Don't tell me Oblivion has a great, plot-twist filled storyline.
It's "Get the amulet, find son, lose the amulet, find the amulet", as far as I know.
I didn't say that. But I was very careful to say that a LINEAR rpg needs a great storyline. Oblivion's may not be great (though I would argue that it is better than DA:O's, for the fact that it avoids coincidence, the number one DO NOT USE in literature, whereas DA:O runs towards it with outspread arms), but Oblivion has the advantage of being open-world, ensuring the game provides a plethora of other interesting story paths such as the Dark Brotherhood and Thieve's Guild. I'm going to pretend the Mage's Guild story didn't exist >.>
DA:O doesn't benefit from this open-world mechanic, and instead has to rely on a strong and enigmatic main storyline, which it just doesn't possess.
If you haven't noticed, Bioware has pretty much released the same story structure for many years now. It worked somewhat at first (SW Kotor), but now... not so much anymore.
If you compare DAO to BG2, then you could say that the three "non mainquest-mainquest areas" are comparable to BG2s sidequest. If you look at them like this, then they would work. But then the main plot would suddenly be reduced to five hours at best, of which nearly everything is just fighting and fighting and even more fighting. Against the same enemies. Does not work all too well.
You're right. KOTOR was amazing, and will always be one of the most memorable rpgs i've ever played. But that game's storyline still made sense did it not? It's been a while since I played it last, but none of the events occuring on the different planets you visited felt horrendously coincidental, and in fact you expected a bit of an adventure to accomplish your goal on each one (to uncover a piece of the star forge, an ancient relic scattered across the galaxy). In DA:O you're merely expecting to convince a political and military power of Ferelden to honour their ancestor's vows. Instead, you're forced to sort out their problems against your will (so much for 'do what you want' dialogue branches). Perhaps the other reason KOTOR stands out more is that the main character had a massive secret and revelation. The main character in DA:O is left blank as a clean canvas, for an obvious reason of course, but perhaps this wasn't the best decision after all.
The bigger problem I see is, what - for me - kills believeability is that everything just looks stolen. I mean, a lot of world elements seem to be taken directly from The Witcher. (Which is, all in all, compared to DAO a vastly superior game, both in setting and in story.)
On a side note, The Witcher is a game i've heard so much about, and still have yet to play.
*Scribbles note to put some of January's student loan installment towards The Witcher*I disagree. Most of what's been told is, well, told. The curse of the codex, so to speak.
Old rule: Show, don't tell.
If you look at BG2 or Witcher or, hell, even Might and Magic, they show a lot more than merely tell about it. Even Morrowind, master of telling (
), shows more than DAO. Stuff that's only told is "fake depth" imho.
This is an interesting point, on which I agree with you on some aspects, but not all. I wonder if you agree with this:
'Showing' the lore in the game is indeed very important, and something that DA:O perhaps does fail in, relying too heavily on
assuming the player will want to read the codex. I never understood certain aspects of the game world until I read the codex entries relating to them, particulary regarding locations, where a well executed cut-scene (something else DA:O fails in compared to other popular linear rpgs (Final Fantasy for example provides amazing cut-scenes, whether you love the material or not, they are incredibly well executed)) could have conveyed some of the finer points in an interesting and absorbing manner.
But, I also believe that 'telling', as you put it, is fundamental in games for players who seek a greater understanding of the world they are exploring. Mass Effect is the perfect example of this, even providing spoken word entries in its codex. I sat up in bed for hours the day I bought that game pouring over the codex throughout the night, I was that interested in the world. But Mass Effect didn't require the player to read the codex, whereas DA:O does, particularly for quests. An old rpg I played (maybe Grandia?) had a library I recall, filled with books about game lore, detailing locations and key historical characters. You didn't have to read these books, but they added to the world, and were a great optional addition. Oblivion's books work in a very similar way.
So while I agree that DA:O relied far too heavily on the codex, to the point where it became mandatory to read for a real understanding of what was going on rather than an optional divulgence, I would say that the idea of a codex is a genius idea (particularly in Mass Effect), and that 'telling' is a great supplement to 'showing', and should be included in any serious role playing game. Perhaps it should be: "show, and then tell", rather than "show, don't tell."
It's the presentation. sigh.
I'm not sure what you mean here. It was in response to my genuine question about what makes the story so good in DA:O. The presentation of the story? It was presented in game format, and presenting it in a leather-bound book wouldn't alter my opinion of it. I'll keep searching for hidden references within the story, for an awesome plot-twist that perhaps I missed, for innovation and literacy genius... but I keep seeing a story full of coincidence, which any literature student is told in the first year of study to avoid at all cost. Yet DA:O piles it on in the wagon-load... and people wonder why gaming is still not considered mature...
» Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:40 am 
