83 réponses à ce sujet

[vonFurious]

I was intrigued by the prospect of the "origins" customization, but thought it fell flat once the initial origin story was completed. There were so many opportunities to carry the consequences of your early actions (Dwarven Noble story I'm looking at you) into the later parts of the game, and they just seemed to.... evaporate.

[Helios969]

vonFurious wrote...

I was intrigued by the prospect of the "origins" customization, but thought it fell flat once the initial origin story was completed. There were so many opportunities to carry the consequences of your early actions (Dwarven Noble story I'm looking at you) into the later parts of the game, and they just seemed to.... evaporate.

I'm curious, could you given an example of how one would accomplish such?  I thought the human noble and elven origins did have consequences and altered the way the game played.  But I'd like your thoughts on how it could be improved.

[guytza]

Valarioth wrote...

Let me preface this with saying I've immensely enjoyed every Bioware game to date, numerous times.

That being said, has anyone noticed how every game has the same formula?  This is a bit simplified, but...

 Unlikely hero, humble beginnings, the great evil bad guy is exposed early and does something to impact the hero.  Hero must gather allies / an army and defeat evil bad guy.  Sprinkle in companion interaction, conversation options and sidequests, it's a Bioware game

I won't do the work for you, but if you think about each Bioware RPG, they have all followed that format, and each one has been wildly successful and enjoyable.

When do you think that formula will become stale?  Personally, I don't know how many more stories I can play with that "hero's journey" archetype.

Ok, Ill take the challenge.

Setting Thedas, Country of Ferelden.
Background: Following the killing of King Cailen by General Loghain a landsmeet was called, in the wake of what was called the "Great Betrayal" the Bannorn quickly fell to civil war with local warlords and large mercenary companies filling the power void left by the Anarchy. These mercenary guilds range from the power hungry to the benevolent.
Now comes news from the south, the Darkspawn rabble have begun to mass, an archdemon has shown itself and its clear to all that a blight threatens Ferelden.
YOU: As a mid level captain of a mercenary brigade, you will rise to the top of the ranks of your guild (Origin story), amass as much power and prestige that you can, by whatever means you see fit. And lead your soldiers to defend that which you have fought and bled to take for yourself.
 
 
Darn, the moment I brought in the Blight, it went right back to what you said, but when the badguy is gonna kill EVERYBODY including you, its hard to not be impacted. The only way to get past the “hero’s journey” story is to either have a rival instead of a villain thus blurring the lines of protagonist and antagonist or to be the ‘threat’ yourself by being the igniting point of a revolution.
 
But also, I get the distinct feeling that however many sequels and expansions there are for the Dragon Age series there is a distinct story arc that’s being told. This first story is the Origin after all, it uses a familiar story to introduce a new world. The question at the end is how far down the rabbit hole are the writers willing to go, and how dark will it be down there.

[vonFurious]

Helios969 wrote...

vonFurious wrote...

I was intrigued by the prospect of the "origins" customization, but thought it fell flat once the initial origin story was completed. There were so many opportunities to carry the consequences of your early actions (Dwarven Noble story I'm looking at you) into the later parts of the game, and they just seemed to.... evaporate.

I'm curious, could you given an example of how one would accomplish such?  I thought the human noble and elven origins did have consequences and altered the way the game played.  But I'd like your thoughts on how it could be improved.

I would have liked to see Origin specific side quests, similar to the companion quests. A substantial mission or two for each origin would have increased the relevance for me.  As it was, aside from more dialogue, I didn't feel as if the origins carried much narrative after their introduction. For example, as a Dwarven Noble I was expecting additional options when in Orzimar (Hello, I'm the non-douchebag son of the dead king here!). As it played, the only recognition I received was from an origin story one-night stand that was looking for child support (play wah-wah-waaahhhh noise here).

[SirOccam]

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

Modifié par SirOccam, 27 février 2010 - 06:12 .

[Karlojey]

I guess people just like the 'underdog' persona wherein 1 guy/gal against impossible odds?



That's how I feel though. For me, the style doesn't get old because I can always relate myself to my characters situation.



So yah, BioWare can milk it as long as they want 'cause I'm still buying their games.

[Mlai00]

We're not talking about novels... we're talking about games.

And not just any game... a RPG set in the traditional fantasy genre, where there are firmly-set conventions and expectations!

When you buy a medieval fantasy RPG, I'm sorry but you are not buying a game that's going to expand your mind in terms of plot conventions. If that's what you want, then you go read a novel like House of Leaves. There is a very specific expectation/need being fulfilled, when buy this game genre. You purchase a game like this specifically for the Hero's Journey.

In that regard, I think this game's story mechanics subversions are wonderful. The origins setup strikes a perfect balance between handing you a pre-established character ala JRPGs, to giving you a freeform character you make up yourself ala AD&D. I can feel that each character is one that is personal and unique to me, and yet this character is no slave of mine due to his/her origin shaping her personality. I am surprised and at the same time familiar, which brings about a wonderful relevance for all the dialogue options. I innately care about this character; I'm not just watching an interactive movie (as in a JRPG), or predicting exactly where I'm going with this character's development (as in a sandbox RPG). I think this is an unique RPG storywriting art that doesn't get enough props. Not any good writer can just do this.

[vonFurious]

Good point(s).

Modifié par vonFurious, 27 février 2010 - 09:33 .

[RangerSG]

David Gaider wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
1) I would say that this topic does the usual, "If I reduce everything to its lowest common denominator, everything can be shown to be the same" routine. That's rubbish, and it effectively can only be done if you came to the game with a pre-conceived notion that this would be the same.

I don't know about the pre-conceived notion part, but I agree with your main point. You see this frequently on the forums -- people generalizing plots or characters to the point where they fit into categories, and then claiming that they share too many similarities... while ignoring any differences that don't fit their hypothesis. I get it, and I'm all for desiring something a little different, but I don't find the insight offered by such comparisons particularly profound.

3) I thought Planescape: Torment was a poor video game. Its pacing was turgid, its story was uninspiring, and its hero was (to me) unsympathetic, so I had no desire to play the game. It would've been ok to read. But as a game? Nah. And it also sold about half its copies after it was officially 'off-market' because of word of mouth from BG fans. By that time, it was already bargain-binned and written off as a loss by Interplay (in fact, this is pretty much when the Interplay death-spiral began). Mask of the Betrayer was interesting. But to say it's a "completely different story." Erm...not so much. By saving yourself, you pretty much ensure you save Rasheman. So it's a classic variant of the Heros Quest, and it's necessary for everyone you do the quest.

I thought Planescape: Torment was a brilliant story, but I agree (and I imagine its creators would, as well) that it's not above criticism. That said, I don't think anyone's talking about the quality of its gameplay but the presentation of its story -- which I would agree was quite different. I've listened to Chris talk about this and his goal, in fact, was to turn every fantasy trope on its ear in Torment. Maybe that made it too different to be successful? That's arguable-- hindsight is always 20/20 when it comes to commercial success, and in this case it could have been the marketing or timing as much as the nature of the story, but I can definitely see why Torment would be so favored by those who are oh so tired of fantasy tropes beyond simply how good its story was.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
5) This brings up the final point. You can point at any piece of literature and say, "It's using (insert trope)! Oh, I've seen that so many times. It's just like (insert movie x)! Why can't they do anything original!" As Jim Butcher would say, the difference between a trope and a cliche is how its used.
I think the internet version of this is the one Penny Arcade mentioned: "The difference between a trope and a cliche is how much I like it."

All literature and every author uses tropes, often consciously. The originality comes in how they get spun, subverted and orchestrated. To be perfectly honest, I'm sure someone read The Iliad and shouted, "I've heard this before!" If your standard of originality is "whole cloth tropeless writing" feel free to try to do it. I'm sure before you get 10 pages you'll have something that any part-time reader of TV Tropes could identify parts in.

A trope isn't a bad thing. It becomes a cliche when its used so generically that one cannot avoid identifying it with the stock source. But all literature uses tropes and saying "Bioware needs to do different." Erm...the problem *might* be you're bored of the fantasy genre. That said, every other genre will have tropes as well. So good luck with that hunt for whole-cloth originality.

Well said.

I always enjoy when people link to TVTropes as proof of a cliche -- when, in fact, that site is simply a massive list of common themes. I don't think it's possible to create any work of fiction without hitting on a whole bunch of these, nor do I think it's particularly a bad thing. That said, I think an examination of common tropes can be a useful exercise. Abandoning the Hero's Quest entirely may not be in the cards -- we tell heroic tales, and that's not going to change anytime soon -- but there's nothing wrong with stepping back and asking "How can we do this a little differently?" I won't ever agree that the point is to make it different, however, or that the audience we should be seeking to satisfy are the jaded few who are bored by their own over-exposure.

---

And since this thread has already gone into spoiler territory, I'm moving it over to the proper forum.

Thanks for the response.   And to be fair, I do understand why PS:T is considered an important game and one that many people enjoy. Just like I share a special spot in my heart for a similarly "niched" game: Arcanum. But I do think both games did things so differently that they left themselves without a real market. I think Obsidian corrected on this in Mask of the Betrayer, which balances their intentions with marketability much better.

There has to be, in real terms, a balance between "originality" and "marketability" for any storyteller that wants to be published in any medium (as I know well from looking at my own work time and again and saying "will someone want this?"). Generic is bad, yes. But any work can be boiled down tothe lowest common denominator and said, "HAH, I've seen this before." Absolutely anything. Originality comes in how you spin the story, not every particular of the story.