57020 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

DreamerM wrote...

But Downloadable Content is not an "installment in a series." It is bonus material, something you pay for when you want a little extra.

I think if it is essential, it should be included when you buy the game. The simple fact that it is not means the people who's vision crafted this story viewed it as optional and felt that you should be able to have a fullfilling experience without it.

I'm talking about Awakening, not the DLC.

You could have fooled me. Whatever Justice is in DA2, he's definitely not a character. He seems more like a personification of the political obsession that drives Chilean gurrellas, the Tamil Tigers and the IRA to slaughter in the name of freedom.

We know he is a character because of Awakening. That it is less obvious for people who did not play Awakening does not erase the very-obvious-when-all-of-the-information-is-in-hand-if-not-flawlessly-executed-if-you-did-not-play-Awakening intent of the matter.

Then why combine them at all? We got hit with the POLITICS hammer many many times during Anders's story so if that's the POINT of his whole plotline, then why muddle that by also making him a supernatural monster... and then doing absolutely nothing with it?

Because it's a characterization issue? The writers don't have to do anything a certain way. They made Anders an abomination because they wanted to. His nature as an abomination is important to his personal arc and character development, but his own personal motivations are what is responsible for the destruction of the Chantry.

[beckaliz]

Awakenings isn't pure DLC, from my standpoint. They packaged it separately for those xbox players who don't have xbox LIVE, so they obviously saw it as important.

[beckaliz]

@kromify

Yeah I'd be curious at the numbers, too. Until I see them I'm inclined to stick with my idea that they're shown more or less equally.

If you don't think they are, which do you think looks worse?


--------------------------------

Getting on my plane home now. I won't be able to continue my part in this discussion until later, guys.

[DreamerM]

beckaliz wrote...

But they should have had something more than Varric's comment when you get back to the city and the out-and-about comments that your companions have. They did such a good job with Leandra's death, and that poignant moment with Hawke sitting on the edge of the bed... I actually think I cried.

I'm not sure I'd call the job they did with Leandra "good," but it was definitely as closely as this game ever actually looked at the deep emotions a plot this dark would call for. The fact that they actually paused the action long enough to let what'd happened sink in, and showed both Hawke and the people around him actually reacting to what happened, went a long way towards making the event feel weighty and meaningful. Even if I still think they should have taken it farther, but that's me.

beckaliz wrote...
To clarify what I meant by making both sides look equally bad, it wasn't the "bad" part that was important, it was the "equally" that I wanted to get across. But whatever they are equal in, I don't know that showing both sides worse than how they're already presented would have a better impact. Both sides have reasonable individuals who have done nothing wrong, so making the two groups as a whole look worse wouldn't be "fair" to them. They want you to be able to agree with at least one side over the other.

I actually disagree that both sides were depicted equally at all, but again, this isn't a debate for the Anders thread.

beckaliz wrote...
I'm halfway in agreement with you, though. Showing more of the average citizen's reaction to the bombing would have been nice.

I'm not saying it would have been nice. A few more shots of horrified faces weren't going to make that much of a difference. But I would have liked something. The reason Bioware employees are paid and I am not is because they're supposed to be better at this then me.

beckaliz wrote...
But I think that, for the player to make their final decision in the game, they were right to let us have our own reaction to the bombing without forcing us to see it as heartbreaking for Hawke.

By "have our own reaction" you mean WE have to have the reaction. In the margins. Off-camera. Yes part of good storytelling is knowing what to leave out, but this is a defining moment for both Hawke and the World, and Hawke's emotional, as well as physical, reaction to this should have definitely, definitely been shown. As it is, picking a side is rather arbitrary. YOU might have your reasons for picking one side over the other, but as far as Hawke is concerned, this might as well be heads-or-tails.

This is why so many gamers found it hard to connect to Hawke. We never got to actually know how Hawke felt about anything, and a protagonist with no emotions isn't a very good hero.

[Maaia]

But Downloadable Content is not an "installment in a series." It is bonus material, something you pay for when you want a little extra.

I think if it is essential, it should be included when you buy the game. The simple fact that it is not means the people who's vision crafted this story viewed it as optional and felt that you should be able to have a fullfilling experience without it.

I haven't played Awakenings yet (sacrilege!). I did one play thru of DAO which I finished just in time for the release of DA2. I skipped Awakenings to play DA2 instead. I still had a fulfilling experience playing DA2. Hell, I've completed it 5 times - completely, not just main plot quests. I do not have Sebastian, either. I spoiled myself completely on the ending and still got shivers and goosebumps when I saw it in-game for the first time. The emotional impact was not lost on me. I actually did have to step away and decide if I wanted to kill Anders or not. Honestly, I'm not happy with the murderknife scene (which I also spoiled myself by watching on youtube). If it had been portrayed differently (it's too...cold for me and lacks the emotional connection - my Hawke should have been screaming at him and would have looked him in the eye when she killed him), I totally would have off'd him, at least in a few play thrus.  *That* should have been heartbreaking - the way it was for Anders to kill Karl - whether you romanced him or not. Perhaps the coldness works for the rival path, but on the friend path, he is presumably a close companion and friend. If I had to kill a friend, I would be broken over it. I had tears in my eyes during the Leandra death scene. I wanted that if I killed Anders. Instead they just give us, "You have to pay." *single, pitiful, lacking any force, stab in the back* <_<

[kromify]

i think people sided with templars because anders tipped the balance. he made it personal - and a lot of people felt betrayed.

there isn't enough shown about how mages can help people and be useful. anders is supposed to do that but we become so accustomed to the clinic and to dismissing anders, except in here, that it doesn't make much difference.

[ipgd]

This is why so many gamers found it hard to connect to Hawke. We never got to actually know how Hawke felt about anything, and a protagonist with no emotions isn't a very good hero.

Uh... wut?

This is a roleplaying game, you know; part of the point is deciding what Hawke feels for yourself. The game does not outright show what Hawke feels without player input because it is a roleplaying game. You are given many, many, many prompts in the game that directly ask how Hawke feels about any number of situations where you are then free to decide.


It's just like... did we even play the same game?

Modifié par ipgd, 04 juillet 2011 - 05:30 .

[DreamerM]

ipgd wrote...
I'm talking about Awakening, not the DLC.

Awakening IS a DLC. Everybody forgets that because it also comes in it's own shiny box, but it's not an "installment" it's an add-on to a pre-existing game.

If Awakening was a full-fledged sequel, or even a full-fledged game in it's own right, you'd have a good point. But asking someone to pay $30 for a 15-hour add-on adventure isn't a way to get "essential" plot information accross to anyone who isn't already a diehard fan.

ipgd wrote...
We know he is a character because of Awakening. That it is less obvious for people who did not play Awakening does not erase the very-obvious-when-all-of-the-information-is-in-hand-if-not-flawlessly-executed-if-you-did-not-play-Awakening intent of the matter.

So basically, you're saying that Bioware was taking for granted that everybody who bought DA2 would have played DA:O AND Awakening, so they skipped the part where they'd actually have to develop an important character because they figured the other games had already done that work for them.

And people wonder why this game cost Bioware some credibility.

ipgd wrote...
Because it's a characterization issue? The writers don't have to do anything a certain way.

There's a rule for good storytelling: keep it simple, stupid. If it doesn't serve the story, don't waste the audience/reader/gamer's time with it. You'll look like you don't know what you're doing, or like you don't care.

ipgd wrote...
They made Anders an abomination because they wanted to.

This may very well be the worst reason ever.

[upsettingshorts]

DreamerM wrote...

Awakening IS a DLC. Everybody forgets that because it also comes in it's own shiny box, but it's not an "installment" it's an add-on to a pre-existing game.

If Awakening was a full-fledged sequel, or even a full-fledged game in it's own right, you'd have a good point. But asking someone to pay $30 for a 15-hour add-on adventure isn't a way to get "essential" plot information accross to anyone who isn't already a diehard fan.

It's like youre conveniently inventing definitions, standards and categories because they serve your argument and not because they reflect reality in any way.

DreamerM wrote...

This may very well be the worst reason ever.

Your posts may very well be the dumbest arguments on the creative process ever.

[Maaia]

They did develop him. They just didn't start from the very beginning. His beginning is contained in Awakenings. It's safe for them to assume that if you, as a player, want the whole story, then you'll shell out the bucks to buy it. They are in this to make money after all.

[DreamerM]

ipgd wrote...

This is a roleplaying game, you know; part of the point is deciding what Hawke feels for yourself. The game does not outright show what Hawke feels without player input because it is a roleplaying game.

So because you decide the emotions, they can't possibly be shown? How does that work?

ipgd wrote...
You are given many, many, many prompts in the game that directly ask how Hawke feels about any number of situations where you are then free to decide.

I felt more like I was deciding what Hawke was going to do then deciding how Hawke felt about anything. I was getting asked for my opinion, not my emotion. Either way, their insistence on so many offscreen scenes made really connecting to Hawke difficult for a lot of people. Compare that to how deeply attached people got to their Wardens.

ipgd wrote...
It's just like... did we even play the same game?

Maybe not. Hey, can I borrow that game that you played? It sounds much better then mine.

[DAYtheELF]

Saw this over on the Dragon Age fb group... 

[legbamel]

ipgd wrote...

This is why so many gamers found it hard to connect to Hawke. We never got to actually know how Hawke felt about anything, and a protagonist with no emotions isn't a very good hero.

Uh... wut?

This is a roleplaying game, you know; part of the point is deciding what Hawke feels for yourself. The game does not outright show what Hawke feels without player input because it is a roleplaying game. You are given many, many, many prompts in the game that directly ask how Hawke feels about any number of situations where you are then free to decide.

It's just like... did we even play the same game?

Beyond which Hawke's reaction would depend heavily on his or her reaction to the event leading up to the Jenga and the personality the Hawke you choose to play.  Should Bioware have written and had the VAs record dialogue for every eventuality, forcing your opinion on you based on your dialogue wheel choices to that point?  I can imagine the cries of railroading that would have come in that case.

[DreamerM]

Maaia wrote...
I still had a fulfilling experience playing DA2.

I'm glad for you.

Maaia wrote...

They did develop him. They just didn't
start from the very beginning. His beginning is contained in Awakenings.
It's safe for them to assume that if you, as a player, want the whole
story, then you'll shell out the bucks to buy it.

You won't shell out the bucks at all if the story's missing the essential parts that make it work in the first place. In fact you may just go find something better to do.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Your posts may very well be the dumbest arguments on the creative process ever.

Thanks for playing.

[kromify]

@ DreamerM just consider awkenings as his backstory if you wish. non essential but still informative

[DreamerM]

legbamel wrote...
Beyond which Hawke's reaction would depend heavily on his or her reaction to the event leading up to the Jenga and the personality the Hawke you choose to play.  Should Bioware have written and had the VAs record dialogue for every eventuality, forcing your opinion on you based on your dialogue wheel choices to that point?

There's a difference between "forcing opinion" and "showing emotion." I think Hawke needed to be more emotive, especially in the key scenes. That Hawke just breezes through the most horrible incidents with little more reaction then a choice statement or two helps the player to do the same.

legbamel wrote...
I can imagine the cries of railroading that would have come in that case.

I'd be the last person to advocate railroading. I happen to think that you can give a character, and a story, pathos without it. But that's just me.

[River5]

kromify wrote...

Arquen wrote...

Someone said something to me today that made me laugh a bit, and think about DA2. We were having a conversation about serial killers and well.. killers and psychopaths in general.

He said "People always get tangled up in trying to find the reasons why people do the things they do. As if the reasoning behind the act will make the act itself more forgiving. As if knowing the reason why the way they are and why they do the things they do somehow makes what they do forgivable or deserving of less punishment. Really, the act itself should be what people are punished for, and not the reasons they commit them. Reasons don't make it better."

I don't think I agree with this, but it was an interesting thought none the less. Made me think of Anders. He commits this act of murder and mass destruction, and people seem to push it aside as forgivable, or less harmful than it actually is because of the reasons behind why he does it. It does not make the act any less deplorable, even to Anders himself, but somehow we forgive him because we connect and understand why he does it.

Food for thought...

*nom nom* 

his blowing up the chantry actually made me want to understand anders better, i suppose he suddenly became far more intruguing. 

understanding people makes it easier to distance yourself from their wrongdoing. it leads to compassion and forgiveness if you let it which some folk are simply not prepared to do, because it's a lot easier to hate than forgive.

which brings me to the differences between the penal systems of britain and america, although i am no expert on the subject. in britain we are all about the rehabilitaion of prisoners, which obviously cannot be done without understanding how they got there in the first place. that is the first step of a long and varying road to preventing repeat crimes.
in america (even less of an expert) the system seems to me to be very much about punishment. i suppose if you want examples i can call on solitary confinement, which we talked about probably 500 pages back! also the death penalty, and the sheer number of american prisoners in proportion to other countries.

anyway, i cannot imagine anyone being able to understand JAnders. 2 distict and very real personalities that's not multiple-personality disorder must be very confusing to a shrink!!!  


that was some food Arquen!  

Canada shares a similar penal system as well (which comes as no surprise since it was based on the one from Britain).  What matters the most isn't that a criminal gets "punished" for his crimes...  But to prevent the situation from ever occuring again, all the while trying to reduce the overall "costs" (social, financial, etc.) on the population.

It's not a perfect system, and I too get uneasy when I see a convicted rapist being reintroduced within the population.  But I feel even more uncomfortable with the alternative.

If there is a chance for said rapist to come to understand and confront the damage and the devastation that his actions have caused to his victims (and their families / friends), and to overcome his own motivations (that lead him to committing his crimes); than I believe the individual is worth saving, and being given a second chance (after many hours of therapy, psychological evaluations, community services, etc.).

If not, he is probably suffering from a mental illness that prevents him from feeling empathy for his victims, and should have access to treatments, while being kept away from the population as a measure of prevention.

So, my rationale for letting Anders live, while remaining with him (both out of love, and concern for his and other people's well being), had more to do with the fact that since he started
this rebellion, he might as well face the consequences, good and bad, or his
actions; and be given a chance to learn and evolve through these
experiences.

He expected and even wanted to die, and I denied
him the easy way out. Not as a punishment, but because he should take
responsibility for his actions.

As for Anders being "too dangerous to let live".  I don't think so.  I really do not think that the condtitions that made him desperate enough to blow up the Chantry in Kirkwall are likely to repeat themselves any time soon.  His actions were very deliberate and premeditated.  Not the result of some "out of control abomination".

[ipgd]

DreamerM wrote...

Awakening IS a DLC. Everybody forgets that because it also comes in it's own shiny box, but it's not an "installment" it's an add-on to a pre-existing game.

If Awakening was a full-fledged sequel, or even a full-fledged game in it's own right, you'd have a good point. But asking someone to pay $30 for a 15-hour add-on adventure isn't a way to get "essential" plot information accross to anyone who isn't already a diehard fan.

Awakening exists. That it is an expansion does not negate its existence. Because it exists and is canonical, the information in it is relevant.

I could just as easily say that Origins is equally "non-essential", but that's... dumb, and I have no idea how your brain works. I cannot parse this bizarre logic you use. You have utterly befuddled me in every capacity.

So basically, you're saying that Bioware was taking for granted that everybody who bought DA2 would have played DA:O AND Awakening, so they skipped the part where they'd actually have to develop an important character because they figured the other games had already done that work for them.

In the same way that not every single detail included in DAO is completely re-explained in full depth, yes. What's the point in expanding a concept from a previous installment if you must completely rehash that entire character arc? If you want to have the full experience, you play it.

You simply cannot make a serial game like this and keep everything completely self-contained. This isn't Final Fantasy; the games that came before DA2 matter. They do put some effort into making it somewhat accessible for new fans, but they cannot do everything. It would completely defeat the point of serials if they were not allowed to draw anything from earlier games without retelling everything in its entirety.

There's a rule for good storytelling: keep it simple, stupid. If it doesn't serve the story, don't waste the audience/reader/gamer's time with it. You'll look like you don't know what you're doing, or like you don't care.

It does serve the story. It is incredibly integral to his personal character arc. That it is not completely 100% responsible for one action he takes in the game does not mean it's not important or needs to be changed. It's important to the personal journey he undertook to get to where he needed to be to make that decision.

This may very well be the worst reason ever.

It's... also the reason for absolutely everything ever made in any artistic medium. They thought an abomination would be interesting so they made one. Nothing had to be the way it was.

[ipgd]

DreamerM wrote...

I felt more like I was deciding what Hawke was going to do then deciding how Hawke felt about anything. I was getting asked for my opinion, not my emotion. Either way, their insistence on so many offscreen scenes made really connecting to Hawke difficult for a lot of people. Compare that to how deeply attached people got to their Wardens.

Like... what? Did you get these arguments backwards or something?

The Warden... doesn't emote at all. His completely expressionless face and the game's lack of prompts regarding the emotional state of the Warden leaves the determination of the Warden's emotions entirely up to the player. DA2, by comparison, asks you over and over and over and over again how Hawke feels about the things that happen and actually gives Hawke, you know, expressions. That's a common complaint regarding Hawke -- that he emotes too much compared to the Warden, taking the agency to decide exactly what the player character feels away from the player.

Never mind 'did we play the same game', are we in the same universe?

[Maaia]

I'm glad for you.

Well, thanks. I was trying to say that it is possible to have a fullfilling experience w/o having played Awakenings, as you had implied otherwise. I think it's kind of silly that you think the writers shouldn't be able to rely on expansions or even DLC to help tell the story.

I think if it is essential, it should be included when you buy
the game. The simple fact that it is not means the people who's vision
crafted this story viewed it as optional and felt that you should be
able to have a fullfilling experience without it.

You won't shell out the bucks at all if the story's missing the
essential parts that make it work in the first place. In fact you may
just go find something better to do.

Huh? They aren't missing. DA2 continues forward from those essential parts. They are contained in a separate piece of the game that you have to pay for. If you don't want to pay for them, you certainly don't have to, but then you can't really complain that you are missing backstory.

Modifié par Maaia, 04 juillet 2011 - 06:17 .

[DreamerM]

[quote]ipgd wrote...
Awakening exists. That it is an expansion does not negate its existence. Because it exists and is canonical, the information in it is relevant. [/quote]

But because it is DLC and not it's own game, then the information it contains is not considered essential.

Not that Bioware remembers this. I'm looking at YOU, Witch Hunt!

[quote]
I could just as easily say that Origins is equally "non-essential", but that's... dumb, and I have no idea how your brain works. [/quote]

Origins was it's own game. It had 80+ hours of game-time, unique Origin stories, and a plot that made sense even if you never touched any DLC at all.

So yes, it's "essential."

[quote]
In the same way that not every single detail included in DAO is completely re-explained in full depth, yes.[/quote]

You have a way of taking things that I may have vaguely implied and turning them into balloon statements. When did I ask for "every single detail included in DA:O?" That would, obviously be a pointless waste of disk-space. But I would like the IMPORTANT details from DA:O included. Do you think that's unreasonable?

[quote]
What's the point in expanding a concept from a previous installment if you must completely rehash that entire character arc? [/quote]

Which character's arc are you referring to, exactly? If you mean that banter between supporting characters that hinted at a possible future, then I suppose you're right, that would be too much trouble to "rehash."

[quote]
If you want to have the full experience, you play it.[/quote]

Not if you didn't like the partial experience. A pleasurable partial experience is kind of a fore-runner to total immersion. Most people don't bother if they don't like what they've played already.

[quote]
You simply cannot make a serial game like this and keep everything completely self-contained.
[/quote]
Did I say "completely?" I would settle for partially self-contained.

And it's funny now, but believe it or not, when I played Origins I really thought it was complete when it was done. The epilogues were fullfilling. I wanted to spend more time in the world, but I did feel like I'd finished The Warden's story. I had a sense of resolution.

Silly me, I guess. Not that I wasn't THRILLED there was going to be a sequel (or Sixteen) but I was hoping for the same amount of fulfillment from each one, and I suppose that was too much to hope for.

[quote]They do put some effort into making it somewhat accessible for new fans, but they cannot do everything. [/quote]

I'm not asking them for everything. Just the important things. I am of the opinion that if it's not important, then it doesn't belong in the story.

It would completely defeat the point of serials if they were not allowed to draw anything from earlier games without retelling everything in its entirety.

[quote]
It does serve the story. It is incredibly integral to his personal character arc.[/quote]

How? Why? And what does that "arc" really mean in the end? That people do terrible things in the name of higher ideals? That Justice in action is no better then Vengence, which is killing people horribly? That spirit possessions can turn you into Che Guevarra? What were they DOING with this?

[quote]That it is not completely 100% responsible for one action he takes in the game does not mean it's not important or needs to be changed. [/quote]

Yes it does. Make it relevant or get rid of it. Leaving Checkoff's gun lying around when Checkoff's Bomb was what we needed to pay attention to does nobody any favors.

[quote]
It's important to the personal journey he undertook to get to where he needed to be to make that decision.[/quote]

Except he undertook a spiritual possession, not a personal journey. If his personal journey was what mattered, then muddying the waters with a supernatural monster storyline was just going to confuse the issue.

[quote]
It's... also the reason for absolutely everything ever made in any artistic medium. They thought an abomination would be interesting so they made one.
[/quote]

And then they made The Abomination choice not matter. Congratulations for them. They could have skipped the whole thing. Maybe used the time saved to do something about the dozens of other plotholes littering the ground.

[quote]
The Warden... doesn't emote at all. [/quote]

Because The Warden is SUPPOSED to only emote in your head, only respond with your voice, and politely take all personal business off-camera. The Warden is who you make him/her.

The result was a Warden who existed mostly in your head, but also someone you knew to the bone. Heck, I made up stories about my Warden's childhood and imagined telling them to Morrigan across campfires. It was that real to me.

Commander ShepHawke had a name, and a voice, and a personality or three. If they were going to do that, then they needed to do it right. They rushed the job and we get a character who never really materializes.

Modifié par DreamerM, 04 juillet 2011 - 06:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I wish I could wipe out Stolen Throne from canon.

[DreamerM]

Maaia wrote...
I think it's kind of silly that you think the writers shouldn't be able to rely on expansions or even DLC to help tell the story.

I think they can help tell a story, but they shouldn't be the story. The story, the non-optional bits, should contain what it needs to make sense without the expensive assist.

They shouldn't make me pay for "essential" stuff, is all I'm saying.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I wish I could wipe out Stolen Throne from canon.

Ouch. That's harsh.

Mostly because it contradicts DA:O in a lot of ways, including the timeline.