By now most everyone who is into MMOs (and more than a few people who aren't) has heard about the upcoming Star Wars: The Old Republic from Bioware (now under the umbrella of EA) and Guild Wars 2 from ArenaNet. If you also happen to be a follower of Penny Arcade, you've probably also heard more than a little braggadocio regarding the innovations each of these titles claim to bring to the genre. If you're an even bigger dork yet, you may have followed some of the video releases or E3 interviews from either studio, in which design team members extoll the unique advantages of their new ideal over the boring, stagnant existing MMO standard. No need to be coy, folks, we all to whom you're refering.
Now, I want to set the record straight here. I've been an on-again/off-again WoW player since its release nearly six years ago, and I was an employee of Blizzard Entertainment for the better part of that time. I acknowledge that WoW's success does lend some credit to their design choices, but lets be honest: successful does not necessarily equal good. Madden is successful. Halo is successful. Armageddon, Titanic, and Avatar were successful. But setting aside WoW's popularity and considering its design alone, there's still a lot to admire. Like all games, it has flaws, to be sure, perhaps even more than its share.
Both TOR and GW2 have been heard to claim to revolutionize the genre by introducing story to the MMO. I'm honestly not sure where these guys have been for the last two years though: while WoW may have launched with a more or less static story, the second expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, definitely brought story to the fore. Blizzard went all out, introducing a new mechanic that allowed the world you play in to change based on what part of the story you were in, destroying towns, establishing forward camps, and removing vanquished enemy forces. Wrath even includes two cutscenes that play out at pivotal moments in the story.
I haven't yet had a hands-on look at Guild Wars 2, but my experiences with the Old Republic beta test have been less than mind-blowing. While it does introduce fully-spoken dialogue and Mass Effect style dialogue choice wheels, there's no storytelling revolution to be found here. I guess Bioware and EA will have to fall back on the game's revolutionary gameplay instead.
Oh, wait...
Monday, October 17, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Internet Hates Dragon Age 2
But I don't.
Honestly, I've tried to understand the horrendous backlash against this game; the vitriol that spurs asshats from across the web to give it a 0/10 rating on Amazon or Metacritic, and I'm still not getting it. Sure, its not Dragon Age: Origins 2, and I understand that many people feel that it's been "dumbed down" for the console crowd (spoiler: it has), but neither of those factors equate to: "This game has absolutely no value" for me.
Which isn't to say the game is perfect. Far from it. But I'll go out on a limb here and say I think I enjoyed it better than DA:O.
The break down:
Story:
Ask ten different people what they thought of the story in DA2 and you'll likely get 10 different answers. That's probably high praise in and of itself; there is enough to the story that it bears interpretation. For the most part I loved it.
Despite the presence of a journal menu which labeled various tasks as "Main Quest", "Secondary Quest", "Companion Quest", or "Side Quest", all narrative quest lines blend rather seamlessly together. Most of my companion quests fed into the main quest in an essential way, as did a healthy portion of the side quests.
The story is segmented into three distinct acts (and a prologue), each bookended by a frame jump back to Varric and Cassandra (who are retelling the story in the "present"). Quests carry over in meaningful ways from act to act, and often left me wondering what would have been different had I made another choice earlier. Its clear that the major elements of the plot are largely unaffected by your choices, or rather that while they occur as a result of your interaction, you only have control of the "how and why".
Each act is also largely defined by a single over-arching plot element. Act 1 is dominated by an expedition to the Deep Roads and preparations for said expedition. Act 2 revolves around the Qunari who have taken up residence in Kirkwall, and Act 3 deals with the central conflict (which should be clear to anyone who has played for over an hour, but I'll omit for the sake of anyone who hasn't picked DA2 up yet or is simply slow on the uptake). Acts 1 and 2 each establish key elements of the final showdown in Act 3, both by setting the stage for the conflict and by explaining Hawke's involvement.
With all that said, you'll notice that there isn't a clear goal laid out in the beginning of the game ala DA:O. Indeed, your final opponent will probably not reveal themselves as such (or at least not in the "end boss" way you'd expect) until the game's closing moments. DA2 chooses to focus instead on a theme and a larger, more generalized conflict. And this is where you'll find the largest variety in opinions. I truly enjoyed the way nearly all your choices play on a central theme, asking the player to answer a question that has as much value in our world as it does in Thedas: "At what cost do we purchase our safety?"
Honestly, I've tried to understand the horrendous backlash against this game; the vitriol that spurs asshats from across the web to give it a 0/10 rating on Amazon or Metacritic, and I'm still not getting it. Sure, its not Dragon Age: Origins 2, and I understand that many people feel that it's been "dumbed down" for the console crowd (spoiler: it has), but neither of those factors equate to: "This game has absolutely no value" for me.
Which isn't to say the game is perfect. Far from it. But I'll go out on a limb here and say I think I enjoyed it better than DA:O.
The break down:
Story:
Ask ten different people what they thought of the story in DA2 and you'll likely get 10 different answers. That's probably high praise in and of itself; there is enough to the story that it bears interpretation. For the most part I loved it.
Despite the presence of a journal menu which labeled various tasks as "Main Quest", "Secondary Quest", "Companion Quest", or "Side Quest", all narrative quest lines blend rather seamlessly together. Most of my companion quests fed into the main quest in an essential way, as did a healthy portion of the side quests.
The story is segmented into three distinct acts (and a prologue), each bookended by a frame jump back to Varric and Cassandra (who are retelling the story in the "present"). Quests carry over in meaningful ways from act to act, and often left me wondering what would have been different had I made another choice earlier. Its clear that the major elements of the plot are largely unaffected by your choices, or rather that while they occur as a result of your interaction, you only have control of the "how and why".
Each act is also largely defined by a single over-arching plot element. Act 1 is dominated by an expedition to the Deep Roads and preparations for said expedition. Act 2 revolves around the Qunari who have taken up residence in Kirkwall, and Act 3 deals with the central conflict (which should be clear to anyone who has played for over an hour, but I'll omit for the sake of anyone who hasn't picked DA2 up yet or is simply slow on the uptake). Acts 1 and 2 each establish key elements of the final showdown in Act 3, both by setting the stage for the conflict and by explaining Hawke's involvement.
With all that said, you'll notice that there isn't a clear goal laid out in the beginning of the game ala DA:O. Indeed, your final opponent will probably not reveal themselves as such (or at least not in the "end boss" way you'd expect) until the game's closing moments. DA2 chooses to focus instead on a theme and a larger, more generalized conflict. And this is where you'll find the largest variety in opinions. I truly enjoyed the way nearly all your choices play on a central theme, asking the player to answer a question that has as much value in our world as it does in Thedas: "At what cost do we purchase our safety?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)