安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
But in a video game, they have to be, they all have to be written for and accounted for in advance.
The comparison is slightly unfair for three reasons I think:
The script for an RPG is far longer than almost all books and certainly films. The PoE script for example was I beleive 1,600 pages long, longer than Lord of the Rings and War and Peace. They didn't have decades to write the PoE script.
There is a tension between writing and gameplay in video games that doesn't exists in film and book which are passive. Ouside of stuff like Stanley Parable. The flow of the game is important and of course everyone has a different reaction to the balance between narrative and gameplay.
It is much harder to write convincing NPC dialog when you don't know the charcter of the protagonist and you don't know which actions the protagonist has taken so far when the conversation takes place. This is something that can't happoen by definition in film or book. It's why NPC lines can sometimes come across as irrelevant, cookie-cutter or banal.
AoD is an intersting game, one I have dabled with but ultimately it's stilll on my "must get round to trying seriously (but probably never will)" list becasue I've never had much success with it, mainly, as you say, becasue you have to try and try again messing with exact builds to get through the hard stat checks in various paths of the game, and I can't really get into that easily
To me the fundamental dilema on choice and consequence is that you can't actually influence consequencies becasue they have to be pre-written into the game, you have to choose from alternative pre-determed paths blind, so for me they do not feel real. For this reason I prefer epic linear adventures. In addition the more divergant the consequences the shorter the game due to the amount of duplication of events altered for differnt circumstances. AoD is a classic example. I prefer an epic adventure I can start and finish in one go.
Skyrim and Fallout 4 also expose problems with C&C approaches in my view. You have almost unlimited choices available but none of them have any really meraningful consequences. The "mile wide inch deep" syndrome.
All quests are straightforward as a bar stool.
All you do is click a lot of text and get some XP here and there.
There is no feeling of unveiling the mystery in dialogues as it was in PS:T.
I mean, in PS:T even your first dialogue with Dak'kon when you meet him beats entire writing of this poor game into goo.
Here, in T:ToN, when I see computer intelligence descirbing things with the word "stuff" I wanna slap the writer into goo...
If as a developper you put 20 hours of playtime in the game, and you can get 18 of them out in a single run, than it i a good ratio. If you can get 5 hours in a single run, it will make your choices relevant and meaningfull, also make a bad ratio, and most player will say: only 5 hour gametime, not worth full price.
I will say I hope they get AoD straightened out, I really enjoyed the setting/dialog etc. I was psyched to play a grifter.
I think we're of similar mind on that game and maybe this one. My expectations were low for --my enjoyment of -- this game and I've been happy with it -- as in "worth the price" happy. Do I love everything about it? No, but I am entertained and able to-- for a change-- use dialog over combat. I think the people who made the story etc. are quite talented.
I think it is is rather a matter if you're able to immerse yourself in the world. I am a (ahem) much older player and whether it's because I am very bored with the standard fantasy world setting for now or what, I don't know but I was able to get into this one pretty readily. I do like sci-fi (not a nut about it) and philosophy which probably helps.
This game, through words (but not solely) has been able to inspire feelings/reaction/roleplaying -- e.g. some things were very creepy/sad/novel/ For instance, the setting at times has creeped me out more than Fallout despite its visuals.
I haven't had my coffee yet, so am probably not explaining well -- my allergies are acting up etc. But I did want to say, the game is really a good step in the right direction. It's for a niche set of players but maybe less niche then I believed given the interest in both this game and AoD.
I hope devs stick with the genre -- it is quite satisfying when it works.
P.S. Look at how few have done the main quest even halfway per achievements and then say the game is too short. This game really seems to be for completionist types who take their time, to really get the most out of it.
P.S. I was very cautious in the beginning too :)
/waves at @Gregorovich -- I always enjoy reading his interpretations, may not always agree as a person with different likes/dislikes/priorities -- but they largely seem fair and educated.
For example... how much people here know that it is possible to talk to the Nychthemeron?
Indeed, I´ve already played it and was very impressed but stopped because it was hard to find the time for this epic and I don´t like to play RPG´s "episodical".
But awesome that you mentioned it because it suits perfectly as an argument how quests can be done. There was an impressive quest line involving a Baron and his family. He was a tyrannous person to his people and his family aswell. Knowing this I aproached him with condemnation but while the quest line proceeded you grew familar with him and sympathy arise, despite constantly thinking "don´t forget what this man has done." In the end I was in the middle of the misery of an entire family without having the ability anymore to know what action is the best, without knowing what will happen while questioning your own actions... and eventually it ended with an completely unforseen disaster for one person without spoilering to much.
Most games and also other media forms are so busy to absurdly villainized the antagonists while completely neglecting to explore their thoughts. This was a welcome change and was something I did not expect. Not many games/quest lines did achieve this for me. Many things happened in this quest line I don´t remember anymore but I do remember that this wasn´t your typical "fix the problem with a mechanical aproach" RPG quest. The mentioned disaster in this W3 quest unfolded in such a non-melodramatic way that it left an even stronger impression on me. And the soundtrack, beautiful.
Maybe I remember this trough rose-tinted glasses but this quest line was one of the best I´ve ever played, perhaps not from a gameplay standpoint as I recall it correctly it involved much traversing from A to B in order to talk to people but from a narrative and choice/consequence perspective, this is what I would love to see more games do.
In the end, W3 failed even to properly account for all the meaningful choices you could do in W2. It certainly does have some real C&C of its own - just not nearly as much as it should have. But it's still an absolutely unique example of a game that went open-world and still managed to stay properly story-driven.
Age of Decadence, on the other hand, is the single most branching RPG of all time. At least I don't know of any other game that could compete with it on that field. Of course, that didn't come without a high cost: too short in any single playthrough, too little gameplay outside the dialogue mode (it's MUCH more of a "visual novel" than T:ToN), etc.
They fixed this? Damn, I will have to do another playthrough now..
I read in the final version the changing of night by breaking the clock no longer functions to unlock the dialog there..
Since there's no day and night cycle I thought it's impossible, unless somewhere later in game, while scripted night come.