855 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

Popular Fiction =/= Good Roleplaying game.  There are many tropes in fiction that work well in fiction but are a DISASTER if you try to use them in an RPG (I know I've run into a few issues that way when I DM).  In this case being thrown into the action is OK for a story (in media res it's called) but not an RPG.  After all in a story, you don't (presumablely) have to learn to read differently with each book....but that's exactly what you have to do with games.

 

Also, you get five critical characters within the first 20 mins and have to fight a MASSIVELY powerful Pride Demon all before you even learn why you should care.  I almost quit when I lost four straight characters before I realized that you have to destroy the shade swarms when fighting the Pride Demon.  That's an example of how thowing someone new into the action is a disservice especially if you want them to relate to the world and character.

RPGs aren't fictional? 

[IanPolaris]

Don't buy it, as this is a subjective preference; not a fact. And as one that does not read the longer entries, I still have plenty of surrounding stimuli from which to RP the character. And in PnP, a vast majority of RPG's is about being told, and without that success, there would likely not be cRPG's now.

 

Au Contraire.  Almost any author and Lit Professor I've ever met (and I've met more than a few) pretty much insist that whenever possible, it's better to show than tell to get the emotional investment.  Not only that but it's a damn poor DM that drones on and tells his players about the scene rather than SHOWING it to them (i.e. describing it).  There's a reason such DMs in PnP are derisively known as 'Drone' DMs....from the lifeless droning that makes it hard to relate or even care about the campaign.

[IanPolaris]

RPGs aren't fictional? 

 

An RPG is different from a work of fiction.  That doesn't mean it's not fiction and I believe an honest reader understands that.  One (reading) is a passive process while the other (playing) is far more active.

[Rawgrim]

Popular Fiction =/= Good Roleplaying game.  There are many tropes in fiction that work well in fiction but are a DISASTER if you try to use them in an RPG (I know I've run into a few issues that way when I DM).  In this case being thrown into the action is OK for a story (in media res it's called) but not an RPG.  After all in a story, you don't (presumablely) have to learn to read differently with each book....but that's exactly what you have to do with games.

 

Also, you get five critical characters within the first 20 mins and have to fight a MASSIVELY powerful Pride Demon all before you even learn why you should care.  I almost quit when I lost four straight characters before I realized that you have to destroy the shade swarms when fighting the Pride Demon.  That's an example of how thowing someone new into the action is a disservice especially if you want them to relate to the world and character.

 

The game explains it to you earlier...that you need to kill spawning demons in order to close the rift.

 

And how on earth did you manage to lose that fight vs the Pride Demon, anyway? The whole game is so painfully easy, that its almost impossible to lose any fight.

 

If someone wants to relate to the characters and the world, it is smart to start with the first game, really. If you start with the third one, you will most likely miss out on a lot of vital content.

[Elhanan]

Au Contraire.  Almost any author and Lit Professor I've ever met (and I've met more than a few) pretty much insist that whenever possible, it's better to show than tell to get the emotional investment.  Not only that but it's a damn poor DM that drones on and tells his players about the scene rather than SHOWING it to them (i.e. describing it).  There's a reason such DMs in PnP are derisively known as 'Drone' DMs....from the lifeless droning that makes it hard to relate or even care about the campaign.

Literature, as in books. Words work....

[Rawgrim]

An RPG is different from a work of fiction.  That doesn't mean it's not fiction and I believe an honest reader understands that.  One (reading) is a passive process while the other (playing) is far more active.

 

Reading is actually one of the least passive forms of entertainments out there. Reading makes you focus. You need to picture everything in your mind while reading. You need to remember everything you have read so far (in that particular book) as you go along. You need to read between the lines a lot. And if you read in a foreign language, you also have to translate while reading.

 

That is not a passive process by any means.

[IanPolaris]

The only failure with DA;I is how the writers projected themselves too much into the Inquisitor - or how THEY wanted the Inquisitor to be, imo. Zero dark/evil options. Can't side with tevinter ideology or support slavery, cant try to attempt joining Cory. Cant enter the black city (or atleast try). 

 

DA:I is a fantastic game and far from a failure. It is a pretty grand accomplishment imo. They just failed miserably when it comes to letting the player decide who their Inquisitor would be. All roads leads to the selfless hero with a high moral compass. Any attempt to be morally gray is futile.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with the "grand accomplishment" any more than I'd agree with failure.  I think the fact of the matter is somewhere in between.  That said, I do agree that the scope of moral choice for the Inquisitor is dissapointingly limited.  That's not to say that *I* want to play an evil bastard Inquisitor, but I wish the option were there and for an RPG I think this is a real flaw.  I am doubly dissapointed w/r/t this issue because when the first trailers were released regarding DAI (before the game was postponed a year) we were promised a protogonist that would either "save the world or destroy it" which seems to imply that at least initially the darker options were present.

[IanPolaris]

The game explains it to you earlier...that you need to kill spawning demons in order to close the rift.

 

And how on earth did you manage to lose that fight vs the Pride Demon, anyway? The whole game is so painfully easy, that its almost impossible to lose any fight.

 

If someone wants to relate to the characters and the world, it is smart to start with the first game, really. If you start with the third one, you will most likely miss out on a lot of vital content.

 

No, it really doesn't if you are new.  The characters say it ONCE in passing, but there is no way to know that the Pride Demon can't be beaten unless you destroy the spawned shades as they appear.  This is just one example of how learning the mechanics takes away from getting immersed in the game because you are asked to do too much too soon (and ME3 had the same issue).

[thats1evildude]

Yes, but as you pointed out, Korcari is a main plot so must be done in order to reach Morrigan and Flemeth and advance the story, and since Flemeth has the Warden treaties, they actually tie in to the original reason we're there. Fallow Mire can be completed without judging Movran, and his appearance has no relation to the Inquisition recovering its troops. Technically you could ignore his judgement the entire game and have no impact on the consequences from Fallow Mire.

 

You could in theory not judge him, but that would mean not judging ANYONE, since you can't pick and choose who you judge and who you don't.

[IanPolaris]

Reading is actually one of the least passive forms of entertainments out there. Reading makes you focus. You need to picture everything in your mind while reading. You need to remember everything you have read so far (in that particular book) as you go along. You need to read between the lines a lot. And if you read in a foreign language, you also have to translate while reading.

 

That is not a passive process by any means.

 

Please.  You read.  Nothing you do will change the printed word.  Nothing you do will change the decisions the protagonist and supporting (and antagonist) characters do.  You don't have to even "hit the A" button to engage in combat (for example).  Not only that but reading in of itself is the same for any book you pick up (assuming the same language).  None of that is true for games esp computer games.

[IanPolaris]

Literature, as in books. Words work....

 

And that's the different between SHOWING and TELLING and that applies even (actually *especially*) in literature.  There is a vast difference between telling the reader something (like a police report) and describing it.  In the realm of computer games, to describe it, it's almost always better to have the player experience it (as in make the decision themselves and have it happen during play).

[Rawgrim]

Please.  You read.  Nothing you do will change the printed word.  Nothing you do will change the decisions the protagonist and supporting (and antagonist) characters do.  You don't have to even "hit the A" button to engage in combat (for example).  Not only that but reading in of itself is the same for any book you pick up (assuming the same language).  None of that is true for games esp computer games.

 

You can't affect the story, sure. I agree. But the process of reading is, in itself, not a passive one.

[IanPolaris]

You can't affect the story, sure. I agree. But the process of reading is, in itself, not a passive one.

 

I think you and everyone else understood the difference I was getting at, so I think this is nitpicking at best.

[Sifr]

Sifr,

 

I am NOT looking at DAO through "nostalgia" glasses.  I am playing it side by side with DAI and the differences are clear.  One of ME3's big problems was throwing the new playing completely into the action without enough backstory or the time to really buy into the world.  DAI has the same problem (as did DA2).  It's not fair to compare to DAO: Awakening because that was a direct part and extension of DAO (something not done anymore) and so it was never expected to stand alone.

 

The fact is that unless you are already familiar with the DA universe (and for some even then) the player is thrown into the deep end without enough time or incentive to really buy into the world or their own character.  It's something that DAO did brilliantly.

 

I did not mean to offend, but all I meant was that a lot of people put Origins on a pedestal and refuse to give it any kind of criticism, especially when comparing to the later games in the series. Of course Origins had a lot more lore thrown at the playing at the beginning, as the first game in the series it had to establish the proper setting, begin worldbuilding and hook us in as the audience.

 

And to be fair to ME3, who honestly decides that they should play the third, final game in a trilogy and expect to fully understand what is going on? While a book, film or game should never require having to do their homework and read copious amounts of lore to understand the plot, one cannot expect later installments to always bend over backwards and stop the story dead to tell you what you could have known if you had bothered to check out the earlier work, but decided not to for some reason.

 

There's a reason why no-one expects to begin Harry Potter at the final book, Star Wars with Return of the Jedi, or understand the numerous complicated plots in a Game of Thrones if you haven't been paying attention since the start.

[Rawgrim]

No, it really doesn't if you are new.  The characters say it ONCE in passing, but there is no way to know that the Pride Demon can't be beaten unless you destroy the spawned shades as they appear.  This is just one example of how learning the mechanics takes away from getting immersed in the game because you are asked to do too much too soon (and ME3 had the same issue).

 

I think a tutorial message explains it to you as well, when you run into the rift near those soldiers.

 

But I agree: The pride demon should be beatable anyway. That fight was poorly designed.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the "grand accomplishment" any more than I'd agree with failure.  I think the fact of the matter is somewhere in between.  That said, I do agree that the scope of moral choice for the Inquisitor is dissapointingly limited.  That's not to say that *I* want to play an evil bastard Inquisitor, but I wish the option were there and for an RPG I think this is a real flaw.  I am doubly dissapointed w/r/t this issue because when the first trailers were released regarding DAI (before the game was postponed a year) we were promised a protogonist that would either "save the world or destroy it" which seems to imply that at least initially the darker options were present.

 

Well the reason I call it a grand accomplishment is in view of the situation. Considering the amount of content and overall quality of the game, it really is so, when you consider their production time coupled with starting over with a new engine. They had lots of challenges with the new engine and it ate up a lot of production time as I understood it. As for "evil bastard" playthrough that was not exactly my point. Just darker.

 

For example - my Inquisitor wanted to use the anchor to try entering the black city himself. He wanted power so he could shape the world to his liking. But a better world. Not really evil but morally gray. Good intentions but possibly disastrous outcomes. It pains me greatly we are not even allowed to attempt to use the anchor.

[IanPolaris]

Sifr,

 

I mentioned ME3 in that criticism because while I agree that you'd think a person playing ME3 would be at least familiar with ME and ME2, the designers explicitly stated that one of their design goals for ME3 was to be as friendly as possible to the absolutely new player without any need to play any of the prior ME games.  Thus I think it's fair to include ME3.

[IanPolaris]

Well the reason I call it a grand accomplishment is in view of the situation. Considering the amount of content and overall quality of the game, it really is so, when you consider their production time coupled with starting over with a new engine. They had lots of challenges with the new engine and it ate up a lot of production time as I understood it. As for "evil bastard" playthrough that was not exactly my point. Just darker.

 

For example - my Inquisitor wanted to use the anchor to try entering the black city himself. He wanted power so he could shape the world to his liking. But a better world. Not really evil but morally gray. Good intentions but possibly disastrous outcomes. It pains me greatly we are not even allowed to attempt to use the anchor.

 

Well, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole when I said 'evil bastard' inquisitor, but I agree (and I suspect I find it a bigger flaw than you do but I think we both agree it's a flaw) that in an RPG, you should be able to make darker choices allowing for an Inquisitor ranging from "Darth Vader has nothing on you" to "Shining Paragon of Pure Virtue".

[Sifr]

Sifr,

 

I mentioned ME3 in that criticism because while I agree that you'd think a person playing ME3 would be at least familiar with ME and ME2, the designers explicitly stated that one of their design goals for ME3 was to be as friendly as possible to the absolutely new player without any need to play any of the prior ME games.  Thus I think it's fair to include ME3.

 

ME3 did manage the necessary infodumps for new players well enough, in fact, I'd say that at times ME3 goes a little to overboard with all the "As you know..." moments that veteran players of the series are already familiar with. Not that it's a bad thing, but you do notice it after a while.

 

We also had Vega who was designed to be the audience surrogate and ask the questions new players might have, allowing for exposition to be given in a way that made sense, since he's just as unaware of the events of the previous two games as new players might be. It's likely the main reason he's a required companion during parts of the first two missions on Mars and Menae, since it allows us to get a few infodumps out there as early as possible.

[Elhanan]

And that's the different between SHOWING and TELLING and that applies even (actually *especially*) in literature.  There is a vast difference between telling the reader something (like a police report) and describing it.  In the realm of computer games, to describe it, it's almost always better to have the player experience it (as in make the decision themselves and have it happen during play).

Descriptions, like the headers on many on the letters and entries. Like Prego sauce, it's in there....

[Ghost Gal]

What was that quote from Fiddler on the Roof...?

 

Oh yeah: "Money is the world's curse. May the Lord smite me with it."

 

If DAI is a failure, may BioWare smite us with another just like it. 

[correctamundo]

What was that quote from Fiddler on the Roof...?

 

Oh yeah: "Money is the world's curse. May the Lord smite me with it."

 

If DAI is a failure, may BioWare smite us with another just like it. 

 

..and may I never recover!

 

I love Tevje =)

[correctamundo]

No, it really doesn't if you are new.  The characters say it ONCE in passing, but there is no way to know that the Pride Demon can't be beaten unless you destroy the spawned shades as they appear.  This is just one example of how learning the mechanics takes away from getting immersed in the game because you are asked to do too much too soon (and ME3 had the same issue).

 

It is test of attention span , and it is the rift you have disrupt to make demon vulnerable. It may stop you from getting immersed I function the other way around But anyway, you were not thinking of leaving the shades there now were you?

[Abyss108]

You don't even need to disrupt the rift to defeat the pride demon...

 

Also, in media res is the best way to start ANY story. 

[Majestic Jazz]

I think you and everyone else understood the difference I was getting at, so I think this is nitpicking at best.

Exactly, people know what you are saying and see that DAI had a problem of telling the player about events while not allowing the player to actually experience them. Take the beginning for example, we were told that there was a meeting between the mages and templars and that they all died in an explosion. We were told that we survived but we never actually got to partake in this event. Clear example of telling but not showing.

I can read a blogpost, news article, or novel about a battle in some war. But that is not the same as actually being in that battle, seeing people die, taking fire, and fearing for my life. If you cannot see the difference between that then I do not know what to tell you...

People know what you mean but they will not give you the satisfaction by saying you are right or have a point. People will defend DAI to the end because DAI represents something special to them and they do not want Bioware to be detered from making DA4 similar to DAI, which many people including myself is against.

Its basically a Zero Sum dance.