Aller au contenu

Photo

Leading by Following Along


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
11 réponses à ce sujet

#1
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

So, I think I may have figured out the main reason why the overall story plot of this game didn't . . . quite . . . work.  There are a lot of little things, but I think the major issue underlying them all is this:

 

The game switches structures twice and becomes muddled as a result.

 

Speaking from the player's point of view, there are two basic types of story structure, the active, and the reactive.  (There's a third type, static, when the story isn't there to drive the action but more just to tie it together--this is the type of story you get in Starcraft or Diablo, but it's irrelevant to this particular discussion.)

 

A reactive story is BY FAR the most common in games.  It is driven by WITHHOLDING information from the player: you don't know who the bad guy is, or what he's doing, or what you need to do to defeat him, or even what your overall goal is.  You're just shoving fingers into the dike as fast as you can and hoping it all works out in the end.  This kind of thing is great for suspense and for driving the plot.  When it's well done, the player feels like a detective, slowly putting the difficult-to-assemble pieces together.  This is what drives games like Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment or Mass Effect or Pillars of Eternity.  You start out with a mystery and you chase it.  When it's done less well you wind up feeling like a glorified gofer or even like the devs are INTENTIONALLY screwing with you for kicks.  Like, say, in the "Main Plot" of any Bethesda game.  Those games are so awful in the plot department because they're *written* as reactive plots in a world where you often *play* as an active character.  If they could figure out how to write an active story to go along with it they might qualify as some of the greatest games of all time.

 

Active stories are rarer--maybe even nonexistent.  In an active story you know where you're going (or can choose).  You know what your goal is (or can choose one).  Usually what you get is a bunch of reactive stuff that is (nominally) tied together by an active plot.  This gets you a Fallout (Water Chip) or Dragon Age: Origins (Defeat the Archdemon).  But the active parts of those games are small and only serve to take you from one mystery to the next one--the areas themselves are generally pretty reactive.

 

Inquisition, however, does a weird thing:  It starts out as a reactive story.  A mysterious disaster (which you did not even get to SEE) has happened.  Chase it.  And then suddenly BOOM, here's your enemy, you know all!  It becomes an active story!  Cool!  You have a goal, you know what it is!   You are the master of your fate!  This actually works pretty well IMO because this is right at the time that the game world opens up.  You can go where you want and do what you like, and there's sure plenty of stuff to do (too much, IMO, at least for the amount of story they gave us--if there were more story sections like Here Lies the Abyss, the amount of content might have been just dandy.)

 

Then it kind of falls all over itself and tries to go back to being reactive again.  And this really, really does not work.  I don't think it's necessarily true that it CAN'T work, but in this case it DOESN'T.  The game doesn't transition when the story does--unless you're nuts, you probably reach the "Corypheus is marching on the Elven Temple!!!!!  CHASE HIM!!!" part of the game LONG before you've wrapped up the side areas, so suddenly there's this huge gap between story and gameplay.  Well, and that's assuming that you're like me and the excessiveness of the gameplay areas didn't knock you during the FIRST reactive phase.  (As long as I'm nominally chasing something and this is Contributing, I have a lot of tolerance for Pointless Side Activities.)
 

Also what happens is that the Side Activities are portrayed as "Helping the Inquisition" in the pre-setback reactive section.  And in the active section when you drive the goals, it's all good.  You're the boss.  If you want to run around picking up mosaic tiles, that's your prerogative.  But when Cory makes his Big Comeback, the side activities turn instantly into pure distraction, especially since the game puts fake time pressure on you at the same time.  This second transition was a botch job.


  • Octarin aime ceci

#2
Cheviot

Cheviot
  • Members
  • 1 495 messages

Woah, OP, put down that Maslow's hammer!

 

Before we can begin to examine everything past paragraph 1, you have to explain 2 things:

 

1. Why there are people like myself who thinks the game and it's story worked.

2. Why you aren't using the more obvious (and coherent) structural conceit of Inquisition: the recovery from loss through hope and belief, and how that structure allows it to explore the themes of the story.



#3
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

Woah, OP, put down that Maslow's hammer!

 

Before we can begin to examine everything past paragraph 1, you have to explain 2 things:

 

1. Why there are people like myself who thinks the game and it's story worked.

2. Why you aren't using the more obvious (and coherent) structural conceit of Inquisition: the recovery from loss through hope and belief, and how that structure allows it to explore the themes of the story.

 

 

1.  If I had to guess, I'd say probably because you don't care about gameplay and story integration.  If you only hit the story beats in rapid succession, it works fairly well.  It's a coherent story.  It doesn't hold the game they've made together, though.  So it doesn't "work".

 

2.  That's not a *structural* conceit, that's a thematic conceit.  I'm talking mechanics, not ideas.


  • Octarin aime ceci

#4
Cheviot

Cheviot
  • Members
  • 1 495 messages
2.  That's not a *structural* conceit, that's a thematic conceit.  I'm talking mechanics, not ideas.

Perhaps "organizating principle" might be more palatable? Since a lot of the narrative (from the main story to the companion quests) is structured around a massive reversal of fortune resolved by a character re-examining or reaffirming their beliefs or by putting their trust in another. This extends to the level of the player, who gains support and "wins" each area by proving that they can be believed in, worthy of support, through their deeds and/or their word.



#5
bondari reloads.

bondari reloads.
  • Members
  • 419 messages

That apparently counterproductive combination of mechanics and themes could be spotted in all BW games imo. ToB (Melissan/Melisandre?) and the ME3 ("choice") ending come to mind.

Although I think that the agency of the Herald (or lack thereof, due to Cory forcing his hand) and the exploration work against each other to an extent, I sure appreciated the heck out of how they treated the themes of faith and salvation. The stuff that's left unfinished may even be helping the narrative by itself, further emphasising the sense of urgency. Would it have made more sense if, for some reason, all the areas were gated off at some point?



#6
Octarin

Octarin
  • Members
  • 1 326 messages

I actually think this is the best analysis of what the hell is wrong with DA:I script-wise. I have some knowledge of scriptwriting (currently collaborating on writing an action script, solo writing a mystery/horror script and thinking about a comedy mini-series) and I agree with you.

 

As far as Bethesda is concerned you are correct as well, and that's the only reason why I find myself never actually finishing any Bethesda game I've picked up, despite the fact that I absolutely adore them all, from Daggerfall onwards. It's that discrepancy of treatment you mention that, on the one hand, makes me eager to engage, but on the other, fails to drive the plot/interest in the plot forward from a point hence.

 

Back to DA:I, I personally got seriously vexxed when I hit the Temple, for the exact reason you mention. I felt a discrepancy there. I wanted to take my time and finish all areas before the resolution, but then there was an invisible Damoclean sword hanging over my head held by the story. The lack of cohesion between story and mechanics is so devastatingly obvious that I almost gave up on the game right there. 

 

Btw @bondari reloads I feel the Inquisitor has an almost complete lack of agency from the very moment you become the "Herald of Andraste". All "choices" you make are practically the same, there for the sake of embellishment only, and no matter how much you'd very much like to object, like every good hero in every good story, or react to some things and actually feel the consequences of your reactions, you are simply dragged on by the hair, by other people who pull the strings, who, seemingly don't pull the strings and are leaving you to it, but in essence it's the opposite. The Protagonist in all this is, for all intents and purposes, Mother Giselle (or some could debate, Solas). You are just the main character, the world revolves around you because, hey, the mark, but other than that, decision-wise, you're utterly bound. 

 

Anyway, philosophical argument really. 


  • Elyunha aime ceci

#7
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

That apparently counterproductive combination of mechanics and themes could be spotted in all BW games imo. ToB (Melissan/Melisandre?) and the ME3 ("choice") ending come to mind.

Although I think that the agency of the Herald (or lack thereof, due to Cory forcing his hand) and the exploration work against each other to an extent, I sure appreciated the heck out of how they treated the themes of faith and salvation. The stuff that's left unfinished may even be helping the narrative by itself, further emphasising the sense of urgency. Would it have made more sense if, for some reason, all the areas were gated off at some point?

 

I wouldn't have minded the gating (if they warned you), but this is the kind of thing that makes people irate before they even play the game for some reason.



#8
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

 

Btw @bondari reloads I feel the Inquisitor has an almost complete lack of agency from the very moment you become the "Herald of Andraste". All "choices" you make are practically the same, there for the sake of embellishment only, and no matter how much you'd very much like to object, like every good hero in every good story, or react to some things and actually feel the consequences of your reactions, you are simply dragged on by the hair, by other people who pull the strings, who, seemingly don't pull the strings and are leaving you to it, but in essence it's the opposite. The Protagonist in all this is, for all intents and purposes, Mother Giselle (or some could debate, Solas). You are just the main character, the world revolves around you because, hey, the mark, but other than that, decision-wise, you're utterly bound. 

 

Anyway, philosophical argument really. 

 

I thought the agency wasn't too bad for this style of RPG.  If you take it as a given that the premise is going to be "you must go along with the main plot", you get decent opportunities to wander around on your own recognizance.  There are a fair number of things that aren't apparent choices but that have effects on your experience.



#9
rashie

rashie
  • Members
  • 911 messages

Putting the player in any kind of leadership position of a larger organisation was a mistake imo, if drawing a parallel to mass effect you have shepard which is effectively operating as a defacto commander of a frigate, but you still have people he answers to above him in regards to storytelling. I think that's better than making the player the actual leader.


  • eyezonlyii et Elyunha aiment ceci

#10
Grieving Natashina

Grieving Natashina
  • Members
  • 14 554 messages

JEB!!!

 

My husband is a huge KSP fan and I love your avatar.  :)   Sorry for interrupting.



#11
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

Putting the player in any kind of leadership position of a larger organisation was a mistake imo, if drawing a parallel to mass effect you have shepard which is effectively operating as a defacto commander of a frigate, but you still have people he answers to above him in regards to storytelling. I think that's better than making the player the actual leader.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with having the PC be the leader, and they actually set it up pretty well in this game.  Cassandra, Cullen, Leliana, and Josephine don't have real leadership personalities.  The PC doesn't have to be a gofer.

 

What they didn't do a good job of was giving you meaningful or interesting decisions to make, because there just wasn't enough story content and there weren't any tradeoffs outside of the story content apart from the default of just "I didn't do this part".



#12
b10d1v

b10d1v
  • Members
  • 1 322 messages

You're not the first to say this and are in good company of writers, educators, game developers and many other fields that were also confused.  The game has so many inconsistencies where logic breaks down, apart from it's more technical misgivings.  If you look at mass effect (ME1 and ME2), changes typically followed the general scope of the game and things that changed had some meaning w/in the game, ME3 began showing infection like depression.  Dragon age inquisitions emerged fully infected showing no such cohesion with its brethren along with a list of QA issues that seemed no one cared.  What happens at a company to engender such change?  I think we all have a good idea and hope there is a recovery.