4085 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.Tacito]

perishh wrote...

So... How is it a sequal?
No Warden?
No Morrigan ending?
No Morrigan's child?
No return of old favorite characters?
All new adventure?

Anyone else as dissapointed as I am?  I mean They didnt exactly put an ending on the 1st one.
As much as I LOVED the 1st one I'm not exicted about the next

I agree! I would like to see some connection(s) from the first game to the next. Whether it's Morrigan or Warden related. 

[Riona45]

Mr.Tacito wrote...
I agree! I would like to see some connection(s) from the first game to the next.

The devs have said the story from the first game *does* matter.  Do people really expect them to list point by point all the plot points in a game that was only very recently released?

[Jestina]

The timespan thing sound icky too. I've never seen something like that implemented well except in simulation games.



It will probably go like...mission, time jump, mission, time jump, mission, time jump, end game.

[Collider]

Perhaps add "friendship" to the least. If I am not speaking erroneously, David Gaider seemed to have confirmed friendships with companions in this post:

Of course we'll have friendships. Followers are our favorite part of the game.

http://social.biowar...86014/1#3086122

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

MapleJar wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Dragon Age was not, and was never meant to be, a trilogy, but rather a franchise with many games based in the world.

That REALLY needs to be stickied. By a dev. Because a lot of people just don't get it.

That's all fine and dandy, but what some folks are trying to say is that line of thought does not lend itself to the term "sequel". A sequel is a continuation of the preceding story. When the “sequel” doesn’t have much to do with the previous story, but especially has little to no appearances of the characters of the previous story (especially the freaking main character), then it really isn’t a sequel. Mentioning previous events in passing does not apply. It’s like in D&D – you finish a campaign, and you start up another one. It can be set in the Forgotten Realms, like your previous campaign, but it’s not a sequel. It’s just another campaign set in the same world. DA2 shouldn’t be called DA2. It should be called DA: Another Campaign Set In The DA World – or something – because it’s not a freaking sequel, GDit!

OMG, you're my hero, you and one other person are the only two I've seen on the forum today that actually get this.

[SirOccam]

Collider wrote...

Perhaps add "friendship" to the least. If I am not speaking erroneously, David Gaider seemed to have confirmed friendships with companions in this post:

Of course we'll have friendships. Followers are our favorite part of the game.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3086014/1#3086122

The only thing that makes me hesitate is his use of "of course." I didn't think what the OP of that thread was asking for was something they did in DA:O, and therefore there'd be no reason to assume that they would necessarily do it in DA2. I think maybe "friendship" is being used in a couple of different ways. You can get along well with everyone in your group, maxing out their approval meters, and you can call this being friends with them, but I think the OP was asking for was something beyond this. Something like the romance sub-plot, only obviously platonic and not romantic. Some way to distinguish between a BFF and just someone you get along with.

The way Gaider used it seemed to be nothing more than the normal "companion with a variable approval system" concept. We can take from this that there'll be companions, and I'll add that, but unless we know what he means by "friendships," I'm not sure what else beyond that we can take as fact.

[Avilan II]

ElvaliaRavenHart wrote...

MapleJar wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Dragon Age was not, and was never meant to be, a trilogy, but rather a franchise with many games based in the world.

That REALLY needs to be stickied. By a dev. Because a lot of people just don't get it.

That's all fine and dandy, but what some folks are trying to say is that line of thought does not lend itself to the term "sequel". A sequel is a continuation of the preceding story. When the “sequel” doesn’t have much to do with the previous story, but especially has little to no appearances of the characters of the previous story (especially the freaking main character), then it really isn’t a sequel. Mentioning previous events in passing does not apply. It’s like in D&D – you finish a campaign, and you start up another one. It can be set in the Forgotten Realms, like your previous campaign, but it’s not a sequel. It’s just another campaign set in the same world. DA2 shouldn’t be called DA2. It should be called DA: Another Campaign Set In The DA World – or something – because it’s not a freaking sequel, GDit!

OMG, you're my hero, you and one other person are the only two I've seen on the forum today that actually get this.

Of course that means that Fallout 2 wasn't a sequel to Fallout. Or maybe the word "Sequel" does NOT mean exactly what you think it means.

[SirOccam]

For the whole "sequel" argument, I say look at A Song of Ice and Fire (supposedly it's sort of an inspiration I guess, for the series?). It has many different points of view, but they all just tell the story of Westeros and the power struggles that happen there.

I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't read the books (yet), but let's just say I naïvely thought there was a main character at first, but that didn't even last through the first book. It's still an amazing story even though new people get introduced and other people die. I like to think that this is the story of Thedas, more than the story of the Grey Warden or of Hawke for that matter.

[javierabegazo]

SirOccam wrote...

For the whole "sequel" argument, I say look at A Song of Ice and Fire (supposedly it's sort of an inspiration I guess, for the series?). It has many different points of view, but they all just tell the story of Westeros and the power struggles that happen there.
I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't read the books (yet), but let's just say I naïvely thought there was a main character at first, but that didn't even last through the first book. It's still an amazing story even though new people get introduced and other people die. I like to think that this is the story of Thedas, more than the story of the Grey Warden or of Hawke for that matter.

And you would be absolutely correct

javierabegazo wrote...

http://social.biowar...17&lf=8#3086205

David
Gaider wrote...

Tezzajh wrote...
so is
there a
reason as to why you start a new story, when the wardens has not

finished as now i dont see how its a sqeual unless it somehow relates
to
the warden for a possible DA3.

you know halo followed 1 guy
and
called it 1 2 and 3 then soon as they ditched him they called it
ODST
and REACH not halo 4 and 5

The Warden's story is not
part
of DA2.

Dragon Age is not about the Warden-- it's about
Thedas,
and the period of time within it called the Dragon Age.

I

guess we could drag the Warden into new stories even without a
Blight
to combat-- I could certainly think of things such a hero could
do,
even at such a high level-- but I also like the idea of visiting
different
stories, told through different heroes, rather than revisiting
the
same well over and over or trying to contrive a way to squeeze the
Warden
into places he/she doesn't belong.

If you disagree, then
I'm
sorry to disappoint. I hope you'll find something about DA2 to love,

and that you'll take ownership of Hawke the same way you did with your
Warden.
Just because you liked one of our characters that much,
after
all, doesn't mean it couldn't ever never ever happen again, does
it?
[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

[Arttis]

I like the idea that flemmeth saved the young boy.But it makes me think of the first fable too much.

[Icinix]

Hypothetically : Does it seem to anyone else like Hawke's story is running parallel to your characters story in Origins and Awakening? While your Character is determining the fate of Ferelden and the Blight over how ever many years, Hawke is off forging another tale in the larger world.



If I was making an epic expanse of an IP like Dragon Age, that's one hell of a way to allow the game player to set up the world in their image and bridge all the key players together in future instalments, but keep them semi disconnected just at the moment.



If so, then awesome. If not, well it was only a hypothetical theory anyway.

[Riona45]

Arttis wrote...

I like the idea that flemmeth saved the young boy.

...Except that Hawke may not be a boy.

[Sarkus]

SirOccam wrote...

For the whole "sequel" argument, I say look at A Song of Ice and Fire (supposedly it's sort of an inspiration I guess, for the series?). It has many different points of view, but they all just tell the story of Westeros and the power struggles that happen there.
I don't want to give anything away for those who haven't read the books (yet), but let's just say I naïvely thought there was a main character at first, but that didn't even last through the first book. It's still an amazing story even though new people get introduced and other people die. I like to think that this is the story of Thedas, more than the story of the Grey Warden or of Hawke for that matter.

Well said.  And as pointed out above, many popular RPG series have defined themselves as being about the world and not just one character - Fallout, Might and Magic, and Elder Scrolls all come to mind.  And it's not like you were ever promised a trilogy or whatever about your character.  Not to mention the very real possibility of the Warden sacrificing themselves at the end of DAO pretty much was a guarantee that future games were not going to be about that character.  Buiding a series to appease the fans of one ending would be spitting in the face of the fans of another, equally legitimate ending.

I certainly have my concerns about some of what's been revealed so far, but we are a long way from knowing how much of those concerns are legitimate.  David Gaider and company have earned the right for us to withhold judgement for a bit before we start more threads about how awful we think this game is going to be based on what little we know.

[Sarkus]

(Oops, double post.)

Modifié par Sarkus, 11 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Stexns]

No , this shouldn't be a sequel , we just see the blight trough Hawkes point of view , that's pretty lame

I expected DA2 to continue the story of the Gray Warden , maybe their planing on doing that in the future , maybe our Warden and Hawke taem up together to stop some grater Evil that will come in Dragon Age 3,4,5 . And that would be awesome. Perhaps there are going to more games that tell us stories of other champions around that world , and the warden from the first one being the most important , so the other guys come to search for the warden and so on and so on. That would be pretty good. So I will definitely buy the DA2 and give it a chance to wow me

[Sable Rhapsody]

Stexns wrote...

No , this shouldn't be a sequel , we just see the blight trough Hawkes point of view , that's pretty lame
I expected DA2 to continue the story of the Gray Warden , maybe their planing on doing that in the future , maybe our Warden and Hawke taem up together to stop some grater Evil that will come in Dragon Age 3,4,5 . And that would be awesome. Perhaps there are going to more games that tell us stories of other champions around that world , and the warden from the first one being the most important , so the other guys come to search for the warden and so on and so on. That would be pretty good. So I will definitely buy the DA2 and give it a chance to wow me

That would be cool, actually, if all the DA stories, of the Warden and Hawke and other potential protagonists all wove together.  Though I have to quibble with the Warden being the most important.  

DRAGON AGE NOT ABOUT WARDEN.  DRAGON AGE ABOUT THEDAS.  There, nice and simple 

[Teredan]

I have to say that i'd rather not have connections between the first and the second in the form it was presented till now. In most instances Biowares carry over features were poorly presented. I understand that it is interesting especially from a story perspective to do that, but well until it is possible to do it properly i'd like to see this feature gone.

[SirOccam]

No more sticky?

I hope this means there'll be an official FAQ soon.

[CHRiTTeR]

I've only read until page 11 and then i got really tired about the godbaby blablabla (not that i think the godbaby wont be important at some point, but lets not start throwing rocks at eachother about things we dont know for sure, its just opinions for now, just accept that and move on)... so excuse me if i mention things that may already have been suggested or discussed.

But it seems to be official that we will see the events from another point of view, right?

So that most probably means we will see the other side of the story. With other words; we will see the darkspawn's side of the story.

It also seems to be confirmed Flemeth will apear.

Now, if you take into account we will see the other side of the story; this gives me a relatively big suspicion that flemeth will be one of the possible partymembers? Which would be really ideal to show her story through quests.
I think she is a way to intresting character to not do this.


I also see a lot of ppl complain about the fact that they cant play with their DAO character.
But since the story in DA2 is about showing you the other side of things it wouldnt be the recomended way to do this by using the same character. Actually It is quite impossible to do that and not make an absolute fail of it.
It is much better to introduce a new character to do this.
Yes, we all got a little attached to our previous playable characters and their life stories and adventures. But didnt we have this with every bioware game, so chances are pretty big this will happen again in DA2, so no worries there.

Also, from reading your comments i get the impression this is meant to be a trilogy?

So would it be cool if its like in one of those movies... where you get introduced to different characters and what they are all about. They all have their lives and everyone has his story but they dont seem to have anything in common and you dont really understand what the story is about the first 20 - 30 minutes. But as the movie evolves you slowly but surely are shown how the characters (who first seemed to have nothing to do with eachother) are all connected in some way and some things become more and more clear through a series of events... until it all comes togetter in a grand ending with an obsolutely genious plot.

I think its going to be something like that (if its a trilogy... or more). The second part (DA2) is about introducing another character or side of the story, which at first sight doesnt seem to have any connection to the first part, but as things evolve you will be shown otherwise but without giving to much away and raising even more questions. And the third part will show you how everything comes togetter.

I think this would be absolutely awesome way to tell a story in a game.
Even though its been done now already in quite a few movies, no one really ever tried this in a game and if this is what bioware is doing with dragon age and they can keep up the same quality as with the first game then i think it will be a massive success!

Modifié par CHRiTTeR, 11 juillet 2010 - 06:17 .

[McNoguff]

About sequels:



* Fallouts 2 & 3, had no connection to or characters from(besides Harold) Fallout 1.



* No Final Fantasy aside from X-2, Final Fantasy Compilation or Ivalice Aliance continued or were connected to previous stories.



* The Elder Scrolls 1, 2, 3 and 4 all take place dozens to hundreds of miles from each other, in different continents/planes of existence.



You get the point... There's more than one kind of "sequel." It's okay to be a little disappointed that you're not continuing your warden--they went a different way than you were hoping, disappointment is totally okay(even if the end product is super great)-- but disappointment or no, sequel isn't defined solely as the continuation of the same characters and their plights/joys/whathaveyou.

[CHRiTTeR]

yes you are right. But clearly there are connections here which seem to be confirmed.

It happens in the same area.
It is about the same important historical events in that world (blights and the darkspawn etc...)
Some of the characters will make their return
The story of Hawke clearly has its connection with the previous game
...

So saying this will be something totally different is not correct. I think its fairly obvious there will be lots of connections and i am convinced it eventually it will be part of 1 bigger story and that there is more to this story than 1 man/women's experience. If you really want to understand something you also have to see both sides of the story and how things came to be. 

Everything seems to point that way...

This is of course, just my opinion. My point is that with what is known right now it seems highly unprobable that this will be a game that has almost nothing to do with the first one... especially not if you consider how much effort bioware puts in their stories.

It could be that it is a totally different story that has no relation with the previous one whatsoever and their goal is to make different games that all take place in the same world which is designed with great care for every detail with its own histoy/culture and stuff. But if that is the case then I think it would be a big mistake to put Flemeth in DA2 because she was a way to important part of the previous game which would make it verry disapointing for the player if she shows up in DA2 with totally ignoring the events around her from the previous game.

Modifié par CHRiTTeR, 11 juillet 2010 - 06:55 .