I should probably be finding news rather than doing this....but what the hell.
AlanC9 said:
As for the Gorion effect, so far we've got it not working for you and Murrow. But it does work for a lot of people. So unless we're elevating your personal tastes into some sort of RPG Design Principle, the point eludes me.
Doesn't matter how many people it worked for, it's bad writing plain and simple, and in any sort of medium. Introducing a character 5 minutes into the story, killing them a few minutes later, and expecting some sort of emotional connection from the audience/players is ludicrous. Things like that take time. Take Mad Max for example. Would Goose getting effectively "killed" have been nearly as poignant if they had killed him a few minutes after introducing him? Would anyone care if he had not been a major character for a majority of the movie, and his friendship with Max not shown at all?
It's the reason "red-shirt" deaths mean so little; they have no background,no time, no familiarity. All you have is a few bits of kitschy background, not enough to give half a shit about them.
feighnt said:
i think everyone knows perfectly well that this game is likely to have few choices/meaningful choices - rather, it will focus on telling a central story. and, frankly, i see nothing necessarily wrong with this, there's clearly a place in the video gaming world for games of this type, and it doesnt make them bad per se (what makes them bad is if they're done poorly).
I'd have to disagree. "Bioware-style RPG" is a flawed formula. It sucks the story interactivity out out of the RPG, and Bioware does their best to suck out the gameplay interactivity, at least in most post-BG titles. What's left? Poor writing, shiny graphics, and a lot of railroading through piss-easy combat. That's a bad formula. I wouldn't mind it existing for the people who enjoy it, but unfortunately it dominates a large portion of the market, choking out the games I like.
if one judges a game (or whatever) to be bad, they ought to judge it more on its own terms, rather than due to the simple fact that it is not the sort of thing they like
That sounds like some post-modern "it's good at being what it is" bullshit. I judge an RPG next to every RPG, see what it does well, what it doesn't, and render a judgment. Take Wizardry 8. Great combat, cool puzzles, amazing depth, but pretty poor writing, and no choices and consequences of any real merit. I found it amazing. I don't have some universal standards, per se; I just want things to tick off enough boxes in the "amazing", "great", and "good" features category to make up for the shitty parts.
As long as a game can bring something compelling, something worthy, I can enjoy it, and find it good. That's where my problem with a lot of Bioware's titles come up. They take away so much for their vaunted drama and stories, but it's a waste. They sacrifice player choice, but don't deliver a story worth that sacrifice. PS:T took away a lot of freedom, but it had a damn fine reason to do so; a damn fine story, characters, and setting. Same with Bloodlines. But Bioware games like NWN, KOTOR, and Jade Empire don't do this. They sacrifice something good to emphasize something bad. That's a major reason why people here don't take too kindly to Bioware.
Dionysus said:
From my understanding, you would choose a different origin if you want a different backstory for your character.
I think this sounds pretty good so far. You can complain that there are only six options, but that variety is better than the one option that you get with most RPGs. Although they probably should have thrown in a generic lost-memory/fresh-out-of-prison origin that is available to any race.
Like I said in the other thread, I think the backgrounds are kinda weak, since they all inevitably funnel into becoming a Grey Warden and saving the world. Likely, after the "choose your own prologue" origin story, the only time background will be referenced is in some flavor text, or maybe a unique quest; kinda like the way Mass Effect handled them. I'd prefer traits that have gameplay attributes like dialogue checks, alternative quest solutions, faction influence, and such to the boring drama-fest that Bioware's backgrounds seem to be. Something like Cyclopean's backgrounds would be nice too, but Bioware won't do that, and it's unrealistic to expect that from them.
Shannow said:
How did the assassin chasing me make me care for Gorion?
Errr....maybe I mixed my words up? Like above, few people would really care about Gorion because he walked on stage, then promptly was killed off. I kinda went into a tangential from there, saying that personal survival is probably a better motivating factor seeing as it is pretty universal.
You may have been the prince's bitch. I never felt compelled to do anything in bloodlines.
I kinda thought the whole idea of him dominating you, while kinda cheesy in a way, was a pretty clever way to push his missions forth, and "forced" motivation on the player. Just me though.
Do you really want to be forced into a role or be chased by assassins in every single fucking game?
Not really, but just the same, I suppose every game has to have some set things, some things predetermined before the player enters the world. I guess I'm just a little tired of Bioware's cliches.
Now I seldomly care about characters that I don't know. If they get killid off, so what. But I don't whine about it. And I don't judge whether or not the fictional fates of game characters will touch me before I have played the game.
I just think it's poor writing, that's all. And I'd rather Bioware focus their efforts on something other than these backstories which seem to be gimmicky nonsense like Vault 101 in Fallout 3.
