Future of the Dragon Age franchise

[Humanoid]

If I had to choose between two story concepts with no context, one being a summary of DAO and the other of DA2, I'd choose the latter every time. I am an anti-epic storytelling gamer and choose the tighter, more personal narrative every time. Even at the most cliched level - either a game with a quest for vengeance versus a quest for saving the world - revenge wins out for me as the narrative driver a hundred times out of a hundred.

 

The top two reasons I loathe DAO are narrative then combat.

The top two reasons I didn't even try DA2 combat then level design.

[Aedelric]

In that case you will probably never like any version of Dragon Age Humanoid, everything about the game screams fantasy epic, from the history to the races to the current events. It is a world obviously crafted for one reason, to tell epic stories.

[Humanoid]

Of course, and that's my expectation - but it's not like there's a whole raft of alternatives out there, hence it's always worth at least tracking the development status of anything out there in the genre.

[Spider]

High fantasy works best with epic stories. The main protagonist of every good fantasy story is the setting. The better bet is to mix the personal with the epic just like BG or MoTB did imho.

 

This is just so wrong. Characters are always the most important part of any story, regardless of medium or genre. They are what drives the story forward. You can have a story with great characters in a dull setting and have it be good, but you can't have a story with dull characters in an awesome setting be anything but dull.

 

Having both is of course optimal.

[Monte Carlo]

This is just so wrong. Characters are always the most important part of any story, regardless of medium or genre. They are what drives the story forward. You can have a story with great characters in a dull setting and have it be good, but you can't have a story with dull characters in an awesome setting be anything but dull.

 

Having both is of course optimal.

 

Do you mean in games or in fiction generally? In fiction generally I'd disagree, some writers get away with being plot-heavy and relatively character lite and sell lots of books. And vice versa. In a video game I'm looking for gameplay first and foremost, that's the skeleton (incidentally combat is part of that but then again it could be an economics / resource type game or something completely different, as long as the way that mechanic is delivered is fun). The rest is the stuff draped around it to make it look nice. Which is why me and Bio are never going to get along ever again because I'd argue that they're not really making games anymore.

 

They've created a new type of interactive story hybrid. Good luck to them.

[meomao]

This is just so wrong. Characters are always the most important part of any story, regardless of medium or genre. They are what drives the story forward. You can have a story with great characters in a dull setting and have it be good, but you can't have a story with dull characters in an awesome setting be anything but dull.

 

I don't agree. My point is that in the fantasy genre the setting is a charachter and should be treated as such. If you do not want the setting to be considered a member of the cast, why write in a medium like traditional epic fantasy after all? It's not economic and it's really a silly dress for a literary fiction. It causes all kinds of unnecessary problems that could be avoided in a realistic setting.

 

Just look at the better example of epic fantasy: LotR, ASoIaF, Jonathan Strange & Dottor Norrel, The Chronicles of Amber etc. etc. etc.. In all those cases, the setting is the main charachter. That helps the process of proper charachterization in the fantasy context: those books have great charachters because the setting is the main actor in the cast.

 

Having both is of course optimal.

 

I believe that you cannot have great charachters in an epic fantasy if the setting is just an afterthought. That's the only lesson of Tolkien that you cannot avoid.

 

Mind, my opinion is just based on the fantasy books I've read so there could be books out there that proove me wrong off course.

Edited April 13, 2012 by meomao

[BobSmith101]

1. Epic can distract you from all sorts of things. Takes a better writer to make it personal and not simply railroad you to fixed outcomes.
   

[Nepenthe]

"Personal" has nothing to do with railroading or lack of it, though.

[Spider]

Just look at the better example of epic fantasy: LotR, ASoIaF, Jonathan Strange & Dottor Norrel, The Chronicles of Amber etc. etc. etc.. In all those cases, the setting is the main charachter. That helps the process of proper charachterization in the fantasy context: those books have great charachters because the setting is the main actor in the cast.

 

I personally wouldn't use LotR as an example of better fantasy, I think those stories are fairly bad. True, the setting is well done, but the stories just aren't. Even so, the story is very character driven. Same goes for Sword of Fire and Ice. If you're telling me those are not compelling characters driving that story, I don't know what to say.

 

I haven't read the other examples on your list, so can't comment on those.

 

Having both is of course optimal.

 

I believe that you cannot have great charachters in an epic fantasy if the setting is just an afterthought. That's the only lesson of Tolkien that you cannot avoid.

 

Mind, my opinion is just based on the fantasy books I've read so there could be books out there that proove me wrong off course.

 

A great character is a great character regardless of setting. I have a hard time coming up with examples because good fantasy writers typically strive for an interesting setting as well as good characters. So right now I can't think of any fantasy I've read or seen where the setting is handled as an afterthought.

 

But the best fantasy stories as I said has both. The likes of Elric of Melnibon

[Gorgon]

Why do you keep talkting about epic or character driven as if it were an either/or propositon.

[greylord]

When I play RPGs I play it for the story, I also play it for the personal choices/interaction. I normally do NOT PLAY it for the combat. The way combat is handled CAN make me decide not to get a game or play a game, so it's important, but it's NOT the reason I actually play the game.

 

Bioware noted that a MAJORITY of players play their games on the easy mode (at least once they started monitoring you all big brother like on their network).

 

Personally, I'll even admit, on my 3rd playthrough of ME3, my last, I started off with Normal, like...normal...but then once I got nearer to the end, I got bored with it. I simply decided I'd seen this all before and I was ready to be done. I shifted it to Narrative and went high gear for the end skipping any sidequests remaing simply to get done with the experience. I wanted to get through the game quickly simply so I could get the character to the end.

 

I have no problem with players cheating or playing on easy. In fact I think a majority who actually finish the games probably do play it on easy or cheat. There are only a few sadists in the world afterall...me included among them occasionally, especially on FPS games.

[Monte Carlo]

I was talking about fiction in general, yes. I do agree that games can get away with crap for story if the gameplay is compelling. But I'd like to get examples of good stories with bad characters please.

 

Also, I'm not sure the criteria for a good story is selling loads of copies.

 

I have two novels on submission with commissioning editors and an agent eyeing his fifteen percent. You can be sniffy about commercially successful fiction, but my experience is that for every awful teen vampire romance novel there's another tautly-plotted thriller. So for me it's not a bad metric of whether a book is 'good' or not. Of course, e-books have shaken things up so the niche now gets a fair crack of the whip.

 

As for good stories with so-so characters I give you Frederick Forsyth of The Dogs of War and Day of the Jackal fame. Forsyth, by his own admission, makes his characters fairly sketchy (in of itself an interesting idea, allowing the reader to project into the character) but makes up for it with excellent, well-paced plotting and mastery of technical detail. Not everybody's cup of tea but his stuff is a good read. I could name others.

[BobSmith101]

"Personal" has nothing to do with railroading or lack of it, though.

 

A lot of the time it does. DA2 is a prime example of how they took a known character Hawke and railroaded him through the game to a fixed outcome. There were no major eventes that you could not "escape".

 

The more Epic DA plot had a lot more fluidity because it was less focused on who the character was and more on what the character was.

[Nepenthe]

Actually, never mind. (edit)

Edited April 13, 2012 by Nepenthe

[meomao]

I personally wouldn't use LotR as an example of better fantasy, I think those stories are fairly bad. True, the setting is well done, but the stories just aren't. Even so, the story is very character driven. Same goes for Sword of Fire and Ice. If you're telling me those are not compelling characters driving that story, I don't know what to say. I haven't read the other examples on your list, so can't comment on those.

 

Like it or not, there would not be any modern or contemporary fantasy if not for Tolkien. In my opinion the story of Middle Earth (wich is the true story of LoTR) is very good and the intentional lack of psychological struggle is an interesting style that adds gravitas to the storytelling.

 

Not that every fantasy author should replicate that approach but Tolkien does not work with "traditional" charachters in the literary sense but archetypes and ideas. Any element of their development is part of the bigger picture. That's extreme off course but the lesson I was speaking before, remains (do your homework and write a setting that's like a living human being).

 

About ASoIaF: it's funny because my position is inspired by interview and essays of the Big Man himself. GRRM has stated many times that Westeros is the main characther of his narrative.

 

A great character is a great character regardless of setting. I have a hard time coming up with examples because good fantasy writers typically strive for an interesting setting as well as good characters. So right now I can't think of any fantasy I've read or seen where the setting is handled as an afterthought.

 

Don't you think that it's a proof of my position? There's not even point to write a fantasy story if you do not start with the world-building. I'm not saying that you can have a good fantasy with bad charachters and a good setting: there's plenty of those like WoT. I'm saying that you cannot have interesting charachters in an epic fantasy if the setting is not considered and developed as a charachter in itself, first and foremost. Without the framework how can you develop the traits of each charachter? You cannot develop a charachter in a vacuum.

 

But the best fantasy stories as I said has both. The likes of Elric of Melnibon

[entrerix]

My dream remains a CRPG set in a generally non-hostile world where non-combat solutions are the norm, and the combat is generally considered the side-option.

 

wouldn't that just be an adventure game then?

 

edit: and why the hell are people using the word "epic" like its a genre?

Edited April 13, 2012 by entrerix

[Tale]

edit: and why the hell are people using the word "epic" like its a genre?

Epic poetry is a genre.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Epic_poetry

An epic (from the Ancient Greek adjective ?????? (epikos), from ???? (epos) "word, story, poem"[1]) is a lengthy narrative poem, ordinarily concerning a serious subject containing details of heroic deeds and events significant to a culture or nation.

Applying it beyond just poetry seems to work.

 

Film has it, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Film

An epic is a type of film sometimes described as a genre and at other times thought of as simply a category of films with a large scale, sweeping scope and with much spectacle, usually transporting viewers to other settings or eras.

 

Why not narratives in general, including that of games?

[meomao]

 

wouldn't that just be an adventure game then?

 

edit: and why the hell are people using the word "epic" like its a genre?

 

I guess it means epic fantasy, wich is an estabilished sub-genre of fantasy with its rules and tropes.

[entrerix]

so east of eden wouldn't be an epic because its not about heroic deeds?

 

i guess i dont care either way, i just don't like seeing the word used to describe bad fiction

[Tale]

so east of eden wouldn't be an epic because its not about heroic deeds?

 

i guess i dont care either way, i just don't like seeing the word used to describe bad fiction

I'm not familiar with East of Eden.

 

From the context here, it seems to be contrasted against personal stories. Torment's story was about the Nameless One, so it wouldn't be an epic. Dragon Age Origins was about a time of change for Ferelden.

 

If I were to marry the concepts of Epic Poetry and epic as used in this thread, I'd simply ask the question "when it's over, do the common people tell their children about it?"

[meomao]

so east of eden wouldn't be an epic because its not about heroic deeds?

 

Epic fantasy is just a synonim of high fantasy. Sub-genres do not mean a lot at the end but they are usefull label to sort things out.

 

i guess i dont care either way, i just don't like seeing the word used to describe bad fiction

 

I agree.

 

I think that in the topic it was just used to describe in short the kind of videogames/fiction stories about the big bad who is going to destroy/conquer the world and the tale of the chosen one who is going to kill the big bad using the occasional mcguffin (like every Bioware game with the exception of DA2).

 

Fortunately a story can be epic in scope and avoid that kind of cliches or at least play with them. Problem is: anytime Bioware tries to do something different from that cliche, even a small deviation, they screw up big time (while being heavily criticized by the sunshine brigade who represents the majority of his fanbase and just wants big bads, chosen one, mc guffin and happy endings).

Edited April 13, 2012 by meomao

[HoonDing]

Jade Empire must be anti-epic. Your awesome character turns out to be nothing but a convenient tool used by the true villain to remove his rival. If only the twist hadn't been so obvious.

[Oerwinde]

I generally either cheat or play on easy because I find combat to be the least enjoyable part of any of the RPGs I play and try to get through it as fast as possible to get on with the story.

 

Pardon if this sounds retarded but ... what's the point in playing a video game if you don't like playing the combat portions? Wouldn't the video game become nothing more than like watching a movie?

 

While combat is one of my least favorite aspects of RPGs, I still enjoy it. It gives me the satisfaction of seeing how powerful my character is that I've spent all this time leveling up, and allows me to take part in the "conflict" in the game. Bad guy loses because I beat the snot out of him. It's the sense of achievement portion of my game.

 

I see the combat as a necessary evil, and works as part of the narrative. For example, in DA2, I liked the fight with the Arishok because it served a purpose and the fight itself was a story. DA:O I also liked fighting my way to the Archdemon, because it fit the story. I don't like fighting hordes of random enemies in dungeons just to fill time. One of my favorite RPG series, Quest For Glory, did it right. The combat was there, but it wasn't a focus. You could beat most major enemies through various means, combat being one, but also trickery, magic, and diplomacy. Almost all random encounter fights were entirely avoidable.

[Spider]

Btw, if you like fantasy and good charachterization, give a try to Joe Abercrombie. I love him.

 

I've read Abercrombie. The First Law Trilogy was great, Best Served Cold even better. The latest one, The Heroes, is a little weaker, mostly because the character takes a lot longer to develop and come into their own (partly due to there being too many viewpoints). It got a bit better in the second half, when the characters got more developed. So yeah, I like Abercrombie.

[Bos_hybrid]

High fantasy works best with epic stories. The main protagonist of every good fantasy story is the setting. The better bet is to mix the personal with the epic just like BG or MoTB did imho.

 

This is just so wrong. Characters are always the most important part of any story, regardless of medium or genre. They are what drives the story forward. You can have a story with great characters in a dull setting and have it be good, but you can't have a story with dull characters in an awesome setting be anything but dull.

 

Having both is of course optimal.

 

100% agree. Characters are the most important part of a story.

 

Jade Empire must be anti-epic. Your awesome character turns out to be nothing but a convenient tool used by the true villain to remove his rival. If only the twist hadn't been so obvious.

 

I don't know, becoming a god after that is pretty epic.