 again just to prep for 3, and I gotta say...subtle things like "chapters", close up cut scenes when you converse with quest givers and your companions, the presence of a third person narrator telling your story...I just feel like I'm being presented with a novel, and I'm about to dive into a "build your own adventure". The world of the witcher and it's politics and countries, etc. confuse the flip out of me, but it almost doesn't matter because I'm learning it as my amnesiac character wanders around. It's structured, but not. There's a contained frame around which to run around in, but everything you do builds your character. Your character saving innocent townsfolk isn't enough to build your character, but refusing payment for your good deeds does . It just feels more real to me...

I don't know, I guess I would really like to see this style in DA4 or beyond. Less world, but more meaning to what we're doing. Less stuff to do, but more cutscenes and wicked grace kind of moments.

But would this style even fit in the DA universe? The witcher games are derived heavily from actual novels, so the style there makes sense? But would a "novel" approach to DA even make sense?

[bondari reloads.]

Tell that to my Geralt who romanced Shani and woke up next to Triss, the only thing that was not wrong being the hair color.

And whoever cannot stand playing Geralt is still stuck playing Geralt.

[Jeradon]

DA Origins had something which matched this approach. The activities were centered around one setting, one main mission and one main plot.

[QweenBeen]

DA Origins had something which matched this approach. The activities were centered around one setting, one main mission and one main plot.

I think origins was the closest to it, but not quite the same...lol okay so maybe this is just another way of saying for the millionth thread that dai needs to be more like dao damn...

[Caja]

...

I don't know, I guess I would really like to see this style in DA4 or beyond. Less world, but more meaning to what we're doing. Less stuff to do, but more cutscenes and wicked grace kind of moments.

But would this style even fit in the DA universe? The witcher games are derived heavily from actual novels, so the style there makes sense? But would a "novel" approach to DA even make sense?

The Witcher 3 will have a bigger open world. Will be interesting to see how the developers handled it and the story. As for the cutscenes, do you mean cinematics (small movies like the post-credit scene)? There is always the problem that you are no longer in control of your character and more cutscenes could lead to a game that feels more like a movie and less like a game. 

 

The "novel" approach is nothing new, e.g. Once Upon a Monster had a storybook as leitmotif and the the more recent game Dreamfall Chapters uses books/chapters as a theme, too. In my opinion it makes sense to use this style if you are using it for more than just for the narration and the breakdown into different chapters. Hmmm... I'm not sure if the only reason why CD Project Red chose the "chapter" style is the derivation of the game from the novels. That's probably one reason. But more importantly, having a narrator is a neat method to explain more of the background/exposition to the player and there was quite a bit of lore the devs needed to get across.  So, yes, a "novel" approach could work for DA 4 but there has to be a good reason for it. Personally, I don't think we really need it.  

[Nefla]

I started a new game in Fallout 3 today and felt a lot of the same. You start to get used to the more recent games such as DA:I with its' large, empty, lifeless world and then you play something else and it's like your eyes have been opened. Playing these older games again you're immediately hit with how much more alive and fleshed out everything feels. Each settlement has plenty of people to talk to at length (even the ones who aren't quest givers) to really tell the story of each area and enhance the lore. You see people moving around and going about their daily lives rather than frozen as non interactive statues for all eternity. The computer logs and notes you find tell a history and just help enhance the world rather than being so irrelevant and boring (such as some guy thinking it's a good idea to find bear claws) and forcing an equally boring "quest" on you. *sigh*

 

I hope TW3 is great (I enjoyed the second one) though I will never like a set protagonist game as much as a game with a custom protagonist and it definitely has less replay value for me.

[ThirteenthJester13]

So this is not a dis on the dragon age style of rpg, at all. Love the land, the lore, the characters, the novels, comics, everything about it. But I started playing witcher 2 again just to prep for 3, and I gotta say...subtle things like "chapters", close up cut scenes when you converse with quest givers and your companions, the presence of a third person narrator telling your story...I just feel like I'm being presented with a novel, and I'm about to dive into a "build your own adventure". The world of the witcher and it's politics and countries, etc. confuse the flip out of me, but it almost doesn't matter because I'm learning it as my amnesiac character wanders around. It's structured, but not. There's a contained frame around which to run around in, but everything you do builds your character. Your character saving innocent townsfolk isn't enough to build your character, but refusing payment for your good deeds does . It just feels more real to me...

I don't know, I guess I would really like to see this style in DA4 or beyond. Less world, but more meaning to what we're doing. Less stuff to do, but more cutscenes and wicked grace kind of moments.

But would this style even fit in the DA universe? The witcher games are derived heavily from actual novels, so the style there makes sense? But would a "novel" approach to DA even make sense?

I think the witcher 3 will have the best of W2 and DAI onl it will be an open world (takes 35-40 minutes to cross from one side of the open world to the other. That's not including the islands you can visit. (Loved The idea of Dragon Island in DA tho). I with you one the Realisticality of it all. The Witcher when comparing its political aspects and realistic character development and mature choices that are never black and white and the main quest is their but lke any REAL adventure, things happen along the way because you need money and maybe an edge on the competition plus the two different major conflcits. 1 being the Wild hunt and 2 being the Nilfgardian "Inquisition")

 

Dragon Age allows you to fully customize apearances and in DA2 even the personality which I miss soooo much BUT I guess its replaced by the deep relationships you are engaged in, DAI tried to do to much and looked like, in order to release on all consoles next gen and previous, some was cut out and hopefully DLC might drop in a brand new 8 quest story as the main campaign doesn't take long if you play on normal or even easy and blow thru only the main missions after closing several rifts and gaing enough power to unlock all those missions. (Also I don't even know or think Here Lies the Abyss is a required mission.) Idk ill have to judge DA based on my second and third playthru which if I don't finish a Rogue campaign and another Warrior campaign before May 19th then I doubt ill pick up any other rpg save for the Witcher 3. Although You are Geralt, you still sort of craft yur own Geralt as he is capable of both cruelty and compassion as his morality wavers BUT deep down he really is a instinctual man/mutant that follows his instintcs or his heart and havin been cruel and seen cruelty, he becomes a hypocrite as he kills men for being cruel and then forces another man later on to pay him more money because he is also a survivor that's seems to always be caught up in other peple crap.

 

To me, Hawke is the only DA player character that has a full arc while also being the most original character plus we get to see how he has changed based on the events of DA2. Also we get to see how geralt has changed. He already remarks about bein to old for this" but hes resilient and will defeinetay die by the sword or a klled by a beast because of his moral unstability.

[wepeel_]

I think origins was the closest to it, but not quite the same...lol okay so maybe this is just another way of saying for the millionth thread that dai needs to be more like dao damn...

 

I'm all for the origins part of DAO in the sense of getting a closer connection to your character and who he/she was before the main plot of the game was set in motion - I would have liked more of this in DAI for sure, like starting the game in Ostwick if you're a Trevelyan, and so on. In terms of world  building though, I hold DAI as far superior. After getting used to the environments of DAI, going back to DAO almost feels like a 2d sidescroller where you are constantly herded in one direction and can't possibly miss out on anything.

 

As for complaints that the environments are empty, I don't feel it benefits a game to attempt to fill every square meter with something plot-critical or new loot to replace what you already carry. Exploring that kind of "empty" world may not always reward you in terms of game mechanics, but it does so much in terms of immersion. Like in the real world, a lot of places are mostly empty and a lot of people don't have anything to say that is especially useful to you - and when a game world deviates too much from that, it becomes obvious that you're playing a game: ok, there's a little path to the left here, that means there has to be something there that I need for one of my quests, otherwise why bother to create an area there at all.

 

In other words, I like my games to play it somewhat loose with the Chekhov's gun principle. You shouldn't see a gun and immediately know  it will end up used, but you also shouldn't see guns all the time without there being any point to them. For the best immersion, you should see a gun and know that it might end up being used, but you can't be sure as the game has shown you that not everything you see is there for the benefit of your personal objectives.

[QweenBeen]

The Witcher 3 will have a bigger open world. Will be interesting to see how the developers handled it and the story. As for the cutscenes, do you mean cinematics (small movies like the post-credit scene)? There is always the problem that you are no longer in control of your character and more cutscenes could lead to a game that feels more like a movie and less like a game.

[...]

By cutscenes i was thinking about the regular conversations you have throughout the game. Talking to dandelion or just getting side quests. Just average NPC interactions because I agree, there is a fine balance between playing a game versus watching a movie. If my mwmory serves me right, I think Deus Ex (the latest one) struck a good balance between the two too.

I think DA4 could benefit from it, personally, as we're geting away from southern Thedas and are being introduced to new areas. Going back to a smaller world with more information and character interaction would give us a better feel for tevinter, seheron or whatever strange new place we go to that we've only heard about...

...especially places where we've heard sketchy things about, because if we're expected to love the place and the people, they'll have to double their efforts and make us change our minds!

And yessss to Fallout 3 and Oblivion and all those older games. Something happened to gaming when Skyrim came out (and not knocking it either, easily put in 300 hrs there!) Where it was trying to make the world as realistic as possible so it could literally be lived in. I spent more time trying to put books upright on a shelf than I care to admit but the actual story was meh in my mind, just your run of the mill "hero falls out of the sky to save the day" bit.

Maybe it's the joys of being an antihero too, and still have a heart of gold. DAO and DAI heros take up their mantles waaay too easily, so I agree, that Hawke has the best story arc, where its a gradual realization that she's looked to as the city's protector, inadvertently starting when she wanted to join in on a money making venture. As being the least likely hero, she became the besssst!

[Nefla]

I'm all for the origins part of DAO in the sense of getting a closer connection to your character and who he/she was before the main plot of the game was set in motion - I would have liked more of this in DAI for sure, like starting the game in Ostwick if you're a Trevelyan, and so on. In terms of world  building though, I hold DAI as far superior. After getting used to the environments of DAI, going back to DAO almost feels like a 2d sidescroller where you are constantly herded in one direction and can't possibly miss out on anything.

 

As for complaints that the environments are empty, I don't feel it benefits a game to attempt to fill every square meter with something plot-critical or new loot to replace what you already carry. Exploring that kind of "empty" world may not always reward you in terms of game mechanics, but it does so much in terms of immersion. Like in the real world, a lot of places are mostly empty and a lot of people don't have anything to say that is especially useful to you - and when a game world deviates too much from that, it becomes obvious that you're playing a game: ok, there's a little path to the left here, that means there has to be something there that I need for one of my quests, otherwise why bother to create an area there at all.

 

In other words, I like my games to play it somewhat loose with the Chekhov's gun principle. You shouldn't see a gun and immediately know  it will end up used, but you also shouldn't see guns all the time without there being any point to them. For the best immersion, you should see a gun and know that it might end up being used, but you can't be sure as the game has shown you that not everything you see is there for the benefit of your personal objectives.

There shouldn't be something in every square meter of space but there should be a lot more than there was. For example there shouldn't be hoards of random NPCs roaming the wilderness like herds of cattle, but there should be plenty of interactive NPCs with a lot to say in each settlement or town. We should also encounter little pockets of life here and there. In real life if you're friendly you can strike up a conversation with most people, so the unrealistic part is having people stand there unmoving and silent, not reacting even when enemies are swarming around them. The point of exploration shouldn't be simply to look at nature (this may be satisfying enough for people who live in huge urban areas but I live in Alaska, if I want to stare at nature I can look out the window), there should be people and interesting dungeons and worthwhile treasure and puzzles hidden away for you to find.

[turuzzusapatuttu]

Tell that to my Geralt who romanced Shani and woke up next to Triss, the only thing that was not wrong being the hair color.

And whoever cannot stand playing Geralt is still stuck playing Geralt.

 

You would have picked the wrong choice anyway. ****** doesn't mean romancing. Geralt loves only one woman, Yennefer.

[Silcron]

You would have picked the wrong choice anyway. ****** doesn't mean romancing. Geralt loves only one woman, Yennefer.

This is actually true. The thing that many people seem to forget is that the Witcher is a role playing game in the sense that you play the role of Geralt of Rivia. You're more of an actor, you get to nuance your performance, do some choices here and there but the character is not yours.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is actually true. The thing that many people seem to forget is that the Witcher is a role playing game in the sense that you play the role of Geralt of Rivia. You're more of an actor, you get to nuance your performance, do some choices here and there but the character is not yours.

And I'm curious to see whether than can be done well.

Unfortunately, I couldn't tolerate the combat system, so I gave up on The Witcher after a very short time.

[CronoDragoon]

Structurally this sounds like Dragon Age 2. Framed narrative, acts, etc. I don't disagree. DA2 did many interesting things with its narrative, underdeveloped as it was.

 

For what it's worth the confusing exposition of the Witcher world did matter to me. I was focused on the task at hand but kept being interrupted by flashbacks about someone named Yennifer that the game never gave me a reason to care about. I think they added some stuff to help with that in the EE but I never got past the first Act for my EE playthrough.

[QweenBeen]

This is actually true. The thing that many people seem to forget is that the Witcher is a role playing game in the sense that you play the role of Geralt of Rivia. You're more of an actor, you get to nuance your performance, do some choices here and there but the character is not yours.

Couldn't this be said for Hawke too? Hawke always has one origin, one path to start on and we build the various nuances of her experience. Sure we can customize her appearance, but I see that as being the only real difference. We'll always get the same ending, our choice is in how we get there. As repetitive as the environments were, her story itself was truly tight knit and well executed.

[SnakeCode]

Couldn't this be said for Hawke too? Hawke always has one origin, one path to start on and we build the various nuances of her experience. Sure we can customize her appearance, but I see that as being the only real difference. We'll always get the same ending, our choice is in how we get there. As repetitive as the environments were, her story itself was truly tight knit and well executed.

 

Yes. Shepard too, but they get a pass because players aren't forced to play as a straight white male, which is the clincher for a lot of people.

 

Geralt is actually most Bioware fan's wet dream. He stands against injustice, racism and bigotry of all kinds. He defends the poor and powerless, helps those without privilege. He has a razor sharp wit and a dry sense of humour (even if the VA isn't the best at getting it across because the delivery is so deadpan.) If he was a companion in a Bioware game he'd be one of their most beloved characters. The fact that he's a straight guy that likes having sex with women overshadows all of the positive qualities both he and TW games have for a lot of people though.

[Akrabra]

You would have picked the wrong choice anyway. ****** doesn't mean romancing. Geralt loves only one woman, Yennefer.

While i agree, i always feel inclined to disagree. When i play The Witcher i usually end up with Triss, not because she looks the best nude, because she is a well written and interesting character. So i never do the stupid sex cards and all that blargh. But if my Geralt, yes my Geralt! has to end up with Yennefer because that is canon, i will be pissed. No way i will pick her over Triss. And that is my problem with The Witcher, you are playing a set character. I hate that. In other rpg's like Bethesda's you are playing a person with a title, but you decide your role within the title. The White Wolf is always Geralt, it isn't your character. 

 

I think that is what happened with Shepard, Bioware felt more entitled to decide Shepards fate seeing as him or her was their character in a way, but it was our Shepard. So i hope The Witcher 3 will let me decide what is right for my Geralt and not decide for me. 

[QweenBeen]

Yes. Shepard too, but they get a pass because players aren't forced to play as a straight white male, which is the clincher for a lot of people.

Geralt is actually most Bioware fan's wet dream. He stands against injustice, racism and bigotry of all kinds. He defends the poor and powerless, helps those without privilege. He has a razor sharp wit and a dry sense of humour (even if the VA isn't the best at getting it across because the delivery is so deadpan.) If he was a companion in a Bioware game he'd be one of their most beloved characters. The fact that he's a straight guy that likes having sex with women overshadows all of the positive qualities both he and TW games have for a lot of people though.

Yeah I didn't mention shep because you kind of pick her origin, but I see you're point about being able to choose race and gender. Or at least gender. ..but that super annoys me...and I'm a double minority, Indian Female, and I know what world I live in and my refusal to play a game that references a SWM based on that principle alone doesn't change that. It just means I'm missing out on a great character, great world and great game because what? A Polish male author didn't think about me when he wrote his story? Pft...

Blegh...I hope you're talking about a minority of BW gamers, because tis a shame otherwise *tsk tsk*

Totally went off topic here, my bad! Back to structure! Although everyone's thoughts on my OP has been very insightful, so thank you

[Ravenfeeder]

I always felt that the closest RPG's got to a novel was Betrayal at Krondor, which should surprise no one as it was based on novels and had input from Feist. It had chapters and happily changed the POV view from chapter to chapter. I still regard it as one of the best cRPG's and sort of wish it had a remake into a modern engine, voice acting and all.

[QweenBeen]

I always felt that the closest RPG's got to a novel was Betrayal at Krondor, which should surprise no one as it was based on novels and had input from Feist. It had chapters and happily changed the POV view from chapter to chapter. I still regard it as one of the best cRPG's and sort of wish it had a remake into a modern engine, voice acting and all.

Hmm, changing POV...? Very cool concept. Love it in novels like GRRM's. DA did it once with Leliana's Song and also in the Darkspawn chronicles (which I didnt play so can't really speak to) but it'd be a "novel" approach to new dlc solas' pov, or sera in her adventures as a jenny, bull's most interesting missions with his pplz. .etc. it might be very linear if it's set in the past but it's got alot of potential for the future.

[Ravenfeeder]

The downside is that you're playing fixed characters, including some from the books, you don't get to make your own PC. Sure you can customise them once play starts, but Jimmy the Hand is still the same one from the books no matter what skills you give him.

 

Return to Krondor used the same device, although not as varied, but it wasn't as well received. Probably because it was obviously only about a third of the story, so they were going to sting you for the money twice more.

[bondari reloads.]

Triss will be in Shani's place in W3 once Yennefer enters the scene if the books are any indication, but whether the games are deemed canon by Sapkowski I do not know.

It is not so much the moral dilemma of a hero as it is a fanfiction-y love triangle between a barren amnesiac, his "one true love" and a redheaded chick who doesn't mind his complete (at least in my playthrough) deck of sex cards.

 

What I'm missing here is a definition of a novel-like game, gameplay and all. In a very literal way DA2 fits the bill perfectly, as it has a storyteller narrating your life. The Witcher novels are just the original work, and that's also true for DA, ME or BG.

To make things even more difficult, the best novel I've ever played would still have to be Ps:T

[KennethAFTopp]

This is actually true. The thing that many people seem to forget is that the Witcher is a role playing game in the sense that you play the role of Geralt of Rivia. You're more of an actor, you get to nuance your performance, do some choices here and there but the character is not yours.

which is why I do not think of it as an RPG.

[ThirteenthJester13]

I'm all for the origins part of DAO in the sense of getting a closer connection to your character and who he/she was before the main plot of the game was set in motion - I would have liked more of this in DAI for sure, like starting the game in Ostwick if you're a Trevelyan, and so on. In terms of world  building though, I hold DAI as far superior. After getting used to the environments of DAI, going back to DAO almost feels like a 2d sidescroller where you are constantly herded in one direction and can't possibly miss out on anything.

 

As for complaints that the environments are empty, I don't feel it benefits a game to attempt to fill every square meter with something plot-critical or new loot to replace what you already carry. Exploring that kind of "empty" world may not always reward you in terms of game mechanics, but it does so much in terms of immersion. Like in the real world, a lot of places are mostly empty and a lot of people don't have anything to say that is especially useful to you - and when a game world deviates too much from that, it becomes obvious that you're playing a game: ok, there's a little path to the left here, that means there has to be something there that I need for one of my quests, otherwise why bother to create an area there at all.

 

In other words, I like my games to play it somewhat loose with the Chekhov's gun principle. You shouldn't see a gun and immediately know  it will end up used, but you also shouldn't see guns all the time without there being any point to them. For the best immersion, you should see a gun and know that it might end up being used, but you can't be sure as the game has shown you that not everything you see is there for the benefit of your personal objectives.

I think all loot and anything that you collect or can find needs to be in practical areas and finding them should be a matter of investigating things on your path to your objective where clues that may stand out or may not until later will point you in the direction of some kind of treasure or uest leading to something, etc etc. Instead of just filling nooks and crannies. If I enter a cave that not only did I have to figure out how to get inside or solve a puzzle or whatever then I should expect something (Loot or bunch of things wanting to kill me Maybe there is nothing at all but if there is a huge chest there better be a bunch of things. Its doesn't always need to be swords or armor either. I prefer it to be valuables or gold and prefer to find weapons or armor by taking it from enemies or looting fortress armories;. I hate seeing swords and shields laying everywhere especially ones that I think look cool but cant pick them up or whatever. Finding a badass new sword shouldn't be about zig sagging around open spaces in a forest pressing the search button to find the one little box or a sword leaing up against the other side of a tree in the middle of the map. Exploring should be about curiosity like"Whas over thee" because it loks intereting or you never took the path or bothered to enter that cave.

 

I like crafting my weaons and armor or finding it in a dungeon, embedded in the top of a huge dragon skull with burning veilfire torches in the eye sockets and three "Gaurdians" that come out of the walls when the sword is removed. then you must prove you are worthy and kill the gaurdians, who then drop things as well. Also the coolest swords are the simplest designed but still look different or original, practical and strong. Im not into Final Fantasy looking weapons atleast most of those kind of weapons. I like the gritty realistic designs. Go to youtube,com and look up Skallagrim's channel on swords and swords scrutinized and sword fighting and he has a lot of good points. While being a little cynical hes still obviously an rpg fan but with knowledge on how a sword fight should work and insight into how it might be approached in a games combat system. I like having multiple single, simple moves but also special moves I can use when an enemy is on the ground or stunned and whoa im going on a sword fighting rant... nevermind.

[ThirteenthJester13]

The downside is that you're playing fixed characters, including some from the books, you don't get to make your own PC. Sure you can customise them once play starts, but Jimmy the Hand is still the same one from the books no matter what skills you give him.

 

Return to Krondor used the same device, although not as varied, but it wasn't as well received. Probably because it was obviously only about a third of the story, so they were going to sting you for the money twice more.

The Witcher 3 is an original story using lore from the books but its not an adaptation. The games include quests that are based on moments in the books but the Witcher 3 is al original and the writer of the books helps collaborate but he int writing it. He's more of a mediator there for consistency.