820 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

BioWare games are story-driven experiences first and RPGs second. I, and likely most, buy BioWare games to experience the story BioWare tells. Whether it was the epic twist in KotOR, the amazing ride that was Mass Effect, or killing the Archdemon at Denerim, it's the story that makes the game, not the roleplay. If I want to roleplay, again, I write a fanfiction or I play TES. That is a much better RPG than a BioWare game.

You really need to come to grips with the truth that there are different ways to Roleplay. The way Bioware provides is different but not inferior to the experience TES games provide.

[Revan Reborn]

I see you made a good use of the source I pointed to you, however you totally missed the point with DAI sales. ME3 has been out for how long, three years? Did your figures include the DLC sales? 

DAI has been out for 5 months at best. Maybe you should wait three more years and for all the DLC to be released for DAI - then count the sales and compare if you would like an honest comparison and assessment.   

You must be confused... What I linked to you is just copies of the original, base game sold. DLC isn't included. The ME3 trilogy release isn't included. There is nothing else to consider.

 

As far as DAI being out for five months, you do realize that a video game will obtain most of its profits within its first month? Very few games have longevity where they continue to create sales for a long period of time. DAI is not going to catch ME3 at this point regardless having almost half the sales of the latter, even if you wait another three years.

 

I made this very simple for you and yet you still missed the point. Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age and Mass Effect 3 is BioWare's best selling game to date. It's fine if you prefer DA to ME, but it's clear ME is more successful and more iconic. In fact, DA has consistently borrowed features from ME whereas ME has taken little to nothing from DA.

 

Again, this goes back to my point if Mass Effect is obviously more popular and successful, perhaps going the defined protagonist with one race option is the best way to go. Clearly, that is more profitable than what DAI did. Outside of a few people on BSN that keep promoting multi-race, there is no reason to believe that the general populace wants multi-race in BioWare games, nor that they care.

[Revan Reborn]

are those numbers about the same time, (x months after the game was out) or is ME3 sales until now, and DAI until now? and remember that many fan of ME/DA wheren't very keen to buy any other BioWare game either. ME3 lived of hype for being the last chapter of a trilogy. DAI was the "let's try to resurrect a product".

 

Because DAI was said to be the best selling just out.

That's all current as far as I'm aware. It doesn't matter if DAI is out for another three years, it won't catch ME3. Most sales are generated in the first month and there's no way DAI will pass ME3 when it's almost more than half behind in sales.

 

Whatever reason you want to rationalize, it's just a fact that Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age. Why that is could be for several reasons. The one that is relevant to this thread is likely because of a strong protagonist that really resonates with the story.

 

Bear in mind I'm not suggesting DAI isn't doing well. DAI is a triple platinum hit, meaning it's sold over 3.2 million copies and it has already passed DAO in sales.

 

You really need to come to grips with the truth that there are different ways to Roleplay. The way Bioware provides is different but not inferior to the experience TES games provide.

There is nothing to "come to grips" with. There is no "truth." It's a simple fact that BioWare makes story-driven games where the choices you make are the "roleplay." There's nothing more to it and that has been the case for well over a decade. To try to make BioWare games into anything else is to merely misunderstand what their primary purpose is, story, and to try and shift BioWare games into something entirely different. I'm not suggesting that BioWare games are completely devoid of the capacity to roleplay, but that's not the main purpose of the game. There seems to be great confusion, at least among a few on BSN, on what a BioWare game actually does and the player's role in it.

[phaonica]

When you make absolute statements such as "many people" begged BioWare for multi-race and that "more choice makes a better RPG," it's hard to have a discourse with you. There is no evidence to support any of your assertions are true. On the contrary, if we just look at numbers and sales, multi-race would actually suggest it harms overall sales of BioWare titles. Thus, it could very well be that the "roleplay" fans on BSN are the only ones who actually want such a feature to start.

You seem to be suggesting that having multiple races specifically harms sales, but there are a multitude of reasons that one game might sell worse than another. You can't pinpoint to the presence or lack of multiple race choices and be sure that that had something to do with the sales numbers.

According to the Director of Marketing for BioWare

However, from what I know about the sales numbers (a) DAI is doing great and well ahead of it's predecessors,

DAI is selling much better than DA2, despite having multiple races. So we can't point to sales numbers and accurately suggest that any given feature is specifically responsible.
 

Again, I think there is a serious disconnect here for many posters. BioWare games are story first and an RPG second. To not understand this is the reason why this discussion is going on and why BioWare games, such as Dragon Age, have struggled. You don't see this issue in Mass Effect largely because the story comes first and BioWare makes that clear. Again, BioWare games are storytelling experiences meant to be observed and react to. This isn't a game where you make up your own fiction and try to conform the experience to your own imagination.

You state that Bioware games are story first and an RPG second. Has Bioware ever said this, or is this your personal conclusion?

"Bioware games are storytelling experiences meant to be observed and react to"? Again, where has Bioware ever actually said this?

And even if Bioware did say that, people can and do what they consider to be "roleplaying" in the Dragon Age games. To say that Dragon Age isn't meant for that is basically telling them they're playing the game wrong.

"This isn't a game where you make up your own fiction"? If that were true, why does the ability to have branching narratives exist? It seems to me that it's so you can build your own fiction out of their building blocks.

[Xetykins]

That's a tragic conclusion to make. If the protagonist does not matter anymore, then what's the point? I may as well just watch a TV show or a movie if only the story matters and my character and his/her impact are meaningless. What makes video games different is the level of interactiveness in the experience. I want my protagonist to matter. Otherwise, everything else I'm doing in a video game has little meaning or value.

Well, we will never get the same protag for the rest of the series. And as I already said my ideal Dragon Age hero was the warden which was different to yours. But since little to no chance of that happening, I only ask for a tighter story than the last two which is a better protagonist is a given. Human only or not.

[Shevy]

You must be confused... What I linked to you is just copies of the original, base game sold. DLC isn't included. The ME3 trilogy release isn't included. There is nothing else to consider.

 

As far as DAI being out for five months, you do realize that a video game will obtain most of its profits within its first month? Very few games have longevity where they continue to create sales for a long period of time. DAI is not going to catch ME3 at this point regardless having almost half the sales of the latter, even if you wait another three years.

 

I made this very simple for you and yet you still missed the point. Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age and Mass Effect 3 is BioWare's best selling game to date. It's fine if you prefer DA to ME, but it's clear ME is more successful and more iconic. In fact, DA has consistently borrowed features from ME whereas ME has taken little to nothing from DA.

 

Again, this goes back to my point if Mass Effect is obviously more popular and successful, perhaps going the defined protagonist with one race option is the best way to go. Clearly, that is more profitable than what DAI did. Outside of a few people on BSN that keep promoting multi-race, there is no reason to believe that the general populace wants multi-race in BioWare games, nor that they care.

DA:I was the best selling game shortly after release. You have to compare ME 3 5 months sales to DA:I current sales.

 

Besides this, making the conclusion that a more defined protag with human only is better saleswise than multi-race takes it way too simple. There is far more to compare between DA an ME, shooter vs. non-shooter, sci-fi vs. high fantasy. Shooter tend to be the most popular genre in video gaming. So, breaking it down to race-joices is too simple. You would need the same game with both options to make a comparison. The rest is guessing out of the blue.

[Revan Reborn]

You seem to be suggesting that having multiple races specifically harms sales, but there are a multitude of reasons that one game might sell worse than another. You can't pinpoint to the presence or lack of multiple race choices and be sure that that had something to do with the sales numbers.



You state that Bioware games are story first and an RPG second. Has Bioware ever said this, or is this your personal conclusion?

"Bioware games are storytelling experiences meant to be observed and react to"? Again, where has Bioware ever actually said this?

And even if Bioware did say that, people can and do what they consider to be "roleplaying" in the Dragon Age games. To say that Dragon Age isn't meant for that is basically telling them they're playing the game wrong.

"This isn't a game where you make up your own fiction"? If that were true, why does the ability to have branching narratives exist? It seems to me that it's so you can build your own fiction out of their building blocks.

I'm suggesting that multi-race could have an impact or that most people, in general, don't care whether it's in or not. What the sales do tell us is that players obviously enjoy Mass Effect, overall, more. As I said before, one of the main reasons could likely be due to a strong and persistent protagonist that resonates with the story.

 

Yes. On various occasions. Watch any of the development videos for SWTOR, or really any videos from BioWare. The Doctors (founders of BioWare) always talked about the importance of story in every BioWare game and how it is the crucial piece that makes their games matter. Is it really not common knowledge that BioWare promotes story over everything else in their games?

 

Dr. Ray Muzyka has stated that BioWare games are in many ways like cinema. Except, instead of just being the audience, you are also the actor and director of the experience. That is the essence of "observing the experience and reacting to it."

 

Just because a game isn't meant for something doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just merely trying to integrate something into the game that was never really intended. Now, DA has made strides to try and be more receptive to roleplay. That's why there was multi-race in DAO with different origins and multi-race in DAI. However, that is typically the extent of what BioWare will do for the roleplay community. Otherwise, the story takes stage front and center. The problem is, however, that multi-race can have an adverse effect on the kind of story you tell.

 

Not at all. BioWare has a very defined narrative in which they allow you to make choices within their story structure. You aren't going out of bounds with regard to their story. You are just merely following a path within that story. They try to make it as expansive and diverging as possible to give a false sense of real choice and expression. It's nothing more than an illusion as BioWare games are structured around story and are very linear.

[Shevy]

 

 

 

 

There is nothing to "come to grips" with. There is no "truth." It's a simple fact that BioWare makes story-driven games where the choices you make are the "roleplay." There's nothing more to it and that has been the case for well over a decade. To try to make BioWare games into anything else is to merely misunderstand what their primary purpose is, story, and to try and shift BioWare games into something entirely different. I'm not suggesting that BioWare games are completely devoid of the capacity to roleplay, but that's not the main purpose of the game. There seems to be great confusion, at least among a few on BSN, on what a BioWare game actually does and the player's role in it.

So, only because you are unable to roleplay a BioWare title it can't be done. You should realise that your way of thinking isn't the only one or the "wide spreaded". I can roleplay Origins aside from "the choices" pretty well because I can give my silent protag his own motivations, goals, tone and personality. BioWare titles are story-focused, sure, but not so limited in rping like you pretend.

[Revan Reborn]

Well, we will never get the same protag for the rest of the series. And as I already said my ideal Dragon Age hero was the warden which was different to yours. But since little to no chance of that happening, I only ask for a tighter story than the last two which is a better protagonist is a given. Human only or not.

I don't mind the Warden. On the contrary, I like him/her. I just see the Warden as being incomplete. Had the Warden had his/her own trilogy, I might feel differently. However, DA feels the need to toss away protagonist like flies, so Hawke was by far the most engaging character for me.

 

I definitely support a more succint story. Besides the multi-race undermining it, in my opinion, I think the more open world exploration also made storytelling difficult for BioWare to achieve. Oddly enough, the main story just seemed really brief in DAI compared to the rest of the game.

 

DA:I was the best selling game shortly after release. You have to compare ME 3 5 months sales to DA:I current sales.

 

Besides this, making the conclusion that a more defined protag with human only is better saleswise than multi-race takes it way too simple. There is far more to compare between DA an ME, shooter vs. non-shooter, sci-fi vs. high fantasy. Shooter tend to be the most popular genre in video gaming. So, breaking it down to race-joices is too simple. You would need the same game with both options to make a comparison. The rest is guessing out of the blue.

Was that the first week? SWTOR was the fastest selling MMO in history and it has sold maybe 2.3 million copies before it went F2P. Again, most sales will occur in the first month and then sharp declines happen afterwards. DAI will not catch ME3 regardless of the fact the former sold copies faster earlier on.

 

I don't believe I said anything about the protagonist having to be human. There's obviously more to consider, but to say the protagonist isn't one of the defining moments would be short-sighted. When I hear most folks talk about Mass Effect, they usually talk about their Shepard. Commander Shepard has become a video game icon, unlike any of the Dragon Age protagonists. Part of this is because he/she was the main character in three games, but also I really believe the more defined character helped a lot. It made Shepard more approachable by players and connected what Shepard was actually doing in the game more. You just don't have that with the Warden or the Inquisitor.

[Revan Reborn]

So, only because you are unable to roleplay a BioWare title it can't be done. You should realise that your way of thinking isn't the only one or the "wide spreaded". I can roleplay Origins aside from "the choices" pretty well because I can give my silent protag his own motivations, goals, tone and personality. BioWare titles are story-focused, sure, but not so limited in rping like you pretend.

Besides the fact I have led large RP groups and events for years in MMORPGs, you can believe what you want about by "ability to roleplay."

 

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that BioWare games are story-driven experiences. The roleplay comes in the form of the choices you make within that limited framework. The only overt times BioWare made an attempt to give more to roleplayers was with DAO in the origin stories in multi-race in DAO and DAI. Otherwise, BioWare isn't the "champion of roleplay" that you make it out to be. That's just not reality. You can imagine whatever you want, but BioWare games are, first, foremost, and will always be, about the story.

[SerendipitousElf]

You must be confused... What I linked to you is just copies of the original, base game sold. DLC isn't included. The ME3 trilogy release isn't included. There is nothing else to consider.

 

Snip>>

 

I made this very simple for you and yet you still missed the point. Mass Effect is more popular than Dragon Age and Mass Effect 3 is BioWare's best selling game to date.

 

That's all current as far as I'm aware. It doesn't matter if DAI is out for another three years, it won't catch ME3. Most sales are generated in the first month and there's no way DAI

will pass ME3 when it's almost more than half behind in sales.

 

Snip>>

 

There seems to be great confusion, at least among a few on BSN, on what a BioWare game actually does and the player's role in it.

Do you seriously believe that the people who do not agree with you are confused?

Attacking one's capacity for intelligent thought is rude to say the least.

 

ME may have outnumbered DA sales up to date, because all three installments sold about the same amount of copies and there was a ton of DLC to keep the interest alive.

DA could have sold as much as ME if not for the flop that was DA2, which proves my point that single protagonist doesn't work in the DA series.

 

Since you resorted to personal attacks, we will have to agree to disagree on all points and leave it at that.

[Shevy]

Besides the fact I have led large RP groups and events for years in MMORPGs, you can believe what you want about by "ability to roleplay."

 

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that BioWare games are story-driven experiences. The roleplay comes in the form of the choices you make within that limited framework. The only overt times BioWare made an attempt to give more to roleplayers was with DAO in the origin stories in multi-race in DAO and DAI. Otherwise, BioWare isn't the "champion of roleplay" that you make it out to be. That's just not reality. You can imagine whatever you want, but BioWare games are, first, foremost, and will always be, about the story.

I have never made them the "champion of roleplay". But roleplaying for me is more than what is visible/hearable on screen. I think we have to agree to disagree on this case. I would really consider buying a hypothetical DA IV without a race option and therefore a more defined protag. It just isn't my way of playing DA.

 

You are right that Shepard was/is the iconic ffigure in the ME perception - in DA's there are more persons that are the icons of the series. Only thing they lack is the fact that they weren't protags.

[jtav]

Don't hit me, but I do think the game could have benefited from cutting qunari and dwarves (ouch) in favor of city elves/human merc. Because this is a game about faith. And it's Andrastianism and the elven pantheon that play out these themes. And it's the fate of city elves/mages/templars that you spend most of your time deciding. I love my dwarf but because I enjoy playing reformed criminals. My dwarfness just highlighted how I didn't have a dog in any of the major conflicts.

[phaonica]

I'm suggesting that multi-race could have an impact or that most people, in general, don't care whether it's in or not. What the sales do tell us is that players obviously enjoy Mass Effect, overall, more. As I said before, one of the main reasons could likely be due to a strong and persistent protagonist that resonates with the story.

 
Or that may not be anywhere near as significant as you think. You don't know. Going by sales numbers alone, it didn't significantly help DA2.

 

Is it really not common knowledge that BioWare promotes story over everything else in their games? ...
Dr. Ray Muzyka has stated that BioWare games are in many ways like cinema. Except, instead of just being the audience, you are also the actor and director of the experience. That is the essence of "observing the experience and reacting to it."

Yes, they promote the story, but there are multiple different ways to tell a story. From what I recall, they also widely promote their choice mechanics and how the world reacts and changes based on your decisions in the game (including picking out your background). Thus, the player is a director that directs the path of the story.


 

Just because a game isn't meant for something doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just merely trying to integrate something into the game that was never really intended. Now, DA has made strides to try and be more receptive to roleplay. That's why there was multi-race in DAO with different origins and multi-race in DAI. However, that is typically the extent of what BioWare will do for the roleplay community. Otherwise, the story takes stage front and center. The problem is, however, that multi-race can have an adverse effect on the kind of story you tell.

The entire narrative mechanic of branching storylines and being able to create your own version of the story also can facilitate roleplaying. Mechanics that facilitate roleplaying do not necessarily, by their very nature, interfere with storytelling.
 
 

Not at all. BioWare has a very defined narrative in which they allow you to make choices within their story structure. You aren't going out of bounds with regard to their story. You are just merely following a path within that story. They try to make it as expansive and diverging as possible to give a false sense of real choice and expression. It's nothing more than an illusion as BioWare games are structured around story and are very linear.

Of course the choice mechanic is an illusion. It's as much an illusion as the choice mechanics in any video game, including TES games. The trick is whether it's a good illusion or not. Many games are obviously linear; they don't even pretend to give you the illusion of choice. Dragon Age games do try to give you that illusion of choice.

[phaonica]

Besides the fact I have led large RP groups and events for years in MMORPGs, you can believe what you want about by "ability to roleplay."

 

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that BioWare games are story-driven experiences. The roleplay comes in the form of the choices you make within that limited framework. The only overt times BioWare made an attempt to give more to roleplayers was with DAO in the origin stories in multi-race in DAO and DAI. Otherwise, BioWare isn't the "champion of roleplay" that you make it out to be. That's just not reality. You can imagine whatever you want, but BioWare games are, first, foremost, and will always be, about the story.

 

Unless you work for Bioware, you have no authority to claim what Bioware games are first and foremost and will always be.

[alex90c]

do we have another txgoldrush on our hands here?

[Heimdall]

There is nothing to "come to grips" with. There is no "truth." It's a simple fact that BioWare makes story-driven games where the choices you make are the "roleplay." There's nothing more to it and that has been the case for well over a decade. To try to make BioWare games into anything else is to merely misunderstand what their primary purpose is, story, and to try and shift BioWare games into something entirely different. I'm not suggesting that BioWare games are completely devoid of the capacity to roleplay, but that's not the main purpose of the game. There seems to be great confusion, at least among a few on BSN, on what a BioWare game actually does and the player's role in it.

And once again you miss the point.

You are the one trying to shift a Bioware game into something that it is not. The whole reason myself and others are arguing on this point is because we like Dragon Age for what it is. We have no desire for a second Mass Effect. We have Mass Effect for that. That's why many fans and reviewers were disappointed by Hawke being restricted to human. That's why people groaned when the Inquisitor was originally announced to be human only. That's why people were thrilled when they announced race selection.

You've said that Bioware games are terrible for roleplaying, apparently because you count TES headcanon gaming as the epitome of roleplaying, and that's a fine opinion but there is no standard style or definition of roleplaying, if all those "what is an RPG" threads that used to pop up are any indication. Whatever you think the player's role in an RPG is doesn't matter at all. Actor or director, they're still building a character they like from the pieces given to them and adding bits even if they go unacknowledged.

Oh, and as to the sales numbers. Comparing them across the franchises doesn't mean a whole lot. Mass Effect is a third person shooter, a genre that has always held more mainstream appeal than the party based fantasy RPG, which has always had more of a niche audience. Trying to explain the discrepancy with just a few features, of the many that differ between them, is a bit silly.

[SerendipitousElf]

do we have another txgoldrush on our hands here?

Looks like it, doesn't it?

[Heimdall]

Do you seriously believe that the people who do not agree with you are confused?
Attacking one's capacity for intelligent thought is rude to say the least.
 
ME may have outnumbered DA sales up to date, because all three installments sold about the same amount of copies and there was a ton of DLC to keep the interest alive.
DA could have sold as much as ME if not for the flop that was DA2, which proves my point that single protagonist doesn't work in the DA series.
 
Since you resorted to personal attacks, we will have to agree to disagree on all points and leave it at that.

This is his MO.

Anyone who disagrees with his opinions or conclusions is confused, ignorant, misunderstanding, or a fanboy.

[Patient.Zero]

Again, I think there is a serious disconnect here for many posters. BioWare games are story first and an RPG second. To not understand this is the reason why this discussion is going on and why BioWare games, such as Dragon Age, have struggled. You don't see this issue in Mass Effect largely because the story comes first and BioWare makes that clear. Again, BioWare games are storytelling experiences meant to be observed and react to. This isn't a game where you make up your own fiction and try to conform the experience to your own imagination.

 

It's a bit like you're telling people how they should be playing their game (I don't think that was your intention and I don't really know you but, I'm going to assume you're a swell fellow). I liked the Inquisitor, because when I play it's like I've Inkhearted my way into a new universe, and hearing people say things like "BioWare was meant to provide X experience and X experience only" makes someone like me, who rather liked what DA:I had to offer feel a bit guilty, like maybe I shouldn't be playing Dragon Age games because what I enjoy is what lessens the gaming experience... Moving away from all that touchy feely business, I really believe that Dragon Age is a great universe and a great series of games so perhaps instead of sticking to a formula because it's what they're known for or what they've always done, BioWare could actually try to incorporate a reactive world with intelligent AI. This is the 4th gen after all.

 

Again, this goes back to my point if Mass Effect is obviously more popular and successful, perhaps going the defined protagonist with one race option is the best way to go. Clearly, that is more profitable than what DAI did. Outside of a few people on BSN that keep promoting multi-race, there is no reason to believe that the general populace wants multi-race in BioWare games, nor that they care.

 

Mass Effect and Dragon Age are two different games though. Not only because one is science fiction while the other is fantasy, but there is also the fact that one is a shooter and the other is not. I remember Mass Effect being on the news because people were shocked/upset about the fact that players could be intimate with a blue lady. Point being, even though both games where made by the same company they appeal to different audiences and had different kinds of exposure. There are a multitude of reasons why one game could be selling more then the other and those reasons don't necessarily directly correlate to "Mass Effect having a fixed character" and "Dragon Age not having a fixed character".  I get that there's no way that BioWare will be able to please everyone with the choices they make (such is life), but to say that people who play the game a certain way are "missing the mark" or, not understanding the "essence of BioWare" is kind of an insult to people who like Dragon Age Inquisition as it is, race selection and all. 

[Toasted Llama]

The term "need" was used as a mechanism for people to enter the thread and discuss their opinions. As far as DAI being "their best selling game," that would be incorrect. DAI certainly did well and I'm not against it winning GotY, but ME3 certainly has sold many more copies. We can just look at the raw data of sale of copies alone:

 

Mass Effect 3 - 5.49 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....e=mass effect 3

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition - 3.32 million copies sold globally on all platforms:

http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200

 

Mass Effect is by far BioWare's most profitable and successful franchise to date. Dragon Age is just not on the same level in terms of success.

Uh...


Where the f*ck is VGchartz getting their data from when Bioware/EA isn't releasing any numbers and the only numbers you can't "guess" don't include digital sales?

And if you don't believe Bioware's word on the fact that DA:I is their best selling game up untill now, you might as well drop this argument entirely because in that case you can't believe anyone.

[phaonica]

I really believe that Dragon Age is a great universe and a great series of games so perhaps instead of sticking to a formula because it's what they're known for or what they've always done, BioWare could actually try to incorporate a reactive world with intelligent AI. This is the 4th gen after all.

Indeed. Emergent gameplay as I understand it (gameplay that is created by the actions of the player, thereby creating a unique experience) is fascinating, I think, and emergent storytelling sounds even better. However, Revan Reborn certainly isn't alone in feeling that more choices isn't necessarily better.

Warren Spector, the Director of Deus Ex and Thief, has also argued that "open-endedness is not the be-all, end-all. As a story design widens out to a free-form system, he argues, the "emergent narrative" (story that's partially created by the player, rather than completely designed by the developer) ends up with a relative lack of direction and emotional resonance." http://www.ign.com/a...games-narrative

There is an argument that emergent storytelling is more shallow than predetermined storytelling: "Emergent narratives are stories that are not authored by a single person or by any person really. They are stories that emerge from the interaction between players and the systems that govern gameplay. They are random, transient, ephemeral things that only ever exist for one person at one moment in time.

I like emergent stories as much as the next person. There’s something empowering about being witness to a singularly unique series of events, watching systems interact with systems in a certain way at a certain location that might never happen again for any other player. Even if such an experience is not really that unique, it still feels that way. Yet when I look back at my emergent experiences or when I try to tell the stories to others, I realize just how shallow an experience they really are.

Emergent stories feel more engrossing than authored stories because they’re personal for the player, and that personal interactivity gives it the illusion of importance. I assume that because this event was exciting for me, it must be exciting for others as well. But it’s not. " http://www.popmatter...in-video-games/

It's still an interesting experiment, I think. One worth trying.

[In Exile]

Indeed. Emergent gameplay as I understand it (gameplay that is created by the actions of the player, thereby creating a unique experience) is fascinating, I think, and emergent storytelling sounds even better. However, Revan Reborn certainly isn't alone in feeling that more choices isn't necessarily better.

Warren Spector, the Director of Deus Ex and Thief, has also argued that "open-endedness is not the be-all, end-all. As a story design widens out to a free-form system, he argues, the "emergent narrative" (story that's partially created by the player, rather than completely designed by the developer) ends up with a relative lack of direction and emotional resonance." http://www.ign.com/a...games-narrative

There is an argument that emergent storytelling is more shallow than predetermined storytelling: "Emergent narratives are stories that are not authored by a single person or by any person really. They are stories that emerge from the interaction between players and the systems that govern gameplay. They are random, transient, ephemeral things that only ever exist for one person at one moment in time.

I like emergent stories as much as the next person. There’s something empowering about being witness to a singularly unique series of events, watching systems interact with systems in a certain way at a certain location that might never happen again for any other player. Even if such an experience is not really that unique, it still feels that way. Yet when I look back at my emergent experiences or when I try to tell the stories to others, I realize just how shallow an experience they really are.

Emergent stories feel more engrossing than authored stories because they’re personal for the player, and that personal interactivity gives it the illusion of importance. I assume that because this event was exciting for me, it must be exciting for others as well. But it’s not. " http://www.popmatter...in-video-games/

It's still an interesting experiment, I think. One worth trying.

I find perspectives that enjoy emergent gaming fascinating, because I've never enjoyed it. A huge part of that is that it's so limited that to me it's always immersion breaking. To me the richest and most enjoyable part of RP comes from interaction. Having chaotic events happen within the confines of a game engine is, if anything, immersion breaking for me.

Not challenging your perspective; just finding it fascinating.

[CronoDragoon]

I'd have to agree with the view that emergent story moments feel transient and unimportant. Largely this is due to the inability of games to incorporate such moments into any larger narrative. I remember one guy relating his Skyrim experience where a quest-giver was talking, and a bear came up and killed her and then left. He loved it and said it was his favorite moment because of how unexpected yet poignant it was (the quest-giver was talking about what a crappy life she had led), and all I could think of was, "I'd reload instantly." The moment means nothing to the larger narrative: she doesn't get a funeral, you can't relate the experience to anyone or incorporate it as anything but headcanon, and ultimately it feels like a hindrance to my experiencing the game's content, rather than being content itself.

 

It's no surprise based on the above preferences of course that I dislike all the Elder Scrolls games and usually stop after about 20 hours of playing them.

[Medhia_Nox]

I think I'd prefer "emergent storytelling" because all tabletop is emergent.  Of course, the computer engine running all non-player emergent events (the DM) is vastly superior to any computer.  

 

I am less a fan of scripted story in video games because there are so few games that are courageous enough to punish players for not responding to the stories urgency.  

 

Being told that the Blight is going to swallow the world... and then casually traipsing about the countryside trading and buying loot and doing side quests... is what, I suppose In Exile would call "mental fantasy".  You have to create an entire new fiction around the idea that your bungling, shameless greed still fits into the narrative.