82 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

This is a rant. Kind of, anyway.

 

When reading comments about Jaws of Hakkon, I found some people who said it was lacking story content, and who cited companion interaction and cutscenes as examples of what they consider story content, and ME3's Citadel DLC as an example of what they wanted.

 

NO! That's not good story content. Character interaction for its own sake is nothing but soap opera, and even worse if it's parody. ME3's Citadel was both a light-hearted goodbye, possible at no other point in the publication history, and a necessary antidote for ME3's depressive endings, but it added almost nothing to the story. Yes, I love the interlude with Cassandra and "Swords and Shields", but one or two such scenes in a game are enough, lest the whole story turns into parody.

 

Good story content, in a story that takes itself somewhat seriously, that's the meaningful things you do in the context of the plot, and everything connected to that. It includes character interaction, if that's meaningful for the story, exploration, if that's meaningful for the story, and combat, again, if it's meaningful for the story. Take Dorian's quest. As it is, it's a good sidequest, but If not for the fact that it illustrates some aspects of Tevinter culture, it would be nothing more than another boring "daddy issues" sidequest, only meaningful if you romance Dorian. Take exploration: as you follow the steps to open the fortress in JoH, there's no character interaction, yet this is as much part of the story as the conversations you have when you enter the place. Consider fighting: as a rule, about 90% of the fighting in a game like DAI is filler, an unfortunate legacy of the history of video rpgs. Yet the other 10% - fights against many named opponents, sidequest mini-bosses and suchlike, even the occasional encounter with a horde of mooks - are as much part of the story as most cutscenes.

 

The *type* of content does not determine if something is "story content". Its meaning does. A really good story-based game, as I see it, has some variety of different types of content, and it makes efforts to make them all part of the story. Granted, DAI as a whole isn't exactly a shining example of that, mostly because of the many collection quests, but Jaws of Hakkon is significantly better designed. 

 

I do want good story content in my games. If the DA team can make more *meaningful* character interaction, by all means go for it, but just "more character interaction" isn't the answer to the perceived problem of lacking story content. I would hate to see another "Citadel", except maybe at the same time in the publication history - after the end of DA - and made in the same spirit.

 

[Dieb]

It's not even the type of story content, it's the type of story in the content itself. There is undoubtedly story content, just not the kind a lot of people wanted.

 

Personally, I was rather delighted with JoH, because I have learned almost everything there is to know about the Avvar. Who -alongside the other tribal people of Thedas- had aroused my interest ever since DAO, yet were always treated as a side note in the codex and prefixes of items. Furthermore, almost every quest in the Frostback Basin has a definitive justification and relates to the area plot in some or many ways.

 

If anything, JoH is how the concept of DAI as a new approach to the gameplay pacing should function. You may still not like it, but for what it wants to do, it does well.

[ashwind]

It's not even the type of story content, it's the type of story in the content itself. There is undoubtedly story content, just not the kind a lot of people wanted.

 

Personally, I was rather delighted with JoH, because I have learned almost everything there is to know about the Avvar. Who -alongside the other tribal people of Thedas- had aroused my interest ever since DAO, yet were always treated as a side note in the codex and prefixes of items. Furthermore, almost every quest in the Frostback Basin has a definitive justification and relates to the area plot in some or many ways.

 

If anything, JoH is how the concept of DAI as a new approach to the gameplay pacing should function. You may still not like it, but for what it wants to do, it does well.

 

Only until they need to change the lore again to suit their story.

 

Pretty sure I see a "Avvar tribes like Dalish clans. They are so different from one another that what you learn in JOH is just a "perspective" and it is by no means anything definitive." - That is if they continue to include Avvar in the Story.

[Nefla]

You're talking like your opinion is fact and that those who don't find combat, reading codex entries, or looking at scenery to be compelling storytelling are just wrong. Neither side is wrong or right, people just like different things. In my opinion ME3's ending sequence AND the citadel DLC were both poorly done but for different reasons that I won't go into. After watching someone's let's play of JoH for a few hours (while drawing) I could definitively say that it had almost nothing to offer me and was not worth buying. For me character interaction and roleplaying ability (dialogue and action choices, non combat skills, etc...) are the most important aspects of a game. A character's quest or conversation might be boring to you if it doesn't further the plot but I like character development and relationship building. Just as you find exploration and combat an essential part of the storytelling, in DA:I at least I found them to be a complete waste of time and very boring (there are of course games out there with combat and exploration that I love, DA:I is not one of them). I haven't "mispercieved" anything, I simply have a different opinion and different priorities than you do.

[Sweawm]

Jaws of Hakkon has a story, it just doesn't have one that has any depth, meaning or substance. Same could be said on a larger scale about Inquisition. Throwing a bucket of exposition, mostly text based, onto the player does not constitute a story. It's just lore and tedious reading.

 

Why players want a character-based story is because in character-based stories, stuff actually tends to happen. Nobody would have cared about Mass Effect's galaxy reaping if they didn't care about the characters. Bioware forgot the most significant strength is story telling through characters, not long, tedious lore and a barely moving over-arching plot that regularly falls down. None of Inquisition's characters had a stake in the story. They simply were the Inquisition because it was their duty or it was survival. Characters with actual motivation and involvement like Hawke were shown the door. The second Solas is actually connected to all this lore that we've spent a game being told about, he vanishes, presumably until a sequel or expansion. The writer's show off their eager world-building to create an illusion of a greater plot, when it appears that they haven't been given the resources to put together an actual story.  

 

So far, Descent has shown it is more of the same failed approach. The Inquisition launches into action because they are the heroes of course and they go fight some monsters in a big dungeon while stumbling across some shocking texts and if you're lucky, a cutscene. 

[Enrychan]

Character interaction "for the sake of it" is what makes me care about things.

"Things" can be mildly interesting on their own, but not emotionally engaging. You need to be personally involved on some level. I wouldn't have cared about Krogan being decimated and ultimately wiped out by genophage if some of my favourite companions weren't Krogan. And to estabilish a connection with those character, Bioware gave me interaction with them.

If more character interaction = "soap opera", then I guess I want more soap opera in my RPGs.

[Beomer]

What Seawm said.

While a ton of lore can be interesting (I certainly liked it in DAO), it's a fifty fifty chance that it might also be boring. Story needs to be developed through both written and visual material. Characters need to be fleshed out with cutscenes and dialogue. Skimping out on that in favour of an open world is not the right direction for a Bioware RPG IMO.

 

Edit:

That said there'a very good chance that I might actually get involved in Descent unlike JoH because unlike JoH's story I actually care about the material that will make up Descent's story. As long as they stick with Darkspawn and such that might directly have an affect on Thedas in the future.

[Eudaemonium]

I'm currently playing JoH for the first time (still on PS3, as I am poor, and so no Descent for me). My general opinion of it is 'DA:I done well'. Like, it's still DA:I—it has the vast open areas and TACO collection and all the problems that DA:I has because its DA:I—but the area has a clearly-defined overarching plot, a variety of NPCs who all tie into that plot and are relatively interesting, and side-quests that buttress the main narrative rather than being incidental to or distractions from it. The combat is also kept interesting for the most part. It's essentially how I feel the main areas should have been done assuming DA:I was always going to be the game it was (I generally would have preferred a polished form of DA2 to DA:I, but that's another matter). Each of the main areas in the game should have had a strong thematic unity, main quest, and supporting side-quests, and very few even had anything approaching that. If all the areas had been done like JoH then the game would have felt far stronger narratively, rather than feeling relatively weak as it does now.

 

If Descent is done like JoH then I'll probably enjoy it a lot. It will be stronger than the main areas. It will also, of course, be disappointing to those who want something different to DA:I rather than a more polished version of the same.

[Fearsome1]

This is a rant. Kind of, anyway.

 

I do want good story content in my games. If the DA team can make more *meaningful* character interaction, by all means go for it, but just "more character interaction" isn't the answer to the perceived problem of lacking story content. I would hate to see another "Citadel", except maybe at the same time in the publication history - after the end of DA - and made in the same spirit.

 

I removed much of your original post, but wanted to say that I agree with you; particularly over the wide ranging disparity of what most others seemingly express in regards to what elements constitute "story content" and I too found Jaws of Hakkon to be quite a lot better than some gamers have. You also hit the nail on the head over "Citadel", as that Mass Effect DLC was truly unique to its circumstances. However for something similar to drop at the denouement of this franchise, it would have to be wholly different in nature.

 

Even in the event that fans liked the cast of that future DA game, too many of us would wistfully miss out on such closure with our earlier series favorites. In my mind, a Dragon Age "Citadel" would need to be set even farther past the conclusion of that future series game, and perhaps be narrated by a previously unseen character [for instance a dwarf from a Shaperate] detailing the long heroic history of the entire DA franchise that we've played and all of its notable characters, events, organizations & locales. You know, something like the epilogues from DA:O which inadvertently looked too for ahead (in some regards; think "Vigilance"), but with newly created cut scene content made specifically for that ultimate finale that perhaps truly revealed the ending fates of all the characters we've enjoyed? 

[NRieh]

While I totally agree that Citadel has one of the worst 'main' plots in the Galaxy, and some episodes are 100% classified as a 'poorly implemented fan-service', it is one of the best DLCs gameplay-wise. Here's why.

It has:

- A variety of interactions and activities (varied main quest, combat arena, 'social' part, buying stuff for the house)

- Plenty of character\companion content, and some character scenes are done really well. I literally cried when I played Zaeed's one.

- class-sensitive moments both for the Shep and for the crew  - e.g. recognizing techShep during the investigation & Alenko using biotics in the cut-scene (first. time. ever!)

- romance-sensitive content (a good share of that one)

- awesome level design - those DLC locations look good, and there are lots of them.

- arguably the best cinematics (cut-scenes) in ME3 - lighting, angles, animation. E.g. Garrus' tango might be a little bit OOC, but it's performed extremely well.  

- nice music

 

It's a great and huge DLC with a godawful 'comics' story that barely fits the overall ME3 storytelling, no matter when you play it.

 

Leviathan is of a smaller scale, but it also had the variety ('detective mini-game', 'survival-horror' zone, exploration) , and it's hard to underestimate its overall 'story value'. Oh, and it also had romance-sensitive content, you know.    

 

DA2 had Legacy, which was pretty much relevant - it had Malcolm along with his story, it had good share of Bethany\Carver, along with some 'special moments' for Varric and Anders. As much as I hate its 'diabloesque' Deep Roads combat (and the Boss too), I appreciate it for those character interactions (and romance-sensitive banter\dialogues too). 

 

DA2 also had MotA - a well-balanced and varied DLC. Which also had plenty of great characters' banter (romance-sensitive included), the 'almost-rescue' scene. It also had stealthy gameplay as an option, along with some puzzles and nice character- art.  

 

As you can see, BW seemed to be perfectly aware about their 'strong' parts (which are their Characters). To make a DLC matter, one has to make it 'personal' to the player. And characters ARE what make BW games personal. With a single exception, may be - it's 'Normandy Crash site' freebie DLC, a tiny Alchera zone. Probably the most touching thing ever, without a single puzzle or dialogue. Not even a shot required.

[Wulfram]

While character interaction isn't "story", it is one of the main things that makes Bioware games worth playing for me.

 

Also, Lore isn't story.  And while you can tell a story via codexes, all you're really doing then is making a very inconvenient ebook.

[Ieldra]

Character interaction "for the sake of it" is what makes me care about things.

"Things" can be mildly interesting on their own, but not emotionally engaging. You need to be personally involved on some level. I wouldn't have cared about Krogan being decimated and ultimately wiped out by genophage if some of my favourite companions weren't Krogan. And to estabilish a connection with those character, Bioware gave me interaction with them.

If more character interaction = "soap opera", then I guess I want more soap opera in my RPGs.

Is that what makes you care, really? Isn't it rather the fact that the characters you interact with are connected to those "things" and they come up in conversation? That's what I meant with "meaningful". I don't know about you, but for me, a character who isn't connected to things meaningful for the story or learning about the world might as well not exist, and I'd be, as a rule, disinterested in interacting with them beyond the basics. Meanwhile, I fully agree that it's more enjoyable to learn about something through character interaction rather than through reading Codex entries. Of that kind of character interaction I'd like to see more.

[DuskWanderer]

Most people don't actually want "story content" for DLC. That's what the game is for. DLC must stand alone because that is it's design

[Dieb]

So we're in a tight spot:

 

We want meaningful story emphasis, which must relate to the main plot in order not to become "unconnected to things" and thus being ultimately redundant - yet we want the expansion as a whole to be exactly that. Something everyone can do 100% without, for fairness' sake.

 

I understand both notions, but I also fail to envision them ever intertwining without chafing. Even BioWare's most highly regarded DLC are still being criticised for being so impactful that they "should have been in the main game all along".

[Zatche]

Is it weird that I mostly agree with both Sweawm and Ieldra's ideas?

My takeaway is that DAI, through gameplay and narration, succeeded in creating a plot of substance, allowing the player to engage in meaningful ideas about faith, religion, and power. But in making the companions mostly optional and so loosely connected to the plot, it failed, for much of the game, to create compelling drama and make us feel the feels-ugh.

That being said. I don't really feel a Citadel style DLC would fit for Dragon Age.

[Ieldra]

Is it weird that I mostly agree with both Sweawm and Ieldra's ideas?

My takeaway is that DAI, through gameplay and narration, succeeded in creating a plot of substance, allowing the player to engage in meaningful ideas about faith, religion, and power. But in making the companions mostly optional and so loosely connected to the plot, it failed, for much of the game, to create compelling drama and make us feel the feels-ugh.

That being said. I don't really feel a Citadel style DLC would fit for Dragon Age.

I think DAI's companions are mostly ok. While I would've liked a closer connection to the plot, they were not irrelevant to the way you experienced the world. Dorian illustrated aspects of Tevinter culture, Cassandra did the same for the Seekers, Cole for spirits, Iron Bull for aspect of qunari culture, and Sera connected to an old mystery of DAO. Varric felt a little superfluous though, as did Blackwall.

My main point is, if there was to be more character interaction, it should illustrate aspects of the world for us, and not be just about more personal stuff.

[berelinde]

Story content: The DLC has a plot. The beginning outlines the objective and introduces the actors. The middle illustrates the steps the actors take to achieve the objective. Characters may develop (or not) as they work toward that goal, but character development is not the same as plot advancement. The ending of the story shows the actors achieving (or failing to achieve) the objective.

 

There's a reason that character-driven stories are usually framed as "Luthias Dwarfson Becomes a Reaver". There needs to be some kind of goal, even if it's a shallow one.

 

That said, people generally find it easier to care about stories when they can identify with one or more of the characters. The Thomas Covenant series is supposed to be very good, but I was never able to get into it because I didn't like the protagonist. (Maybe it was an experiment to determine if a tale with no likable characters could be successful. My answer was an emphatic "no".) The <Fill in the Blank> of Shanara series is arguably dreadful, but I enjoyed it because I liked the characters.

 

TL;DR: In my opinion, it takes both plot and character development/interaction to make a good story. You can have the former without the latter, but it will always seem flat and lifeless. If you have the latter but not the former, it may be a fun ride, but it isn't going anywhere.

[Linkenski]

In the last 3 years "story" has become a buzzword right up there with "cinematic" or "experience".

 

They really misused the term with Batman Arkham Knight and now Bioware has started to as well. Honestly, I think they know they're doing it, but as usual they're on the developer side sticking to rules and guidelines of public interaction as developers and they think people won't notice it.

 

As for the DA team (and previously Mass Effect) pandering to fans with "more companion interactions" it's just the usual Bioware fandom wanking that's been going on for longer than I'm likely aware of. I saw an article from Kotaku back in the ME2 days (around 2010) yesterday as I was browsing, and one of the comments was literally some guy who seemed fed up with Bioware for always just "giving fans what they want by pandering to them".

 

It's nothing new, but it has been going out of hand since damage-control era post ME3 and DA2 and it's made both Citadel DLC and DA:I as a whole look like "Overcompensation the video game"

[Reznore57]

I'm all for more companions content...but honestly I didn't like Citadel all that much.

The main quest story was bordeline stupid , which is fine because obviously it was a fan service DLC.

Now it's the first time I actually began to hate party banter.

During the last party , you have to stand around for hours and do nothing but move around and click on people.

There wasn't much roleplay opportunities for Shepard either .

So I got bored .

[Dieb]

I think DAI's companions are mostly ok. While I would've liked a closer connection to the plot, they were not irrelevant to the way you experienced the world. Dorian illustrated aspects of Tevinter culture, Cassandra did the same for the Seekers, Cole for spirits, Iron Bull for aspect of qunari culture, and Sera connected to an old mystery of DAO. Varric felt a little superfluous though, as did Blackwall.

My main point is, if there was to be more character interaction, it should illustrate aspects of the world for us, and not be just about more personal stuff.

 

Obligatory:

Blackwall was actually rather important to relate to gritty sides of Orlesian culture & politics, outside the ballrooms and parades.

 

...

 

Carry on.

[Zatche]

I think DAI's companions are mostly ok. While I would've liked a closer connection to the plot, they were not irrelevant to the way you experienced the world. Dorian illustrated aspects of Tevinter culture, Cassandra did the same for the Seekers, Cole for spirits, Iron Bull for aspect of qunari culture, and Sera connected to an old mystery of DAO. Varric felt a little superfluous though, as did Blackwall.

My main point is, if there was to be more character interaction, it should illustrate aspects of the world for us, and not be just about more personal stuff.

Oh, I definitely liked the companions, but guess I disagree with your main point then. I don't think it's just their connection to the world that's important. It's also their philosophies, motivations, and etc. Take Iron Bull's companion quest, and the decision between saving the Chargers or the Dreadnought. That's not just soapy drama. It's an examination of his inner conflict.

[Linkenski]

I'm all for more companions content...but honestly I didn't like Citadel all that much.

The main quest story was bordeline stupid , which is fine because obviously it was a fan service DLC.

Now it's the first time I actually began to hate party banter.

During the last party , you have to stand around for hours and do nothing but move around and click on people.

There wasn't much roleplay opportunities for Shepard either .

So I got bored .

Why are you so modest? It WAS stupid, and Bioware was self-aware about it.

[Iakus]

As far as I'm concerned, Jaws of Hakkon did have story content:  learning the fate of Ameridan and his companions.

 

It wasn't a story that had anything to do with the Elder One, the war in Orlais, the mage/Templar conflict, etc.  It was its own self-contained narrative.  And that's fine.  Heck if every zone in DAI had a story like that within it there'd be a lot less complaints about "pointless side quests" I'm sure.

 

It didn't have to be lighthearted or character-focused as Citadel  (Heck if Bioware hadn't frakked up the endings on so many levels even Citadel wouldn't have had to be that) but again, that's fine.  This is a different type of story.  And I can't speak for anyone else, but I had a heck of a lot more squad banter in Frostback Basin than I did in the vanilla game. 

 

I also won't say that we've learned all there is to know about the Avvar.  I still don' tknow how they managed to grow humans bigger than my qunari Inquisitor   

[Linkenski]

Yeah, it did have a story, but I do take issue with how increasingly little emphasis there's on it, because Bioware is on the bandwagon of "environmental storytelling" and stuff now... It's okay, it's just not as effective as telling it through more cinematic cutscenes and dialogue and better side-content IMO.

[wright1978]

I agree with the point that i don't want endless repeats of Citadel. Citadel was fine as a farewell to a trilogy but not the sort of story content i think should be on the regular agenda. Companion character interaction has a role in story DLC's but it shouldn't be the overrriding facet as it was in Citadel, which featured a weak cheesy main story. I think Legacy and Mark of the Assassin are good examples where good self contained story existed alongside character interaction. I do feel DAI main game got its balance completely wrong, grinding exploration without enough proper focus on the story. I haven't played Jaws due to this as the initial reviews didn't suggest to me it had moved the direction significantly. I'll be interested to see what the Descent offers, as its trailer triggered more interest in me.