154 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

Now you are describing more or less every game out there.

Not even remotely.

 

It doesn't even describe the other two Dragon Age games.

[Shizukai]

I really feel like this thread exploded. And then came back to (some kind of) normal.

Unnatural.

[Realmzmaster]

Nothing in any of the Dragon Age games is particularly urgent. In DAO the Archdemon will kindly wait around until the warden gathers his army. The only city to see destruction is Lothering. In DA2 if Hawke cannot raise the money necessary a way is provided to continue the plot.

 

Most other crpgs nothing really happens until the protagonist gets there. The one game that comes to mind that did try to provide urgency was Fallout 1 where the vault dweller had to find the water chip in 150 days and prevent the mutant invasion of the vault within 500 days. That was not received very well at the time.

[ModernAcademic]

I really feel like this thread exploded. And then came back to (some kind of) normal.

Unnatural.

 

Cole must be around, chilling flared tempers and making people forget him afterwards.

[Medhia_Nox]

Any sense of urgency in the vast majority of cRPGs is totally in the head of the gamer.

 

There was no urgency in DA:O... you can leave Eamon sick, Connor possessed, go to Denerim, solve the Dalish and Orzammar quest lines... then - if you feel like it - hit all the Chanter's board quests... then go ahead and clean up the Tower.

 

And when you get back they're all like... "Thank the Maker you made it in time."

Yuh huh... that was a close one. 

[AlanC9]

Most other crpgs nothing really happens until the protagonist gets there. The one game that comes to mind that did try to provide urgency was Fallout 1 where the vault dweller had to find the water chip in 150 days and prevent the mutant invasion of the vault within 500 days. That was not received very well at the time.

Didn't they end up patching it out?

[Realmzmaster]

Didn't they end up patching it out?

Yes! The fix was in the very first patch.

[Medhia_Nox]

The problem comes with "agency".

 

In a story... the protagonist arrives when the author intends him/her to.  So, whatever the protagonist encounters feels more natural and can be wrapped into a more cohesive story.

 

Giving a player the chance to change the story undermines the cohesion of the story.  For me, that's alright.  I'm not playing games to play an interactive movie.  If I want to be told a story I will read a book or watch a movie.  Both of those mediums are far superior to linear storytelling than any cRPG will likely ever be.

 

What I want from a cRPG is for the illusion of a true RPG... that is, agency.  Computer games will never be able to give true agency.  There will never be a time when you will be able to do "anything" in a single player RPG. 

 

I will amend this only for multiplayer environments like the Persistent Worlds of NWN where you interacted with real people and could break the confines of the video game.  It is the closest thing to actual roleplaying that has yet hit the computer (I am not talking about virtual table tops which serve the same function as NWN could only without visuals and autonomy). 

 

So... encounters like Eamon and Connor pop up... and I just weave the story that "actually" happens in between the gaming events that occur on screen.  I don't bother with how the game presents it... because I understand that the programmers must both 1) in the confines of the limitations of programming and 2) under the restraints of their audience

 

I think people nowadays actually have very underdeveloped imaginations.  They require the game to imitate as perfectly as possible what "actually happens" in the gaming world.  Not a few people on these very forums are utterly incapable of extrapolating what happens before or after a given event.  Imagination is a skill like anything else - one that does not develop in a spoon fed story culture (books as a medium require a unique investment and are not part of the video game/movie storytelling "problem".)

 

That they removed the time limit from Fallout 1 is a travesty in the type of storytelling computer games "could" excel at - which ultimately could be even far more involved than book reading.  But, if people won't read... they're certainly not going to invest more energy into truly interactive environments (environments that don't simply "wait" for you).

 

So... we're stuck with what we have.  The illusion of "agency" with the reality of "protagonist wish fulfillment".  It's nobodies fault but the audience that demands it.

[In Exile]

 

That they removed the time limit from Fallout 1 is a travesty in the type of storytelling computer games "could" excel at - which ultimately could be even far more involved than book reading.  But, if people won't read... they're certainly not going to invest more energy into truly interactive environments (environments that don't simply "wait" for you).

 

 

It has nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with frustration. An RPG creates a lot of features based around timely exploration, in real, IRL time. A timer is about efficiency - you want to be exceedingly efficient in everything you do so that you can maximize our outcome. No one sits around gleefully awaiting the big day they're given a super complicated task on an especially unreasonable deadline. 

 

I agree that games fail to live up to the potential in their medium, but it's not because they avoid timers. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  I agree, but only because I don't think it should have been a timer you could see.

 

I think - not unlike the Connor/Eamon experience - if you spent too much time exploring and doing your own thing... you risked just getting back to the objective to find it has expired. 

 

I want games that tell you "this is urgent" and then punish you if you don't treat it urgently... we're not going to get those games, and the audience is to blame, and I believe it holds the medium back.  *shrugs*

[ModernAcademic]

[...]

 

I guess that's a pretty common reaction when you see an army of tens of thousands of mages/templars coming your way counting on aerial support (aka Archdemon).

Modifié par BioWareMod06, 14 janvier 2016 - 06:40 .
Removed Moderated Quote

[Shizukai]

Cole must be around, chilling flared tempers and making people forget him afterwards.

 

Huh?

Strange... can't remember having seen anyone around... 

 

 

I think people nowadays actually have very underdeveloped imaginations.  They require the game to imitate as perfectly as possible what "actually happens" in the gaming world.  Not a few people on these very forums are utterly incapable of extrapolating what happens before or after a given event.  Imagination is a skill like anything else - one that does not develop in a spoon fed story culture (books as a medium require a unique investment and are not part of the video game/movie storytelling "problem".)

 

So much this.

I got accused of glorifying RPGs which aren't that great - only because they gave me a great surrounding area for my very

own story- and character experience. It's not wrong to  criticize if you are missing something important within a game but my

first approach is always a positive one. If I'm feeling well within i game and slipping in - great. If not - I'm not going to finish it

I guess...

 

Without this thread, I would not have known that there were only six NPCs dancing in Haven. For me, it was a success party.

[Medhia_Nox]

Concerning "urgency" - got Jade Empire for free recently (thanks Bioware).

 

There's a great line in the very beginning of the game.  

 

"You have time, take a look around the grounds..." 

I paraphrase... but the narrative made it very clear that this was a leisure moment where I could do "what I want".

 

There needs to be clear delineations of "down time" and "urgent time" and those times indicated as urgent should damn well be urgent. 

 

A BEAUTIFUL example is... once again... in Fallout (this time, the 4th installment). 

 

When playing the beginning... try not going to the Fallout Shelter.  See what happens. 

It's what should happen in video games when you are told:  "this is urgent"  (not always with such spectacular consequences)

[Dai Grepher]

I think the one thing I felt was poorly done was how Corypheus did not instruct the Red Lyrium Dragon to destroy the trebuchet that the Herald was aiming the other way. The Herald just used a trebuchet to cause an avalanche that wiped out most of your army. So why would you let the Herald aim and fire another one for any reason?

[Elhanan]

I think the one thing I felt was poorly done was how Corypheus did not instruct the Red Lyrium Dragon to destroy the trebuchet that the Herald was aiming the other way. The Herald just used a trebuchet to cause an avalanche that wiped out most of your army. So why would you let the Herald aim and fire another one for any reason?

It was aimed away from the Dragon and Cory; overconfidence fills in the blanks?

[giveamanafish...]

I've just been watching some youtube footage of the "In your heart... " and realized that some of the complaints in this thread may reflect the problems Bioware faced in development to accomodate old generation consoles. People may not be aware that the reason the last two DLCs for DAI are not available for XBox 360 and PS3 were because Bioware felt accomodating these consoles was restricting what they could do.

 

I don't know how that works but the complaint about only having 6 dancers in the celebration after closing the breach may be because they were unable to really populate the cutscenes -- or at least not w/o a lot of extra work. You also never get a real sense of the supposedly overwhelming force that Corypheus brings to the attack on Haven -- the actual army is never shown. And thus you don't get a powerful sense from the cinematics of the desperation behind the decision to risk the Herald at the end. On the other hand some of the gameplay gives you a good feel for the tension here, eg, where you only have a few minutes to rescue some 8 people in 5 different areas

 

 

Also 9:40.

Cullen "I don't care [what the arch demon] looks like... It will kill everyone"

Cole:  "The elder one doesn't care about the village, he only wants the Herald."

Herald: "If it will save the people he can have me." 

Cole [more or less] 'it won't.  He wants to kill you. No one else matters but he'll crush them, kill them anyway. I don't like him.'

 

And so on. I honesty think better of this scene having just watched it on youtube. I originally remembered it has having too much exposition but it works. All that's missing is a fuller visual set-up.

 

Edit: corrected last quote from Cole.

[correctamundo]

Yeah, if you don't fire the trebuchet no one will get away and the only one that can distract Cory long enough to get it done is the Herald. Cory cares nothing for anybody else.

[Dai Grepher]

I also noticed at 6:44 that you get patted by a Varric who isn't there and the camera zooms to what is supposed to be his reaction shot.

 

Also, Cole killing Venatori with fire blasts? That only fits Dorian. Another reason to do Champions of the Just instead of In Hushed Whispers.

 

Yeah, come to think of it, there are some other things I dislike about this part of the game.

[Abyss108]

It has nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with frustration. An RPG creates a lot of features based around timely exploration, in real, IRL time. A timer is about efficiency - you want to be exceedingly efficient in everything you do so that you can maximize our outcome. No one sits around gleefully awaiting the big day they're given a super complicated task on an especially unreasonable deadline. 

 

I agree that games fail to live up to the potential in their medium, but it's not because they avoid timers. 

 

...I do... 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Abyss108:  Careful... best not let your antagonist find you too soon or your hero's journey will be over before it begins. 

[vbibbi]

Yeah, but you actually have to pay attention to the game then to notice that ;-). Then again some people seem to prefer games where you are locked up in a gilded cage for fear of hurting yourself. Makes for a "fun" adventure.

Speaking of paying attention to the game, thanks to the video giveamanafish posted, the game shows that the escape plan doesn't need it to be the Herald who goes to the trebuchets.

 

Going from Cole's dialogue, Cory is only after the Herald, so the Herald volunteers to go out to stop him. Cole then says it doesn't matter, Cory will kill everyone anyway. And then Roderick reveals the hidden path. The Herald still decides they are the one to fire the trebuchets to give enough cover for everyone else to escape because...

 

The plan for the Herald to face Cory head on was when Cullen thought everyone would die anyway so we might as well spit in the eye of whomever was out there. No one was going to survive, so why not send the Herald out. Once the escape path is shown, there is a chance for some people being saved, and no longer any reason why it should be the Herald going to the trebuchets. Sure, the Herald is capable, but then so are the others in the inner circle.

[vbibbi]

The problem comes with "agency".

 

In a story... the protagonist arrives when the author intends him/her to.  So, whatever the protagonist encounters feels more natural and can be wrapped into a more cohesive story.

 

Giving a player the chance to change the story undermines the cohesion of the story.  For me, that's alright.  I'm not playing games to play an interactive movie.  If I want to be told a story I will read a book or watch a movie.  Both of those mediums are far superior to linear storytelling than any cRPG will likely ever be.

 

What I want from a cRPG is for the illusion of a true RPG... that is, agency.  Computer games will never be able to give true agency.  There will never be a time when you will be able to do "anything" in a single player RPG. 

 

I will amend this only for multiplayer environments like the Persistent Worlds of NWN where you interacted with real people and could break the confines of the video game.  It is the closest thing to actual roleplaying that has yet hit the computer (I am not talking about virtual table tops which serve the same function as NWN could only without visuals and autonomy). 

 

So... encounters like Eamon and Connor pop up... and I just weave the story that "actually" happens in between the gaming events that occur on screen.  I don't bother with how the game presents it... because I understand that the programmers must both 1) in the confines of the limitations of programming and 2) under the restraints of their audience

 

I think people nowadays actually have very underdeveloped imaginations.  They require the game to imitate as perfectly as possible what "actually happens" in the gaming world.  Not a few people on these very forums are utterly incapable of extrapolating what happens before or after a given event.  Imagination is a skill like anything else - one that does not develop in a spoon fed story culture (books as a medium require a unique investment and are not part of the video game/movie storytelling "problem".)

 

That they removed the time limit from Fallout 1 is a travesty in the type of storytelling computer games "could" excel at - which ultimately could be even far more involved than book reading.  But, if people won't read... they're certainly not going to invest more energy into truly interactive environments (environments that don't simply "wait" for you).

 

So... we're stuck with what we have.  The illusion of "agency" with the reality of "protagonist wish fulfillment".  It's nobodies fault but the audience that demands it.

I do think it was a bad decision to have the "right" option in Redcliffe to use the Circle to enter the Fade. If we had chosen to go to the Tower, a significant portion of Redcliffe should have been destroyed by the demon when we returned. There should not have been one best option for that.

 

I think the game mechanic of alerting the player that a significant decision is coming up is a good one, despite breaking immersion. I think DAI did well at this, and Bio usually does well with this at endgame time. The text when deciding who should stay in the Fade, allying with or conscripting mages/templars, etc. was good in that it didn't tell us exactly what consequences we would face, but we know that this is a key decision not to be taken lightly.

 

My favorite mechanic in the game was the Divine election, as it was directly impacted by our actions throughout the game but it wasn't a clear choice we made at any point. It was a point system based on our dialogue, war table missions, and actions. I would have liked more of this implemented in the game, especially for companion quests. Rather than telling IB or Cole how to be, they would choose themselves based on the example we've been providing.

 

Though I don't want another Leliana one strike and you're out feature of that mechanic.

 

@In Exile:  I agree, but only because I don't think it should have been a timer you could see.

 

I think - not unlike the Connor/Eamon experience - if you spent too much time exploring and doing your own thing... you risked just getting back to the objective to find it has expired. 

 

I want games that tell you "this is urgent" and then punish you if you don't treat it urgently... we're not going to get those games, and the audience is to blame, and I believe it holds the medium back.  *shrugs*

It's a balance between allowing gamers to explore the world and follow narrative urgency, so I think the game has to stick with one of the two. RPGs tend toward the former. Maybe rather than a timer, the game could count how many quests were accomplished before reaching the next stage of the main quest. Similar to the divine election, have a points system, so fetch quests are 1, companion quests are 2, and major side quests are 3. If the player reaches a certain number before going to the next main quest, there is some consequence.

[correctamundo]

Speaking of paying attention to the game, thanks to the video giveamanafish posted, the game shows that the escape plan doesn't need it to be the Herald who goes to the trebuchets.

 

Going from Cole's dialogue, Cory is only after the Herald, so the Herald volunteers to go out to stop him. Cole then says it doesn't matter, Cory will kill everyone anyway. And then Roderick reveals the hidden path. The Herald still decides they are the one to fire the trebuchets to give enough cover for everyone else to escape because...

 

The plan for the Herald to face Cory head on was when Cullen thought everyone would die anyway so we might as well spit in the eye of whomever was out there. No one was going to survive, so why not send the Herald out. Once the escape path is shown, there is a chance for some people being saved, and no longer any reason why it should be the Herald going to the trebuchets. Sure, the Herald is capable, but then so are the others in the inner circle.

 

You're missing the essential part where if Cory has an army and does not get fooled to believe that all are buried under the avalanche no one gets more than a couple of hundred meters before they are toast.

[Realmzmaster]

The Herald is the one Cory wants. Cory will kill everyone who is between him and the Herald. The Herald had to be the one to go out lure Cory and aim the trebuchets. If you send anyone other than the Herald do you think that Cory would not miss the lack of a glowing hand! If the Herald is of a different race say Qunari do you think Cory would not notice that if you sent someone else.

 

The Herald had to keep Cory talking so that the army and surviving workers could clear the snowline. Anyone else other than the Herald would be dead on sight and the trebuchet would not be launched. Cory sees the Herald as a rival so his ego and pride would goad him into conversation plus Cory wants to retrieve the anchor.

 

Also the people consider the Herald to be sent by Andraste herself. Andraste did not lead from the rear of a battle according to the lore. A great leader is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the people. The great leaders lead by example.

 

How can you inspire people to die for a cause if the leader is not willing to sacrifice for it?

[TheyCallMeBunny]

@In Exile:  I agree, but only because I don't think it should have been a timer you could see.

 

I think - not unlike the Connor/Eamon experience - if you spent too much time exploring and doing your own thing... you risked just getting back to the objective to find it has expired. 

 

I want games that tell you "this is urgent" and then punish you if you don't treat it urgently... we're not going to get those games, and the audience is to blame, and I believe it holds the medium back.  *shrugs*

 

In DA2, if you kept ignoring Fenris companion quest once it was activated in the second act, you would be ambushed twice and Fenris would leave the party forever if you continued to try to postpone helping him. So although it wasn't exactly a timer, you were told that you could only postpone this quest so far. I liked that myself, it made sense that if the slavers were close by they would continue to attack the party.