903 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

Lethvienne wrote...

Getting back to the Dragon Age discussion, here's a thought . . .

Instead of trying to pass Dragon Age 2 off as a sequel to Origins (which it really isn't anyway), why not think of the world of Dragon Age as being sort of like Forgotten Realms? When I say Forgotten Realms, I just mean that there can be many different stories happening at the same time, on the same continent or in the same country, but with completely different plots, characters, et cetera. They all take place in the same world, but are not connected to each other, save for the same character from one story making an appearance in a completely different story. Like Anders appearing in Dragon Age 2.

So, instead of calling Dragon Age 2 a sequel to Origins, call it the first installment in a completely different story. Because DA2 really didn't answer any of the questions Origins left us with. I, and apparently many others, still feel like the Warden's story is nowhere near complete. So, if they stop calling DA2 a sequel and instead consider it to be the first of an entirely different storyline, then that would allow them to truly make an Origins sequel that could continue the Warden's story with either the Hero of Ferelden or the Orlaisian Warden, depending on what the players chose, and probably without the Warden being voice acted (which I would prefer, honestly), but with better facial expressions, better graphics. . .things like that.Would that be so terrible?

Truth be told, if BioWare did take this approach I would dislike Dragon Age 2 a lot less. I wouldn't reject it so completely, because now it's not the poorly made, ill-thought sequel to Origins that continued and answered absolutely nothing; it's a different story that is all its own that expands on Thedas itself, if not the Warden's story - no more comparing it to Origins.

Just a thought.

Because it was sold as a sequel to DAO. Tell me it was supposed to be be a separate story in Thedas,  leave off any and ALL of the cameos, and that includes Anders. Start with only Hawke and family fleeing Ferelden and Lothering(as the only tie in to DAO) needed and start fresh...sure. But that bridge got burned a long time ago.

[Lethvienne]

I just said that characters can appear in completely different stories. Anders' appearance, as well as any other cameos, really don't make a difference. They certainly don't mean DA2 can't be considered a different story that simply takes place in the same world, in a different time than the Warden's (ten years in the future, by its end, I think?). I don't feel the 'bridges have been burned'.

Besides, it's not like BioWare cares about making complete sense anyway. If they did, Dragon Age 2's story would be a great deal different. This way, people who were disappointed with the story of DA for lack of continuity (not to mention a whole plethora of other issues) can have some hope that a true sequel to Origins will be made. It's never too late to change one's mind, after all.

If it happens in the same world, there's no reason for it NOT to mention the events of Origins in some way. It's happening in Thedas, after all and the whole defeat of the Archdemon and the Blight is far too great an event for it not to be mentioned in some way. If the events of Origins had no impact on DA2, sequel or not, it would be strange, especially since DA2's setting takes place so close to Ferelden. That does not, however, mean that Dragon Age 2 need be considered Origins' sequel; it's just another person's story - Hawke's, to be exact. Not the Warden's and not the continuation of the questions left by Origins' ending.

Modifié par Lethvienne, 10 juillet 2011 - 05:56 .

[erynnar]

Lethvienne wrote...

I just said that characters can appear in completely different stories. Anders' appearance, as well as any other cameos, really don't make a difference. They certainly don't mean DA2 can't be considered a different story that simply takes place in the same world, in a different time than the Warden's (ten years in the future, by its end, I think?). I don't feel the 'bridges have been burned'.

Besides, it's not like BioWare cares about making complete sense anyway. If they did, Dragon Age 2's story would be a great deal different. This way, people who were disappointed with the story of DA for lack of continuity (not to mention a whole plethora of other issues) can have some hope that a true sequel to Origins will be made. It's never too late to change one's mind, after all.

If it happens in the same world, there's no reason for it NOT to mention the events of Origins in some way. It's happening in Thedas, after all and the whole defeat of the Archdemon and the Blight is far too great an event for it not to be mentioned in some way. If the events of Origins had no impact on DA2, sequel or not, it would be strange, especially since DA2's setting takes place so close to Ferelden. That does not, however, mean that Dragon Age 2 need be considered Origins' sequel; it's just another person's story - Hawke's, to be exact. Not the Warden's and not the continuation of the questions left by Origins' ending.

I would argue they make a difference emotionally. For instance, I hate the new Anders. He was un-necessary to the story. I would have loved it if a mage who grew up in the Circle at Kirkwall under Meredith's thumb had Ander's place. Then it would have been it's own story. Anders makes it a sequel, he is part and parcel and emotionally tied to the first, thus helping it secure it as a sequel and not a story in its own right.

A mage who had escaped and was running the mage underground in Kirkwall, that would have made it a story in its own right.

[TEWR]

That's one of DA2's greatest flaws. A pro-mage Hawke can't be an actual member of the Mage Underground, or even its leader. And a pro-Templar Hawke can't be working hand in hand with the Templars to crush the Mage Underground (secretly or blatantly. That way, secretly could keep Anders in your party. Blatantly should send him away until Act 3's climax)


Another flaw is that Hawke's goals are barely mentioned. Had he come to Kirkwall with the intention of being more than just a noble, of changing how Kirkwall is run, then that would be good.

But we're given only two options to mention Hawke trying to make Kirkwall better. With the Arishok and with Varric. But even with the Arishok he just says "It's an opportunity to make a real difference". He doesn't say "It's my hope that I can better Kirkwall."


EDIT: I enjoyed Anders' character (we can never agree can we Ery? ). I saw him in Awakening as a very dark person who only used jokes as a cover. So I had no problem with him in DA2, aside from the timeline screw up.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 juillet 2011 - 06:43 .

[ademska]

Lethvienne wrote...

I just said that characters can appear in completely different stories. Anders' appearance, as well as any other cameos, really don't make a difference. They certainly don't mean DA2 can't be considered a different story that simply takes place in the same world, in a different time than the Warden's (ten years in the future, by its end, I think?). I don't feel the 'bridges have been burned'.

Besides, it's not like BioWare cares about making complete sense anyway. If they did, Dragon Age 2's story would be a great deal different. This way, people who were disappointed with the story of DA for lack of continuity (not to mention a whole plethora of other issues) can have some hope that a true sequel to Origins will be made. It's never too late to change one's mind, after all.

If it happens in the same world, there's no reason for it NOT to mention the events of Origins in some way. It's happening in Thedas, after all and the whole defeat of the Archdemon and the Blight is far too great an event for it not to be mentioned in some way. If the events of Origins had no impact on DA2, sequel or not, it would be strange, especially since DA2's setting takes place so close to Ferelden. That does not, however, mean that Dragon Age 2 need be considered Origins' sequel; it's just another person's story - Hawke's, to be exact. Not the Warden's and not the continuation of the questions left by Origins' ending.

except it did reference events from origins, several times. hawke's entire backstory was that he was a refugee from the blight, and a lot of act 1 stories revolve around fellow ferelden refugees and the stigma associated in kirkwall.

you're forgetting that ferelden is, by and large, considered a "backwater country" on the fridge of thedas, only very recently independent (like past 30 years), and that the blight was so minor that many don't even consider it a real blight. da2 takes place close by, sure, but still in an entirely different nation, and one of much greater prominence. it's like living in brazil and hearing about bad stuff going down in venezuela (or germany and the czech republic). important, but not life-changing.

it's kind of funny to me that people insist they don't want dragon age turning into mass effect, yet they want a direct import mass effect-style sequel to a game that was advertised as a franchise starter.

i'll concede that da2, as much as i adore it, should have had a subtitle, but then that would only further encourage people to disassociate it with dao. you can hate it as much as you want, but it's irrevocably part of the series. deal with it.

[Lethvienne]

ademska wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

I just said that characters can appear in completely different stories. Anders' appearance, as well as any other cameos, really don't make a difference. They certainly don't mean DA2 can't be considered a different story that simply takes place in the same world, in a different time than the Warden's (ten years in the future, by its end, I think?). I don't feel the 'bridges have been burned'.

Besides, it's not like BioWare cares about making complete sense anyway. If they did, Dragon Age 2's story would be a great deal different. This way, people who were disappointed with the story of DA for lack of continuity (not to mention a whole plethora of other issues) can have some hope that a true sequel to Origins will be made. It's never too late to change one's mind, after all.

If it happens in the same world, there's no reason for it NOT to mention the events of Origins in some way. It's happening in Thedas, after all and the whole defeat of the Archdemon and the Blight is far too great an event for it not to be mentioned in some way. If the events of Origins had no impact on DA2, sequel or not, it would be strange, especially since DA2's setting takes place so close to Ferelden. That does not, however, mean that Dragon Age 2 need be considered Origins' sequel; it's just another person's story - Hawke's, to be exact. Not the Warden's and not the continuation of the questions left by Origins' ending.

except it did reference events from origins, several times. hawke's entire backstory was that he was a refugee from the blight, and a lot of act 1 stories revolve around fellow ferelden refugees and the stigma associated in kirkwall.

you're forgetting that ferelden is, by and large, considered a "backwater country" on the fridge of thedas, only very recently independent (like past 30 years), and that the blight was so minor that many don't even consider it a real blight. da2 takes place close by, sure, but still in an entirely different nation, and one of much greater prominence. it's like living in brazil and hearing about bad stuff going down in venezuela (or germany and the czech republic). important, but not life-changing.

it's kind of funny to me that people insist they don't want dragon age turning into mass effect, yet they want a direct import mass effect-style sequel to a game that was advertised as a franchise starter.

i'll concede that da2, as much as i adore it, should have had a subtitle, but then that would only further encourage people to disassociate it with dao. you can hate it as much as you want, but it's irrevocably part of the series. deal with it.

Did I ever say it shouldn't be a part of the Dragon Age franchise? Your 'deal with it' comment was both unnecessary and, in my opinion, a bit rude. I'm not saying to exclude DA2 from the franchise of Dragon Age nor will I ever say such a thing. All I said was that it should not be considered a sequel to Origins because it's done nothing to prove itself to be a sequel. There's no continuity, no answers that Origins left us with, which I seem to have to keep stressing since some people keep missing that little tidbit. You can't honestly tell me Dragon Age 2 managed to properly pick up where Origins left off.

Nothing you've said has proven me wrong, if anything it just furthers my point. DA2's plot, beginning, etc, has nothing to do with it being a sequel, because I already said it can be influenced by the events of DA:O without them calling it a sequel. Nothing anyone's said has led me to believe otherwise. And honestly, DA2 has done so poorly that it would probably be BioWare's best bet if they want to sell a third. Especially if they want it to continue Hawke's story rather than finishing all the unanswered questions left by the Warden's tale.

Call it a sequel to DA2, not a continuation of Origins. I personally don't see what there is to argue about, as far as this is concerned, because it doesn't change anything about either's story. It just gives BioWare more leg room to please those who liked DA2 and those who prefer Origins and feel cheated with DA2's creation.

This is why I made the comparison to Forgotten Realms. Things may take place at the same time as other events, that are even influenced by them, but that doesn't mean they're all a part of the same story. Like events that occured in the Legend of Drizzt books help influence the events that take place in a completely different series that does not evenmake  mention of Drizzt. Same concept. Have DA2 be its own book, so to speak, and not a true sequel. It becomes more acceptable. And their failure to give closure to the many questions left by Origins bec omes more forgivable while it changes nothing about DA2 itself, not the story nor the game play.

And no, it's not to late for such a thing, because it's been done before, when those involved finally figure out where they want to go storywise. With DA2 it just seems like they didn't know what to do after Origins, so they created a completely different story that just made mention of some events in DA:O. The only real connection (minus Anders, if you can even count him) is that Hawke was one of the refugees who fled Lothering. That's it. Nothing that screams sequel in any way. Hawke may be 'emotionally' tied to his flight from Lothering, that doesn't make it a true sequel. A sequel is the continuation of the first story, something that answers questions that the first story did not, and usually with the same characters. Dragon Age 2 does none of this. It answers nothing about Origins - unless you count whatever became of Anders.

P.S. That bit about Anders was sarcasm.

P.P.S Oh yes, just one more thing. When I said to consider Dragon Age to be similar to Forgotten Realms, I also mean that Dragon Age should be attached to every game that happens within that world, with subtitles to let people know which series it is. Like Dragon Age: The New Adventures of Hawke, or whatever (gags over that title).

Please, BioWare, if you do make another Dragon Age game, for the love of goodness, do not simply call it "Dragon Age 3". PLEASE. Label it either as a definite sequel to either Origins or Hawke. Unless it's not a sequel at all but yet another completely different story, involving a completely different Hero/Heroine.

And even then it shouldn't simply be called Dragon Age 3. How uninspired.

Edit: Oh yes, just one more thing . . . Again.

Please don't assume I forgot how teeny Ferelden is. I did not forget. Ferelden may be insignifican but Thedas is not. Thedas is an entire continent and therefore leaves room for many, many side stories that don't involve the Warden at all. I mentioned Ferelden because that IS where Hawke begins his story. In Ferelden - Lothering to be exact - running away from the darkspawn. Again, that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea to not consider DA2 a sequel.

I'm honestly not sure why you even brought up Ferelden's unimportance to the rest of Thedas, since it doesn't change DA2's failure to be a real sequel, if anything is just helps to further prove my point. DA2 takes place, mostly, in a place far larger and more civilized than Ferelden, Hawke just has his beginnings there, so . . . How does this have anything to do with my thought? ~wonders off to ponder this . . . not really~

On a side note, I'm pretty sure that when people said they didn't want Dragon Age to turn into Mass Effect 2, they meant that they didn't want it to go from being a role-play game to being basically a shooter game with poor story construction, lack of character development and pretty much no RP elements. I don't think they were including BioWare's choice to bring the main Hero back for the sequel.

Modifié par Lethvienne, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:36 .

[ademska]

Lethvienne wrote...
many words, all of them well-reasoned

we're not going to agree on this, and for once it's got little to do with the fact that i love da2 and many on bsn... do not.

our definitions of 'sequel' seem to vary significantly, and that's the point of contention. to me (and to merriam-webster and wikipedia ), a sequel can be a direct continuation of storyline, but it can also be an expansion of ideas presented in the original work. everything in da2 had its roots in origins/awakening plot and lore.

again, origins was developed as foundation for a franchise. note, 'franchise', not 'series'.  the basic story of origins is self-contained, but the lore is ripe for exploration. da2 having its own plot instead of being a direct continuation of the warden's story - which was largely wrapped up except for a few loose ends - doesn't negate its validity as a sequel. i know you disagree, but that's really personal preference and semantics debate.

do i think calling it dragon age 2 was a better move than, say, dragon age: the champion? no, not at all. but i don't take any issue with it now that bioware's made clear the titling direction they wish to go. i understand people who dislike da2, maybe even feel cheated (thought that seems a bit entitled, no one forced you to buy it), but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

this reminds me of the terrible chrono trigger vs chrono cross arguments like a decade ago. it was all semantics then, and it's all semantics now.


edit: i brought up ferelden because part of your argument was that da2 did not draw enough from origins in its narrative. i pointed out that it needn't, because ferelden is so insignificant, but i see now that you'd be unhappy with da2 even understanding that reasoning because your issue is that it should have been tied closer to the warden in the first place.

so i'll reiterate my main point from this post: your definition of and standards for a sequel are very different from mine. you require it be direct, while i'm fine with indirect sequels.

it's all marketing, and getting into criticisms like this just seems pointless to me.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:43 .

[xkg]

ademska wrote...


you're forgetting that ferelden is, by and large, considered a "backwater country" on the fridge of thedas
da2 takes place close by, sure, but still in an entirely different nation, and one of much greater prominence.

it's like living in brazil and hearing about bad stuff going down in venezuela (or germany and the czech republic). important, but not life-changing.

Wow. Your choice of example is very unfortunate. AND IT SOUNDS BAD.
Just saying.

Modifié par xkg, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:45 .

[ademska]

xkg wrote...

Wow. Your choice of example is very unfortunate. AND IT SOUNDS BAD.
Just saying.

oh, please, i didn't say "politically insignificant" or "i think these real-world countries are full of rednecks". ferelden is ferelden. you know very well what i was getting at. and i've been to both of those countries, thank you, they're lovely. well, parts of them. i've also been to germany and brazil. that's why i picked them as examples.

[Lethvienne]

To the guy I've been debating with - I'm too lazy to bother with quoting or typing out your name - no, we shall never agree. And everything you just said, I feel, still furthers my point that DA2 isn't, and shouldn't be considered, a sequel. Even if you insist on it being a part of the Origins series (which I'll never understand, because that path means Origins getting the closure it deserves is all the more unlikely, which would be a real shame) it need not be a series. Allow me to bring the Star Wars books up as an example. Sometimes when they start a new series it involves so many characters that not every book involves the main heroes, but branches off to a different side story that still has something to do with the main plot, however indirect. That, too, could be what they can choose to call DA2 rather than a continuation/sequel of Origins. Did I mention that I'm only one of many who don't see DA2 as a proper sequel? Though surely you already knew this.

Anyway, back to the point. I don't see how you can say Origins ended with very few questions left. Was that a joke (genuine perplexity)? Because Origins ended with quite a few, and big, questions. Like Morrigan and her reason for wanting the Godchild, Flemeth's intentions that are supposedly worse than the darkspawn threat, the whole deal with the Architect and new, intelligent darkspawn capable of planning and plotting on their own without the direction provided by an Archdemon. Not to mention the true origins of the darkspawn. I could go on, and that isn't even including the who deal with what happened to Zevran or Leliana, depending on your choices. Or even Alastair, for that matter, though we do get to see him a bit in Awakening at least, as well as his cameo in DA2. Those questions involving the romances, however, pale in comparison to the ones mentioned previously. Questions that were most certainly not answered by Origins' end nor in DA2.

So, again, I fail to see why you're so opposed to DA2 being a seperate part of the Dragon Age franchise. It's still Dragon Age, just not Origins. It doesn't change what happens in DA2 or what may happen should they choose to continue Hawke's story instead of the Warden's (God forbid. Blech!). However, since you are so inexplicably opposed, I have offered yet another - perhaps even more plausible - alternative. And neither alternative changes DA2's story in the least.

And by the way, while I do feel somewhat - and I strongly emphasize somewhat - cheated by DA2's lack of continuity (it is still just a game, after all) I am, thankfully, not one of those poor people who wasted her money on purchasing a game I greatly dislike. No, I am proud to say that I am not the sort of person to instantly pre-order a game just because I liked the first. I waited, did my research, and made the educated choice not to buy it. I merely borrowed my brother-in-law's copy so that I could talk about the game and voice my dislike in a more informed context.

P.S. I have never seen a sequel that utterly failed to continue the story of the first. I've seen sequels that began with a new hero (who usually has some kind of relation or connection to the first. And no, I don't mean a blood relation, in case you were tempted to make that assumption ), certainly, but it was still continuing where the first left of - even if it happens years after the first - and answering questions that the first failed to answer. Because when one creates a story they intend to stretch on for more than one book, game, movie, etc, it's generally a bad idea to answer everything in the first installment. You're supposed to leave looming questions, that's what keeps people interested, having those questions and mysteries answered at last . . . Even if the story does not always focus on the original hero. My point stands, thank you.

Edit: Don't even get me started on the validity of Wikipedia. Just don't. <_<

As for the dictionary's definition of a sequel, here you go:

1. Something that follows; a continuation.
2. A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.
3. a novel, play, etc., that continues a previously related story

Or


sequel - a part added to a book or play that continues and extends it.

And DA did not continue or expand on Origins. It was a completely different story, despite its Hero having his beginnings in Lothering. DA2, naturally, made references to Origins - as it should have - but these facts do not a sequel make. I mean, of course Dragon Age 2 had roots in Origins/Awakening; Hawke began in Ferelden and had contact with some of Origins' characters after all. Since he began Ferelden the whole Blight thing would be a big thing to him, even if it wasn't to the rest of Thedas.

Even if it's not a true sequel (and I will always consider it to be seperate), you can't have the main hero be from the same country as such a celebrated hero (for said country, at least), without him being impacted in some way. Again, this does not a sequel make.

I just felt I should add that in, since you seem to think I am not acquainted with a dictionary.  My interpretation is just different from yours.

I can use a dictionary, too!

Modifié par Lethvienne, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:35 .

[Tirfan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

IMHO, the dragon age universe does best when it focuses on the lore behind the Grey Wardens/Darkspawn. Trying to sideline that is a bit like trying to sideline the Jedi and the Sith in Star Wars - except for a few notable exceptions, it just reduces the impact and the richness of the background.

I disagree with you. If you focus too much on one point, all the other points become dull. If the devs kept the focus on the Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens, then everything else wouldn't matter.

They need to expand on the universe and its inhabitants. Not be tied down to the Grey Wardens and the Darkspawn.

Weell, yes, the Darkspawn and the lore behind them can carry only so many games, but the Darkspawn and the lore behind them is tied to many things and this should have been used to create a more natural progression from plopoint A to plotpoint B. Lets say, for example, that the storyline of DA2 would have focused on finding more about the Darkspawn and the Old Gods, the chances are, these discoveries would have either have cast a shadow of doubt to the Chant (if one thing is wrong, why aren't other things) or they could have been used as proof that big parts of the Chant are true.

Have the mage plight for freedom be on the background and make it more sensible, There is a city X where most of the Senior Enchanters are Lucrotians, and the Templar order approves of this and so does the general population of the city, people are willing to look past many things as long as there is monetary gain for them - and when there becomes a shift in power, a new Knight-Commander who starts to enforce more hardcore-line on the mages there is an actual reason for the GenPop to side with mages, they are losing income when the mages are all locked up in the prison.

And then new the new discoveries come, either casting shadow of doubt over the entire Chant - there is an actual reason for mages to start being more vocal about their rights, the Chant has been proven wrong on one occasion at least, why can't it be wrong about the mages too? If the discoveries make the claims of the Chant more valid, there is no reason for the Knight-Commanders to hold back anymore and start punishing the Mages in general for a crime the current generation of mages didn't commit (corrupting the Golden city & bringing the Darkspawn in the world) And this too could feasibly lead to mages rebelling, enough is enough, we did not commit the crime we are being punished of, while in this scenario, it is harder to justify some of the GenPop taking the mage-side of things, one would suppose that there are some people that can see that punishing a group of people for a crime that a few of the same group did far too long ago isn't the right thing.

But well.. what is done is done, and this isn't very on -topic yet again, but who cares.

[Theagg]

ademska wrote...

you're forgetting that ferelden is, by and large, considered a "backwater country" on the fridge of thedas, only very recently independent (like past 30 years), and that the blight was so minor that many don't even consider it a real blight. da2 takes place close by, sure, but still in an entirely different nation, and one of much greater prominence. it's like living in brazil and hearing about bad stuff going down in venezuela (or germany and the czech republic). important, but not life-changing.

it's kind of funny to me that people insist they don't want dragon age turning into mass effect, yet they want a direct import mass effect-style sequel to a game that was advertised as a franchise starter.

i'll concede that da2, as much as i adore it, should have had a subtitle, but then that would only further encourage people to disassociate it with dao. you can hate it as much as you want, but it's irrevocably part of the series. deal with it.

Indeed, its a pity there is no scale on the map of Thedas but its quite clear just how isolated a place Ferelden is. Its all but cut off by the Frostback mountains to the west, the sea to north and east and Kocari Wilds and uncharted territories to its south.

Kirkwall and the Free Marches are "across the water" and again, with no scale on the maps I'm looking at, I have no idea how far that stretch of water is.

Given all that its entirely conceivable that people over in the Free Marches see Ferelden and events therein in that way. It also easily accounts for the vast difference in 'feel' between the two places in the games. Origins took place in a distinctly separate geographical location with no easy ties to the rest of Thedas.

I'm not sure how many American people on this board have experienced what this can be like, crossing a distinct and imposing boundary of water between two lands and the marked difference between the land you leave and the land you arrive in. It doesn't have to be a massive stretch of water either but for example, going from here in the south of England across the English Channel (21 miles at its narrowest) into France (a country visible on a good day from the shores at Dover in England, its that close) and the place in which you arrive, especially a few miles away from modern cross cultural influence at the port towns, feels very different from England.

So Im not in agreement with those who felt that Kirkwall and its environs should by default have 'felt' much like Ferelden. Or neccessarily that DA2 should have reflected much of Ferelden events high up the agenda. Fereleden by mere geography is pretty much a land unto itself. After all, even in the modern world, we here in the UK don't take much notice of what goes on in France (even major news items that are important from a French perspective) and that's only 20 or 30 miles away at its closest.

In a medieval context, even less notice would be taken of events in a country way across the water and pretty much isolated in all other respects.

[Theagg]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


EDIT: I enjoyed Anders' character (we can never agree can we Ery? ). I saw him in Awakening as a very dark person who only used jokes as a cover. So I had no problem with him in DA2, aside from the timeline screw up.

Yes, Anders character development was on of the saving graces of the game for me.(I don't know why some people disliked this but perhaps they felt ill at ease with the portrayal of an ostensibly charming, affable and kind character willing to aid others turning into a terrorist but that worked perfectly for me)

Now granted, the merging of Justice with Anders wasn't really neccessary in order to progress Anders in this manner, just like the idol wasn't neccessary to push Meredith along a similar path towards brutal action, in the real world ideologically driven people take these paths without gimmicks like that.

Yet I like to think of both the use of Justice in Anders case and the idols in Merediths' as being examples of substance abuse by these two people. And that is a familiar trope in both literature and film, the initially honorable use of a substance by a protagonist, for the good as they see it, which eventually consumes them and brings about their end.

Now that does work.

[Tirfan]

^ Yeah, my main gripe with Anders' character development comes from the fact that his character-development from somewhat gloomy and a bit cowardly character is handwaved away by a supernatural element, instead of keeping him fully human and just have him punish himself because he has managed to escape the horrors other mages are still going trough and at the end have him completely snap, and do something incredibly stupid, which is a very human thing to do, I've seen this happen to people I know. If this was an isolated case it wouldn't bug me too much but when combined with how Meredith & the Idol are handled.. well.. It just seems the writing-team is a bit lazy, why portray and develop characters as humans when it can be handled by a "this supernatural element x made him/her do it."

[LilyasAvalon]

I'm sorry, I don't like playing games that have me running around a repetitive, non changing world for 10 years with no reason whatsoever.

Battle system wise and console wise. DA2 WAS a step up.

But like I said, it's just pointless without a story. Origins all the way, mate.

[JaegerBane]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

IMHO, the dragon age universe does best when it focuses on the lore behind the Grey Wardens/Darkspawn. Trying to sideline that is a bit like trying to sideline the Jedi and the Sith in Star Wars - except for a few notable exceptions, it just reduces the impact and the richness of the background.

I disagree with you. If you focus too much on one point, all the other points become dull. If the devs kept the focus on the Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens, then everything else wouldn't matter.

Tevinter, Qunari, Templars and Mages, elves, dwarves, etc..

They need to expand on the universe and its inhabitants. Not be tied down to the Grey Wardens and the Darkspawn.

I think this is a question of theory versus practice. While it's all very well saying that focusing on one part makes the universe dull, the fact of the matter is they did just as you advocate, and it produced a game with a very poor and uninteresting story. Common sense would say that trying to expand on other groups may be 'different' but it certainly isn't something inherently positive.

I fully agree the whole Darkspawn/Grey Warden thing can only carry so many stories, but the simple fact is we didn't get much on them in the first game. We gained some tantalising glimpses into the formation of the Darkspawn, as well as what could turn out to be their evolution through the whole Architect saga, not to mention hints on the nature of the Grey Wardens through Avernus - but we still don't actually know what the Darkspawn are or where they came from. There's plenty of material left to go over. I for one would be far more interested in learning about this as oppose to 50 hours of boring spiel concerning side issues that were already done to death in the first game. Yay, the Qunari want to conquer. Yay, the mages are oppressed and the Chantry is the opressor. Yay. We've heard all that already. I want to see something *new*. I mean, the finale to Act 1 was great. You saw stuff that has never been seen before, and uncovered an element to Dwarven history which indicates it goes further back than anyone is aware of... but instead of continuing with that, we get forced into listening to more spiel about how terrible the chantry is blah blah blah.

As I said, it's a question of theory versus practice. The devs have shown that they can make a cracking story based on the conflict between the Wardens and the Spawn, so I'd rather they focus on something they do well, rather than aimless navel gazing about all these boring side issues purely for the sake of making it 'different'.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 juillet 2011 - 01:27 .

[JaegerBane]

Tirfan wrote...

^ Yeah, my main gripe with Anders' character development comes from the fact that his character-development from somewhat gloomy and a bit cowardly character is handwaved away by a supernatural element, instead of keeping him fully human and just have him punish himself because he has managed to escape the horrors other mages are still going trough and at the end have him completely snap, and do something incredibly stupid, which is a very human thing to do, I've seen this happen to people I know. If this was an isolated case it wouldn't bug me too much but when combined with how Meredith & the Idol are handled.. well.. It just seems the writing-team is a bit lazy, why portray and develop characters as humans when it can be handled by a "this supernatural element x made him/her do it."

My main gripe with Ander's development was, like a lot in this game, the devs took something introduced previously and totally and inexplicably changed it to the point where you start questioning why they bothered. I mean, you really do have to leave your brain on the shelf to even accept that Anders is in Kirkwall at the time Hawke meets him. At this point, it's little more than a year since the Lothering. According to the original timeline, This is about the time that the Warden himself is chasing his last treaty, so logically Anders wouldn't have even been made a grey warden at that time, never mind met Justice. Don't even get me started on how Anders can be in Kirkwall if he was slain at the battle of Amaranthine.

And then of course, we have the fact that his character is different, he sounds different, he even looks a bit different. Why the hell did the devs not just invent a new character, rather than press-gang an existing one?

[Kail Ashton]

lol this is like asking which foot you want shot, either way you're gonna have a hole in a foot

For everything Origins screwed up (console, all the visuals, slugish battles) Dragon age 2 fixed but then screwed up everything Originns did right (exploration, story, choices)

Both are good (not great) and both are bad (but not awful) It would definetly be in Bioware's best interests to restructure the entire DA team and import some of the vastly more talented ME team after ME3, at this rate the DA series is barely floating above generic, it should be great but too much clutter is holding it back

[Theagg]

JaegerBane wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

^ Yeah, my main gripe with Anders' character development comes from the fact that his character-development from somewhat gloomy and a bit cowardly character is handwaved away by a supernatural element, instead of keeping him fully human and just have him punish himself because he has managed to escape the horrors other mages are still going trough and at the end have him completely snap, and do something incredibly stupid, which is a very human thing to do, I've seen this happen to people I know. If this was an isolated case it wouldn't bug me too much but when combined with how Meredith & the Idol are handled.. well.. It just seems the writing-team is a bit lazy, why portray and develop characters as humans when it can be handled by a "this supernatural element x made him/her do it."

My main gripe with Ander's development was, like a lot in this game, the devs took something introduced previously and totally and inexplicably changed it to the point where you start questioning why they bothered. I mean, you really do have to leave your brain on the shelf to even accept that Anders is in Kirkwall at the time Hawke meets him. At this point, it's little more than a year since the Lothering. According to the original timeline, This is about the time that the Warden himself is chasing his last treaty, so logically Anders wouldn't have even been made a grey warden at that time, never mind met Justice. Don't even get me started on how Anders can be in Kirkwall if he was slain at the battle of Amaranthine.

And then of course, we have the fact that his character is different, he sounds different, he even looks a bit different. Why the hell did the devs not just invent a new character, rather than press-gang an existing one?

Wel, I'm not sure on the exact timescale for the events in Origins. Some say it takes place within one year from start to finish. Some say a little longer. Now how long do the events in Awakening take ?

Take into account some of that 'year' in Origins is spent with you as the Warden engaging in tasks in Lothering, with Lothering not becoming blighted and thus inaccesible to the player (when it goes red on the map) until a fair portion of the game has elapsed.

Hawke enters the time frame at the beginning of DA2 when Lothering is already blighted. How many months into Origins 'year' is it before Lothering falls to the Blight ? (so by then the Warden can have done Lothering, Redcliffe, the Brecilian Forest, and the Circle Tower and more) Then Hawke spends some time travelling to the coast with the aid of Flemeth across blighted lands (how long does she aid Hawke and family in their trek north ?), then crossing the sea, then arriving in Kirkwall. At this point yet another year passes there before Act 1 proper starts.

So by that time, its easily imaginable that all the events in Origins have passed by and those of Awakenings too. And thus Anders ends up in Kirkwall at about the right time to help the refugees.

As to Anders looking and sounding different. That happens quite a lot in film and tv too, with a role being taken over by a new actor, sometimes it works fine, other times it doesn't but that alone is no justification for dumping the character altogether.

[JaegerBane]

Kail Ashton wrote...
For everything Origins screwed up (console, all the visuals, slugish battles) Dragon age 2 fixed but then screwed up everything Originns did right (exploration, story, choices)

Very wise words. DA2 seemed to be an example of them getting so obsessed about fixing DA:O's shortcomings that they actually forgot what made DA:O so great in the first place, which is a pretty silly mistake for them to make.

Both are good (not great) and both are bad (but not awful) It would definetly be in Bioware's best interests to restructure the entire DA team and import some of the vastly more talented ME team after ME3, at this rate the DA series is barely floating above generic, it should be great but too much clutter is holding it back

I definitely do think that the different dev teams in Bioware need to communicate a lot better. The DA2 team made a lot of mistakes that the Mass Effect team had already avoided, or solved. It's frustrating to see some stuff go wrong in DA2 when you know, for a fact, that Bioware devs have had to handle this kind of thing before.

[Tirfan]

^ Can I disagree with DA:O screwing up combat & visuals and add those to the list of things DA2 screwed up? Oh yes, I can.

[Clangeddin86]

In my humble opinion:

Dragon Age Origins is more old-style, has more "pre-play to play" (Like someone before me in these boards said) is generally slower, the main story is a bit "cliché", however the side-quest stories are very good and very well detailed. The game overall is a lot more polished than its successor, and of course a lot longer.

Dragon Age is more action, is generally faster and more intuitive, and I also think it has a more "original" main story, however the side-quests are more "errands" and "chores" than anything, the game overall feels rushed (most of all the final part) and not polished, and of course it lasts much less than its predecessor.

If I had to give a vote for the first play-through I'd give:

Dragon Age Origins: 8,5
Dragon Age II: 7

For subsequent replays

Dragon Age Origins: 7
Dragon Age II: 6,5

While Origins has got more replay value than II (because of the origins and more significative choices), in my opinion this is outweighted by the general "slowness" of the game and "clunkyness" of the battles and it makes the original suffer more than the sequel. And in the parts where the "replay differences" disappear, (most of all right after the origin), this becomes really evident.
I try to restart Origins, but damn, that part with Kolkari Wilds/Ostegar/Lothering literally kills it for me...

Modifié par Clangeddin86, 10 juillet 2011 - 01:56 .

[JaegerBane]

Theagg wrote...
Wel, I'm not sure on the exact timescale for the events in Origins. Some say it takes place within one year from start to finish. Some say a little longer. Now how long do the events in Awakening take ?

Take into account some of that 'year' in Origins is spent with you as the Warden engaging in tasks in Lothering, with Lothering not becoming blighted and thus inaccesible to the player (when it goes red on the map) until a fair portion of the game has elapsed.

It's not exact, but it's really a stretch to assume that Origins and Awakening took place over a single year. I mean, for one thing Wynne even outright states to a mage Warden that it has been 'over a year' since he left the tower, and that's about the middle of the game. Add to the fact that Awakeing takes place roughly six months after the end of Origins, and you end up with the absurd scenario of the bulk of Origins taking place within a few months.

Hawke enters the time frame at the beginning of DA2 when Lothering is already blighted. How many months into Origins 'year' is it before Lothering falls to the Blight ? (so by then the Warden can have done Lothering, Redcliffe, the Brecilian Forest, and the Circle Tower and more) Then Hawke spends some time travelling to the coast with the aid of Flemeth across blighted lands (how long does she aid Hawke and family in their trek north ?), then crossing the sea, then arriving in Kirkwall. At this point yet another year passes there before Act 1 proper starts.

Lothering falls after you seal the first treaty, so I seriously doubt that it's more than a month if the the entirety of the Warden's saga is supposed to take place during a single year.

And Hawke spends a few weeks getting to Kirkwall, I believe Varric mentions it.

So by that time, its easily imaginable that all the events in Origins have passed by and those of Awakenings too. And thus Anders ends up in Kirkwall at about the right time to help the refugees.

There still isn't really enough time to explain what he's doing there, though. By the time that he's in Kirkwall, all of Awakening has come to pass, plus all the time he spent in the Grey Wardens that was mentioned in his short story on the forum. Awakening supposedly takes place over a few months, which puts it ending *roughly* a year after the end of Origins. Even if things are kept to the shortest possible timings, using what we know, Anders was adventuring with the Warden at the time he turns up in Kirkwall. It's very, very sloppy.

But then again, a lot of DA2's content is very sloppy, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

[xkg]

JaegerBane wrote...

My main gripe with Ander's development was, like a lot in this game, the devs took something introduced previously and totally and inexplicably changed it to the point where you start questioning why they bothered. I mean, you really do have to leave your brain on the shelf to even accept that Anders is in Kirkwall at the time Hawke meets him. At this point, it's little more than a year since the Lothering. According to the original timeline, This is about the time that the Warden himself is chasing his last treaty, so logically Anders wouldn't have even been made a grey warden at that time, never mind met Justice. Don't even get me started on how Anders can be in Kirkwall if he was slain at the battle of Amaranthine.

And then of course, we have the fact that his character is different, he sounds different, he even looks a bit different. Why the hell did the devs not just invent a new character, rather than press-gang an existing one?

Yeah I remember that has been discussed thoroughly and it really looks like Anders was in two places at once.

http://social.biowar...62268/1#7262807
http://social.biowar...index/7397471/1

There was one more post - someone clearly proved that with the current timeline it was impossible for Anders to be in Kirkwall at the time of Hawke's Expedition. But i can't find it now


Edit: ehhh, link fixed now.

Modifié par xkg, 10 juillet 2011 - 02:22 .

[JaegerBane]

xkg wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

My main gripe with Ander's development was, like a lot in this game, the devs took something introduced previously and totally and inexplicably changed it to the point where you start questioning why they bothered. I mean, you really do have to leave your brain on the shelf to even accept that Anders is in Kirkwall at the time Hawke meets him. At this point, it's little more than a year since the Lothering. According to the original timeline, This is about the time that the Warden himself is chasing his last treaty, so logically Anders wouldn't have even been made a grey warden at that time, never mind met Justice. Don't even get me started on how Anders can be in Kirkwall if he was slain at the battle of Amaranthine.

And then of course, we have the fact that his character is different, he sounds different, he even looks a bit different. Why the hell did the devs not just invent a new character, rather than press-gang an existing one?

Yeah I remember that has been discussed thoroughly and it really looks like Anders was in two places at once.

http://social.biowar...62268/1#7262807
http://social.biowar...index/7397471/1

There was one more post - someone clearly proved that with the current timeline it was impossible for Anders to be in Kirkwall at the time of Hawke's Expedition. But i can't find it now


Edit: ehhh, link fixed now.

Yeah, interesting. There's no way in hell all this actually lines up into a legitimate time frame.