129 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

I disagree. I think Thedas is the most interesting game world going and I loved the Mass Effect "world" as well. I think BioWare puts more time and thought into world building than any other RPG maker right now. They build in layers of complexity right from jump and in the case of Thedas/Dragon Age they clearly had many, many games' worth of lore built up before Origins even hit shelves.

Well I fail to see it in DA.

All I see is an incoherent mess that can't decide if it wants to be inclusive or gritty, dark fantasy seeking to invert Tolkein, or High Fantasy that emulates him, and thats not even touching smaller inconsistencies such as poor timelines, retcons, and so on

[Killroy]

Well I fail to see it in DA.

All I see is an incoherent mess that can't decide if it wants to be inclusive or gritty, dark fantasy seeking to invert Tolkein, or High Fantasy that emulates him, and thats not even touching smaller inconsistencies such as poor timelines, retcons, and so on

 

That's all gibberish, man. None of those things need apply or even preclude each other. Everyone accuses every new fantasy world of trying to emulate Tolkien. At this point it's just a buzz word.

And I don't even know what timeline issues or retcons you're talking about. The only retcons I can think of are aesthetic, not lore.

[LoRD KYRaN]

I disagree. I think there should be a good balance of both. I really don't see why you would consider them as mutually exclusive. You can have world building as well as a good, driven story. They compliment one another really well. Allowing players to immerse themself in the lore, establish the world they are interested in, develop relationships with squadmates, and allow all of that to influence the players choices in the story. That's how the game should be, to me.

[Steelcan]

That's all gibberish, man. None of those things need apply or even preclude each other. Everyone accuses every new fantasy world of trying to emulate Tolkien. At this point it's just a buzz word.
And I don't even know what timeline issues or retcons you're talking about. The only retcons I can think of are aesthetic, not lore.

DA started out trying to subvert traditional fantasy tropes, particularly in relation to Elves, but pre-release statements also indicate for Dwarves and not!Orcs as well. However as the series has gone on, this has increasingly not been the case.

The retcons I mean are things like Anders being in two places at one (and dead sometimes) or the slaughter of the DA:O boons

[Kabooooom]

So, as far as the open world thing goes - people have mentioned Morrowind and Skyrim. I used to HATE those kind of games. I grew up with jrpgs (because that was all there was), and gradually transitioned into preferring western rpgs. But the type of game I still love is that like Mass Effect - strongly story based.

In fact, I was so biased by this that I completely refused to give many open world games a try. My friend had been begging me to try Fallout 3, like for years and years. Said "sure man, I totally will". Bullshit, of course. I never did.

But then, a few months ago I was bored. Coming off a "final" perfect mass effect trilogy play through and was looking for something else. So I finally decided to play Fallout 3.

And holy shitballs. I LOVE this game. But I love it for entirely different reasons than Mass Effect. The sense of freedom and exploration entirely overshadows any semblance of a story that it has. And that's fine to me, because realistically, as someone emerging from a vault experiencing this vast and super f-'d up landscape for the first time, I am totally fine with the open world immersive experience that it offers.

But Mass Effect is different. I prefer it. I prefer the story, but also the sense of exploration and discovery. To me, when done right, it is the best of both worlds. To me, ME1 did it perfectly in concept, poorly in pacing in execution. ME2 spent more time on world and character building but less on story. It suffered as a result, but it was still my favorite. ME3 was fully story oriented and I was fine with that. A war was on and the world had already been built and knocked down - no time or reason to explore much.

All of these games weren't perfect. They perfectly executed some things and failed at others. Do I expect a perfect game from Andromeda? Of course not. Especially not with a new engine and a new team of developers. But, I do expect it to FEEL like Mass Effect.

And I'm not sure that what the OP is suggesting would feel like mass effect. Mass effect feels like mass effect. Fallout feels like Fallout. Perhaps we shouldn't deviate from a successful formula, but should tweak and perfect it instead.

[Killroy]

DA started out trying to subvert traditional fantasy tropes, particularly in relation to Elves, but pre-release statements also indicate for Dwarves and not!Orcs as well. However as the series has gone on, this has increasingly not been the case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. In Tolkien's stories Elves are very much ethereal people, superior to the other races. In Dragon Age the closest approximation would be the Elves that existed many Ages prior. But as the games progress you see that that really isn't the case. Elven immortality was a lie, the Elvish Gods are the same Gods the humans worshipped, much of their magical superiority seems to be based on blood-magic(like the Tevinter Emperium "currently"), etc. And the elves that exist in the current games are either nomadic pretenders or second-class citizens, serving as an underclass to humans. Pretty far from Tolkien's Elves.
The Darkspawn really don't have much in common in Orcs either. Again, as the lore progresses and more is known Thedas becomes more and more unique.
And the Dwarves in Dragon Age are about as unique as any Dwarves have been IMO. Tolkien Dwarves are really just goofy humans that build stuff. Dragon Age Dwarves have the most complex political system and societal structure in Thedas. And those concepts really aren't even touched in Tolkien's stories.

The retcons I mean are things like Anders being in two places at one (and dead sometimes) or the slaughter of the DA:O boons

Ah. Well, that timeline with Awakening and DAII is inconsistent, but they've brought back characters that some players killed several times. Anders death is much more ambiguous in Awakening than Leliana's in Origins...

[Killroy]

But the type of game I still love is that like Mass Effect - strongly story based.

Is that the norm for Mass Effect games though? ME2 has almost no actual story(SUICIDE MISSION, RECRUIT YER TEAM, DIRTY DOZEN! DERP!) and ME3 is just a series of (mostly silly)events.

[Steelcan]

Yeah what do the Dwarves or Orzammar and those of Middle Earth have in common besides everything? (That isnt a Scottish accent)

As for the rest of it. I find your summation if Tolkein's Elves fairly inaccurate. Not even the Noldor are "perfect" and much less ethereal.

Relying on Elves having fallen from a previous form of higher existence through their own pride, not!Orcs stemming from corruption and evil, Dwarves who live underground as master craftsmen.

All DAhas going for it that isn't out of Middle Earth are the human nations,but they're so inoffensive and bland that they hardly qualify as entities in their own right. Theres just the slightly French ones, slightly English ones, the Byzantine ones, and so on. The one decent and quasi original race,the Qunari have thus far been utterly wasted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think its something that doesn't play to their strengths at all and instead leaves them open for their most consistent errors.

They're resources are better spent building characters, relationships, and trying to improve their woefully mediocre main story lines rather than trying to build a world that will inevitably be riddled with lore inconsistency, half assed details, and a generally sanitized approach that leaves much of the setting more lifeless than my social status in Junio High

It's their attempts to weave tighter narratives that damage all other aspects of the game. We can't control our character's lines because it would harm the flow of the conversations. We can't manage inventory because it would disrupt the story's pacing. We can't ever go anywhere we're not told to go because the story requires a specific path through the content.

This is what a greater story focus does. This is the problem, not the solution.

But a coherent setting aids character control, ruleset consistency, and emergent storytelling.

[Panda]

I'd feel awful. Open world didn't work for DAI and I doubt it'll work for ME:A either. It'll be like MMORPG without other people if they go to that direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I started (in 1984) with classic CRPGs like Questron, Ultimas 4-6, and Might & Magic. Filled with exploration and choices, and little or no directed narrative.

Then I branched out (in 1988) to tabletop RPGs. First AD&D, then Rolemaster, MERP, the d6 Star Wars RPG, Paranoia, GURPS...

I first tried a JRPG in 1998, and there was nothing I liked about it (it was FF7). I couldn't control what my character said or how he felt or what his objectives were. This was just a barely interactive novel, and I hated it.

That JRPG experience is exactly what I never want from anything claiming to be a roleplaying game. I want to create a character, and then roleplay that character. World-building helps with that. A tightly woven narrative gets in the way.

[rapscallioness]

I want a tight and powerful narrative with worldbuilding that adds to that narrative.

[Amirit]

What about a system where going to specific places and doing specific things will trigger story/character missions and scenes? Like going to a specific moon triggers a story mission that seems one-off but hints at something larger, to be dealt with in a later game, and the way you deal with that mission triggers scenes on board your ship that develop a character or characters further? And the more of these individual things you trigger the more content you get, in terms of gameplay, lore, character interaction and character development?

It rewards exploration in immediately tangible ways and long term ways.

 

You mean like we had it in DAI? What, you have some kind of story there and the more sidequest you do, the longer you are in the zone and the more banter (character interaction) you get. I wonder why so many people hate it!

 

Seriously, no, thank you! Skyrim proved that you either have a story or a world simulator but never both. And DAI underlined that difference.

[Simfam]

Would I prefer One Piece over Brotherhood?

 

For a ME game, yes.

 

Yes I would.

 

That JRPG experience is exactly what I never want from anything claiming to be a roleplaying game. I want to create a character, and then roleplay that character. World-building helps with that. A tightly woven narrative gets in the way.

 

Dude just don't think of 'em like RPGs.

 

Cos you're missing out on #based Final Fantasy 9.

 

And nobody should miss out on FF9.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dude just don't think of 'em like RPGs.

Cos you're missing out on #based Final Fantasy 9.

And nobody should miss out on FF9.

I play all games like they are RPGs. Strategy games. Sports games. Football Manager is extremely well-suited to roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Seriously, no, thank you! Skyrim proved that you either have a story or a world simulator but never both. And DAI underlined that difference.

If that's the dichotomy, I choose the world simulator every time.

[exboomer]

In god's name WHY??? You would ruin the franchise and resource management games suck!!!!

[pdusen]

Yeah what do the Dwarves or Orzammar and those of Middle Earth have in common besides everything? (That isnt a Scottish accent)

As for the rest of it. I find your summation if Tolkein's Elves fairly inaccurate. Not even the Noldor are "perfect" and much less ethereal.

Relying on Elves having fallen from a previous form of higher existence through their own pride, not!Orcs stemming from corruption and evil, Dwarves who live underground as master craftsmen.

All DAhas going for it that isn't out of Middle Earth are the human nations,but they're so inoffensive and bland that they hardly qualify as entities in their own right. Theres just the slightly French ones, slightly English ones, the Byzantine ones, and so on. The one decent and quasi original race,the Qunari have thus far been utterly wasted.

 

I can see how your summary would seem like an accurate comparison, if you completely ignored the actual details of either Tolkien or Thedas.

[Linkenski]

With Schlerf in the lead and Mac "I-don't-care-about-minutiae" Walters as the director I have low expectations but I would like it if I didn't have to read the novels and comics of Mass Effect in order to get the lore unlike Halo 4, and I would like it if they use their world building to properly establish all the critical plot-going-ons this time, instead of DA:I's contrived Conclave explosion protagonist setup. (ME:A contrived wormhole travel incoming) 

 

Basically, if they can make it more like ME1 but with better pacing, as some have said, I'd be a happy fellow. It just needed less bullshit around its Noveria/Feros parts, and I'm not talking about the port Hanshan/Zhu's Hope colony (which were both good) as much as I'm talking about the Quarantine zone, Benezia, the Skyway and Thorian sections, because those are always the parts when I just slouch back and with my arms lying across my lap with the controller and a big sigh, while turn my brain off until I'm done.

 

TL;DR: Yeah, ME1 was near-perfect plot-wise. Not convinced ME:A will be anywhere near that balance or even style of world-building, but we can always hope.

 

EDIT: I wanna disagree with the statement that Bethesda proves you either choose a world simulator or a story-simulator "because of Skyrim". Why does it have to be that way? Besides, we have The Witcher 3 to prove that (mostly) wrong, and boy, we can go way further beyond what the Witcher 3 achieved with the right talent and design philosophies.

[pdusen]

I play all games like they are RPGs. Strategy games. Sports games. Football Manager is extremely well-suited to roleplaying.

 

That sounds... difficult.

[Linkenski]

People love stretching arguments lately. I was listening to some gaming podcast too, the other day where they started arguing whether GTA V was actually an RPG because you can increase your stats.

 

To me there's always a very clear distinction between action game and RPG, even when they tend to blend, but I can understand why someone might have forgotten since every AAA RPG in the last couple of years had dumbed down the actualy micromanagement or hardcore RPG to basically become more of an action game... and yet, when you have no dialogue-choice or player agency but all you have is an action game with stats that can be increased and 3 playable characters... Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time with some so-called "gaming-journalists".

 

No I don't remember which podcast. I don't think it was IGN though, since I don't really go there as much.

[Steelcan]

I can see how your summary would seem like an accurate comparison, if you completely ignored the actual details of either Tolkien or Thedas.

please point out what is wrong in my comparison, an elder race that falls from grace because of its own hubris, abandoned by its gods, dwarves in DA are practically ripped out of Middle Earth and handed politics, I could go into the issues of Ferelden's throne being similar to that of Gondor's, but I'll avoid going too deep in there.  Darkspawn and orcs being practically identical, even down to both being led by a fallen God, and utterly aimless without said guidance.

 

Or shall I instead compare themes and messages?  Because those are pretty identical too.

[pdusen]

an elder race that falls from grace because of its own hubris, abandoned by its gods

 

Again, you're painting in very broad strokes, so this point does seem similar in those terms. Of course, it's not at all clear that this is actually an accurate description of what happened with the Elves in DA.

 

dwarves in DA are practically ripped out of Middle Earth and handed politics

 

I guess if your only criteria is the fact that they are dwarves, then sure, there's no difference whatsoever. Of course, usually when people say things are copied they have somewhat more specific criteria than that.

 

 

I could go into the issues of Ferelden's throne being similar to that of Gondor's, but I'll avoid going too deep in there. 

 

I actually wish you would elaborate, because that's nonsense. Gondor's last king died many years before and it has instead been ruled by a line of stewards, until Aragorn (basically a great-great-great-grand-nephew of the last king) shows up and only reclaims it because he needs to (for the war of the ring, but also for marriage reasons). There isn't even a power struggle over the throne, since the last Steward kills himself. Aragorn demonstrates his worth as a king and then he is accepted. The conflict in Fereldan has *no* resemblance to this whatsoever, except that there is some period of time where there is no king.

 

 

Darkspawn and orcs being practically identical, even down to both being led by a fallen God, and utterly aimless without said guidance.

 

Nope. Darkspawn are mindless creatures who gain organization and direction when led by an Old God. Tolkien's orcs are monstrous, but they do have free will and, when left to their own devices, they form into organized tribal units that act independently. The independent behaviors of individual orcs are demonstrated repeatedly in Tolkien's works, as well as intertribal conflicts (even during the War of the Ring, when they should all be working together). It's true that they have a history of willfully following dark forces (first Morgoth, who originally created them, and then later Sauron), but they are fully sapient individuals regardless. The only comparable example in DA is the Architect's work.

 

 

Or shall I instead compare themes and messages?  Because those are pretty identical too.

 

If you want, because so far your argument is pretty flimsy.

[Amirit]

If that's the dichotomy, I choose the world simulator every time.

 

It is not. DAI failed on both fields while Skyrin on one, but both proved story and simulator are different things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds... difficult.

No, it's easy. You simply make decisions from the point of view of the character you're playing rather than your own. So if you're roleplaying a manager who irrationally values midfielders, and thinks defenders are fungible, then that's the context under which you acquire players.

Games like Democracy work really well like this, too. Any simulation can be roleplayed to some degree.