297 réponses à ce sujet

[Limality]

I was really shocked by what that sunuva gun Anders did. After "helping" him he immediately donned some black robes which made me doubt my decision to believe in him. When the Chantry went BOOM! I was like furious and wanted to end his life on the spot...but I chose to take him with me anyways and I was pro mage. So then comes the next scene where the MF Orsino turns to Blood Magic and I really had to facepalm myself...Now I will start a new game as a Male Warrior Hawke. I somehow completely missed to recruit Isabela as well and I hope I can save Leandra. Typical Cliffhanger ending as well (I guess that won't really change much, just the fact if you stood with the Templars or Mages). But it leaves me craving for more...

[maselphie]

rft wrote...

I didn't like the story untill Act 2. It felt like the story had no real meaning to it untill the qunari came. Then i knew that i had to try and solve the qunari threat. Gave some meaning.

The plot is more subtle than "big bad guy," and whether or not you like the story of the game probably depends on how much you needed that. Can there be a fantasy story that doesn't have a black and white good vs. evil big baddie you can kill and restore order? It's very rare, let me say. Glad they took a risk.

[Pyrate_d]

the ending (chantry blown up and onwards) was the only interesting part of the story

as far as I'm concerned, that's where the game should have started

[aridor1570]

Pyrate_d wrote...

the ending (chantry blown up and onwards) was the only interesting part of the story

as far as I'm concerned, that's where the game should have started

That will lead into more confusion,like: "How did this happen?" "Why did he do it?" "Where is me becoming a champion?" "These are not the choices I wanted to make" and so on.

[maselphie]

the ending (chantry blown up and onwards) was the only interesting part of the story
as far as I'm concerned, that's where the game should have started

It did, remember?

[Malja]

Pyrate_d wrote...

the ending (chantry blown up and onwards) was the only interesting part of the story

as far as I'm concerned, that's where the game should have started

That would be a horrible opening.

[Limality]

Well, of course, if Varric would've continued with how he started the story, we could've had something more...interesting perhaps? But considering the situation of Hawke and the circumstances, and as boring as it may have been at times, it did fit. Seeing as you're a refugee and trying to work your way up in a city like Kirkwall.

[Crimsoneer]

I was incredibly annoyed by how utterly insignificant my MAJOR choice (mages/templars) was. Removed any sense of moral ambiguity, seeing both sides are utterly crazy.

And the fact that the Merrill romance is bugged means I felt no real emotional link to her at all.

[-Zorph-]

Pyrate_d wrote...

the ending (chantry blown up and onwards) was the only interesting part of the story

as far as I'm concerned, that's where the game should have started

Yea, and the Lord of the Rings movies should have started with the ring being thrown into Mount Doom.

[Pyrate_d]

I'm not a big lord of the rings fan, but I'm pretty sure there's loads of backstory that isn't explicitly described, just explained quickly. For example how the ring was made, what happened to the other rings, etc. So that's a pretty bad comparison.

What difference does it make when it happens? Anders blows up the chantry NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You had NO INPUT, so why make it the game's climax?

Clearly if this had opened the game, the rest of the game would be about the war between mages and templars, not about running errands and making money (which is really EPIC AND AWESOME).

Modifié par Pyrate_d, 13 mars 2011 - 07:05 .

[maselphie]

Pyrate_d wrote...

What difference does it make when it happens? Anders blows up the chantry NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You had NO INPUT, so why make it the game's climax?

You just answered your own question ... because it's the CLIMAX! If you could stop it, then your game would HAVE NO CLIMAX! No catalyst, no ending, no war for the next game -- just more faffing about Kirkwall whining about Mages and Templars. NOTHING would have happened.

I'm not a big lord of the rings fan, but I'm pretty sure there's loads of backstory that isn't explicitly described, just explained quickly. For example how the ring was made, what happened to the other rings, etc. So that's a pretty bad comparison.

Actually, it's not. LOTR is about the journey to Mordor and the characters who are involved. It's about the little battles that happen along the way to make the characters and world in general a more dire place. They START OFF in happy land. DA2 has tons of lore that's not shoved down your throat, either.

Modifié par maselphie, 13 mars 2011 - 07:10 .

[Epic Legion]

Pyrate_d wrote...

What difference does it make when it happens? Anders blows up the chantry NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You had NO INPUT, so why make it the game's climax?

Huh, can't you just ignore Anders quest? This sucks then :/

Dragon Age 2 is amazing, I don't understand haters at all (ok copy&paste locations are annoying, but anything else is perfect...)

[Pyrate_d]

maselphie wrote...

You just answered your own question ... because it's the CLIMAX! If you could stop it, then your game would HAVE NO CLIMAX! No catalyst, no ending, no war for the next game -- just more faffing about Kirkwall whining about Mages and Templars. NOTHING would have happened.

My version of the game would have a DIFFERENT CLIMAX--the chantry blowing up would no longer be the climax since it's moved to the starting. I find it hilarious that people are accepting this event as a sufficient climax, when you had NOTHING to do with it. You can just leave Anders in his clinic for 99% of the game, and he does it anyway. 

DA2 is a good game if you're comparing it to a random RPG. If you're comparing it to other Bioware games, it's incredibly disappointing, with tons of irritating flaws.

Modifié par Pyrate_d, 13 mars 2011 - 07:15 .

[-Zorph-]

Pyrate_d wrote...

I'm not a big lord of the rings fan, but I'm pretty sure there's loads of backstory that isn't explicitly described, just explained quickly. For example how the ring was made, what happened to the other rings, etc. So that's a pretty bad comparison.

What difference does it make when it happens? Anders blows up the chantry NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You had NO INPUT, so why make it the game's climax?

Clearly if this had opened the game, the rest of the game would be about the war between mages and templars, not about running errands and making money (which is really EPIC AND AWESOME).

You aren't looking at the big picture.
The seeker Cassandra (babe) is looking for the Champion in the --now-- present time 10 years after the Champion's story begins.

If you started without knowing who he was, what he did, who his friends/companions were, how the fight started, what the Qunari did, what happened at the end where both became insane; the game would be absolutely terrible and I wouldn't play it.

And no the LoTR is not a terrible comparison, everything will have background so you have to start somewhere. The way Lord of the Rings is told tells you plenty to understand the story and why they are doing thinngs there are. Surely there will be things that you don't know and maybe want to such as how it was made and the other rings (like you mentioned), but that is inevitable. Like I said, there will always be events that happened prior to something no matter how far back you go. However, in terms of storytelling there is a certain point you must go back to make the observor understand what is going on.

The earning money to go on the expedition, to getting the idol that ultimately corrupted Meredith, to the impending Qunari conflict (which is obviously a major event), and you thinking it is something little is rather ridiculous.

The game in my opinion, is like a TT story and that's what it makes it that much grander.  All of this will boil down to it in Dragon Age 3 when we see how the world is in war, and Morrigan and Flemeth manipulated this opportunity to do whatever their plan has been.

What you are proposing is Origins starting at the Landsmeet, for example. Surely your origin, and the gathering of forces are important to play out; are they not?

Bahaha, I just think what you are proposing is hilarious! (No offense, you're entitled to your opinion of course! Don't take this the wrong way)

[Pyrate_d]

You're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying--I'm not saying that the story would be the same, I'm saying that the story would be totally redesigned. Since Hawke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHANTRY GETTING BLOWN UP, there is no point in having him in the city leading up to it. In my version of the game, you would reach Kirkwall just in time to see Anders blow it up, and THEN the real game would begin.

[Malja]

Epic Legion wrote...

Pyrate_d wrote...

What difference does it make when it happens? Anders blows up the chantry NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You had NO INPUT, so why make it the game's climax?

Huh, can't you just ignore Anders quest? This sucks then :/

Dragon Age 2 is amazing, I don't understand haters at all (ok copy&paste locations are annoying, but anything else is perfect...)

Yeah copy and paste is hard to excuse. But man are there enough pros to balance it out.

[-Zorph-]

Pyrate_d wrote...

maselphie wrote...

You just answered your own question ... because it's the CLIMAX! If you could stop it, then your game would HAVE NO CLIMAX! No catalyst, no ending, no war for the next game -- just more faffing about Kirkwall whining about Mages and Templars. NOTHING would have happened.

My version of the game would have a DIFFERENT CLIMAX--the chantry blowing up would no longer be the climax since it's moved to the starting. I find it hilarious that people are accepting this event as a sufficient climax, when you had NOTHING to do with it. You can just leave Anders in his clinic for 99% of the game, and he does it anyway. 

DA2 is a good game if you're comparing it to a random RPG. If you're comparing it to other Bioware games, it's incredibly disappointing, with tons of irritating flaws.

So when you read a book, do you get on your computer and retype it out  how you want it to be so you can have your own climax? Your logic makes no sense, you don't have control of the climax in any story (to an extent). What Anders did was an amazing climax and one that I extremely enjoyed because it was a shocker. It forced you into a decision which I thought was fantastic! (even though both sides are bad... oh well you can't have it all)

[maselphie]

Pyrate_d wrote...

You're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying--I'm not saying that the story would be the same, I'm saying that the story would be totally redesigned. Since Hawke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHANTRY GETTING BLOWN UP, there is no point in having him in the city leading up to it. In my version of the game, you would reach Kirkwall just in time to see Anders blow it up, and THEN the real game would begin.

I think ... part of what makes the Chantry deal so important is that you knew the city, the characters, and the person who did it. You were intimate with all of it. Right now, you're treating it as just an event, which is not the case, really.

[Crimsoneer]

What you're suggesting is playing Dragon Age 3

But yes, I agree. Dragon Age 2 is obviously a bridge game - 3 will probably a lot more actual plot resolution.

[-Zorph-]

Pyrate_d wrote...

You're intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying--I'm not saying that the story would be the same, I'm saying that the story would be totally redesigned. Since Hawke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHANTRY GETTING BLOWN UP, there is no point in having him in the city leading up to it. In my version of the game, you would reach Kirkwall just in time to see Anders blow it up, and THEN the real game would begin.

So you think it makes sense for a vidya to be released; a product of entertainment to have you start at your proposed point?

Nobody would know what's going on! Hawke has plenty to do with the Chantry being blown up, he collects the materials and distracts the Grand Cleric. Regardless of if you skip that quest or not, if you do the quest you do get involved so that argument is voided.  In your version you would arrive at a place where you wouldn't know why you are there, you wouldn't know why he was blowing it up, heck most people wouldn't even know who Anders is, and THEN the real confusion would begin.

[maselphie]

Crimsoneer wrote...

What you're suggesting is playing Dragon Age 3

But yes, I agree. Dragon Age 2 is obviously a bridge game - 3 will probably a lot more actual plot resolution.

I think you should play all of the games of the series. Would you really want to start DA2 with "THE WORLD IS AT WAR! Something happened in [a city name you don't care about] by [a person you may never have heard of] and [two factions you really were never torn about] are at war! THIS SHOULD HAVE MEANING TO YOU!"

Modifié par maselphie, 13 mars 2011 - 07:29 .

[Pyrate_d]

Crimsoneer wrote...

What you're suggesting is playing Dragon Age 3

Pretty much, yes.

Zorph, I'm not going to explain what I'm saying again--it doesn't bother me that you disagree and seem unable to understand.

I think ... part of what makes the Chantry deal so important is that you knew the city, the characters, and the person who did it. You were intimate with all of it. Right now, you're treating it as just an event, which is not the case, really.

This is a pretty good point, but it still bothers me that you have no input on what happens. It's definitely true that by removing the context, it would not serve as a climax in any way (which would be fine, since it would be the launching point for the plot, not the ending).

[IEK07]

The ending definitely left a lasting impression, perhaps because it was so sad, i don't really know but once those credits started rolling it certainly wasn't joy i was feeling... (my) Poor Hawke was just trying to do the right thing and everything went to hell! not to mention that pretty much everything seemed to be Hawkes' fault, i even thought mothers death was Hawkes' fault because i killed the blood mage, oh and the dead dalish elves because i had helped merrill when clearly it was the wrong thing to do.

Loading the endgame save after that felt so melancholy D|

[-Zorph-]

Pyrate_d wrote...

Crimsoneer wrote...

What you're suggesting is playing Dragon Age 3

Pretty much, yes.

Zorph, I'm not going to explain what I'm saying again--it doesn't bother me that you disagree and seem unable to understand.

I think ... part of what makes the Chantry deal so important is that you knew the city, the characters, and the person who did it. You were intimate with all of it. Right now, you're treating it as just an event, which is not the case, really.

This is a pretty good point, but it still bothers me that you have no input on what happens. It's definitely true that by removing the context, it would not serve as a climax in any way (which would be fine, since it would be the launching point for the plot, not the ending).

You don't have to be so blunt with me. I told you that you were entitled to your opinion and was just expressing as a product for entertainment how it would fail on the market and the consumers would hate the product. Your opinion is fine, but you aren't looking on the grander scale.

I understand completely what you are saying, and you are clearly misunderstanding my posts if they lead you to other conclusions, such as me misunderstanding you.

Dragon Age 2 emotionally attached me to the world and Hawke more-so than any game has recently.  You want to take away the emotional and contextual background and jump straight to something you are thinking is just an unfortunate event, is silly.

If you believe otherwise, go for it. The world is your playground.
All I'm saying is how broken of a story it is you are proposing, in my opinion.