168 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

You know, saying Hawke has no friends or family is a pretty big leap considering there's Bethany, Carver, and your mom and uncle.

As for friends...well Lothering's pretty much over-run and ciders. Hawke's just trying to get the family out safe.

[Jaduggar]

Axis Swordarm wrote...



This is just from the demo, it shows clunky exposition writing and just plain bad dialogue that permeates the game.  Likewise in terms of Isabella there, like all characters she is not speaking to Hawke, she is describing things to the player in a clumsy way.

This is not a well crafted character.

This sequence is a cutscene from about halfway through Uncharted 2.

In this you can see characters express their own feelings that build character without any exposition.  You know everything you need to know about who these characters are and what they're like by how they act. You may be getting lied to, you may get double crossed but it's all down to solid personal reasons.   It makes the characters more natural, makes them feel like they exist in a world that is very real to them.

Great. The back button on my mouse. What a great way to delete everything you want to say in an instant.
Alright, let's try to sum this up again:

The clip of Uncharted didn't have anything special about its writing.
Are you saying you want me to look at the presentation instead? Because the way Uncharted is presented is fantastic. It’s cinematic. But it’s totally different from the narrative style of Dragon Age.
Sure, Bioware could improve the animations, but the game could never look like that clip above. Their games are linear and interactive. I’ve actually sat down and thought about what it would take to write a game in the interactive format—it’s a much different beast.

But even still, we’re getting off topic. How are these characters in Uncharted more real than the ones in Dragon Age? Focusing on the writing of course (I understand their animations are much smoother and more believable, but that’s completely off-topic)—is it that there are more twists? The amount of betrayal that occurs in Uncharted is actually quite laughable. It’s very B-movie-esque.

So what is it exactly about the writing? You say that Isabella just discusses her character, but the characters in that Uncharted clip also discuss what is happening, what they are going to do, and why. The non-linearity of it happens to make it appear to be a little more subtle, but it’s the exact same situation.

I would like you to point it out. Please don’t just try to flash some shiny clips in front of my eyes.

EDIT:

Forgot the first half of my post.
Sweet.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 07:55 .

[Foolsfolly]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

Jaduggar wrote...

Aren't his first years in Kirkwall his 'origin?'

I mean, you might as well argue the origins in DA:O didn't have origins.

We're introduced to Hawke on a mountainside fighting random monsters.  Even as someone who played Origins and knowing where Lothering was and what Darkspawn are this was a bad introduction because it told me nothing about Hawke and I didn't care a whit for any of the strangers I was with.

The destruction of Lothering would have made for the perfect introduction to the game and given you the springboard from which you and your family can grow as characters. 

It was a terrible decision to begin the game after the start of the protagonists story.  Sure we're told they're running, but it would have given the game some actual heart to start with the families life in Lothering on the last day.

I get the impression this decision was a gameplay one that trumped story as Laidlaw was proud to say you start fighting within minutes.  It's ridiculous.

It's a hook meant to intice. Look at the movie Inception. They begin the movie with a dream within a dream and with three of our protagonists doing their job. It does not start off explain Cobb's backstory with Mal and how he cannot return to America. You do this, as a storyteller, to grab the audience's attention. You don't want to overload your opening with so much information and plot that they loose interest.

Take the Human Noble opening from Origins. There's a ton of things to do in that origin before you fight your first Howe guard, including talking to an old man about the history of Ferelden, Orlais, Thedas, tyrnes, the Couslands, the Howes, Calenhad, the Maker, and THEN you meet Duncan and he tells you about darkspawn, Grey Wardens, and all that noise.

That's not only too much information it's completely unnessary information. Most of that was gleamed by the opening cinematic or learned more throughly throughout the game proper. Your first time through the game, not only do you not understand everything being thrown at you, you don't care because none of these things mean anything to you yet.

DA2 throws you into combat, shows you how to use talents and the new combat system, and then shows you in action meeting other characters before slowing down at the end of the origin and explaining things to you.

It's vastly superior than the clunky over-wrought intros from Origins, from a storytelling perspective AND a role-playing perspective since much of Hawke's past (like at Ostagar) are left for the player to imagine.

[Travie]

I agree with the OP in terms of the writing. Some parts were expertly written but the story lacked real impact to decisions and the primary replayability feature, tone.

I initially thought it was pretty cool that earlier decisions effected the character's overall personality... until I realized that this has no real implications on the story.

Especially with me being a blood mage in my first playthrough. There was no real dialogue involving it. Anders HATED that Merril was a blood mage, but gave me a free pass on it. Same with the templars and everyone else I met who should have cared.

Sure, occasionally someone notices that I'm a mage or I can make a spark in my hand in the speech wheel, but it doesn't matter!

[Cazlee]

Actually I didn't say that.
The warden had friends and family that showed that they loved him no matter what Origin. It's not the same in DA2. Your sibling dies and there's no emotional impact. Your mother actually blames you for his/her death. Why would a loving mother do that?? Bethany also blames you and Carver for them fleeing late if you're not a mage. Okay? There's no emotional connection from the start.

For example: Jowan constantly references that you're best friends, Gorim and Leske and Rica, Tamlin, Soris make references that indicate that you have a strong relationship with them. In DA2 there's no indication of this and the first interaction you have with your family is negative.

That's not the only strongpoint of Origins. Origins allowed you to develop a personality for your warden by immediately giving you decisions that had consequences. In DA2 all of the conversation wheels led to virtually the same reaction.

Modifié par Cazlee, 14 mars 2011 - 07:55 .

[Katzen]

It's a hook meant to intice. Look at the movie Inception. They begin the movie with a dream within a dream and with three of our protagonists doing their job. It does not start off explain Cobb's backstory with Mal and how he cannot return to America. You do this, as a storyteller, to grab the audience's attention. You don't want to overload your opening with so much information and plot that they loose interest.

Take the Human Noble opening from Origins. There's a ton of things to do in that origin before you fight your first Howe guard, including talking to an old man about the history of Ferelden, Orlais, Thedas, tyrnes, the Couslands, the Howes, Calenhad, the Maker, and THEN you meet Duncan and he tells you about darkspawn, Grey Wardens, and all that noise.

That's not only too much information it's completely unnessary information. Most of that was gleamed by the opening cinematic or learned more throughly throughout the game proper. Your first time through the game, not only do you not understand everything being thrown at you, you don't care because none of these things mean anything to you yet.

DA2 throws you into combat, shows you how to use talents and the new combat system, and then shows you in action meeting other characters before slowing down at the end of the origin and explaining things to you.

It's vastly superior than the clunky over-wrought intros from Origins, from a storytelling perspective AND a role-playing perspective since much of Hawke's past (like at Ostagar) are left for the player to imagine.

I agree with the too-much-information part in Origins intros but I think giving some context to what was lost to the dark spawn (besides the death of a brother/sister who is basically a stranger at this point) would have done a lot to add emotional depth.

Look at how you felt when you saw Duncan/The King grotesquely slaughtered - now that was emotional. Imagine seeing a horde of darkspawn descend on Lothering as you're struggling to get your family out. It would have been much more "epic" feeling than just fighting on a road in the middle of nowhere. 

[Foolsfolly]

Cazlee wrote...

Actually I didn't say that.
The warden had friends and family that showed that they loved him no matter what Origin. It's not the same in DA2. Your sibling dies and there's no emotional impact. Your mother actually blames you for his/her death. Why would a loving mother do that?? Bethany also blames you and Carver for them fleeing late if you're not a mage. Okay? There's no emotional connection from the start.

I'm still going to disagree with you here. While there may not be any love between Hawke and Carver there is definately love between Bethany, Hawke, and their mother. The mother blames you because she's in a state of grief, then she blames herself later on, and finally in Act 2 she believes she can move on past the tramatic events at the opening of the game. She even tries to start dating again.

That's love, but it's also a terrible situation that a character was forced into. The mother wrongly blames Hawke...but then she also wrongly blames herself. There's no one at fault. The Ogre's a mindless beast that killed the first thing it saw.

[Jaduggar]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

We're introduced to Hawke on a mountainside fighting random monsters.  Even as someone who played Origins and knowing where Lothering was and what Darkspawn are this was a bad introduction because it told me nothing about Hawke and I didn't care a whit for any of the strangers I was with.

The destruction of Lothering would have made for the perfect introduction to the game and given you the springboard from which you and your family can grow as characters. 

It was a terrible decision to begin the game after the start of the protagonists story.  Sure we're told they're running, but it would have given the game some actual heart to start with the families life in Lothering on the last day.

I get the impression this decision was a gameplay one that trumped story as Laidlaw was proud to say you start fighting within minutes.  It's ridiculous.

It's not as bad as you're making it out to be.
I sometimes think the destruction of Lothering would've been even worse, as it would have tossed you into an even more tragic situation that you would care even less about (Just like the Human Origin one in DA:O, my god was that bad).

Not only that, but it would be horrible gameplay wise--as Dragon Age is a game, you know?
It would either be too boring, or it would work too fast. If it went by too quickly, then it would have been almost totally pointless.

Personally, I don't play Bioware games for the stories. I don't play any non-linear game for their stories.
I enjoy their characters (and I'm glad DA2 broke most of their sterotypes) and I enjoy how their games play.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[bill4747bill]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I thought Ostagar and/or Lothering was his origin.

Warrior/Rogue Hawke: From Lothering, fought with the King's Army.
Mage: Hides in Lothering until the Blight forces him to run.

It's even about as long as some of the Origins from DA1 if you count all the way up to joining either the Mercs or the Smugglers.

You are correct, in my opinion. Nice to see someone that is objective.

[Foolsfolly]

I agree with the too-much-information part in Origins intros but I think giving some context to what was lost to the dark spawn (besides the death of a brother/sister who is basically a stranger at this point) would have done a lot to add emotional depth.

Look at how you felt when you saw Duncan/The King grotesquely slaughtered - now that was emotional. Imagine seeing a horde of darkspawn descend on Lothering as you're struggling to get your family out. It would have been much more "epic" feeling than just fighting on a road in the middle of nowhere.

I'll agree with this. I wouldn't have wanted some nonsense like Fable 1's "go here, collect this gold, buy chocolates for your sister" kind of opening but even a small cutscene similar to Redcliffe's night attack would have given more weight to the destruction of Lothering.

As for your sibling's death...I don't think it was necessary to kill a sibling any way other than to keep the BioWare tradition of killing a starting companion off at the beginning. But if you put your sibling up to those other BioWare redshirts; Trask, Jenkins, Wilson, Tamlen, and all the sibling's about as fleshed out as they all were.

But I can understand wanting more pathos so that loss hurts....but there's already one of those in the game....

[Axis Swordarm]

Jaduggar wrote...

It's not as bad as you're making it out to be.
I sometimes think the destruction of Lothering would've been even worse, as it would have tossed you into an even more tragic situation that you would care even less about (Just like the Human Origin one in DA:O, my god was that bad).

Not only that, but it would be horrible gameplay wise--as Dragon Age is a game, you know?
It would either be too boring, or it would work to fast. If it went by too quickly, then it would have been almost totally pointless.

Personally, I don't play Bioware games for the stories. I don't play any non-linear game for their stories.
I enjoy their characters (and I'm glad DA2 broke most of their sterotypes) and I enjoy how their games play.

It's much worse than I'm making it out to be as I'm avoiding going into detail of the Tranquil Solution. Also having the game begin anywhere but that awful mountain with some kind of introduction and soul would have been preferable to me. 

I'm glad you're finding every reason to enjoy the characters, you keep asking me to justify why these characters are lifeless shells, what makes them vivid and entertaining to you?

What is it that makes them worthwhile instead of simply sock puppets that push the plot along with dog whistle dialogue?

Modifié par Axis Swordarm, 14 mars 2011 - 08:03 .

[Amioran]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

I will admit I was already lukewarm on the propsect of Dragon Age 2 after hearing the marketing drone about every button doing something awesome and some of the writers attempts to generate excitement through describing characters as gigglesquee.

However, I was still surprised to find that Dragon Age 2 simply was not enjoyable to me for two major reasons. 

Design Flaws

When you set a game in a City over the span of ten years, and the entire focus is on that city, and the lives within, it needs to be interesting.  Kirkwall was grey and brown and I won't even go into commenting on the reuse of areas.

There was no atmosphere in this game, there was no sense of moving through a city you love or hate, it was just there.  A few hundred square feet of nothing with the exciting names Hightown, Lowtown and Darktown.  NPC's simply stand around gossiping as you slaughter wave after wave of people with no reason to attack you, especially not in such numbers.

They'll state, casually, how boring a night it is as you use your magic sword to blow up 20 guys with the name Fake Guardsmen.  A sense of mystery and wonder is just not possible in this place and I saw NWN Persistent worlds with greater depth to a city.  The design strategy for this game makes pretty much no sense, it's pretty much Courier Quest 3D for fifteen hours.

Why do you believe that this decision was a good one?  Why do you believe that it should make for a gripping experience on a tactical, emotional and atmospheric level?

Writing Flaws

Even more obvious is the terrible writing on display in every aspect of the game.  From overall plot to simply holding a conversation the writing fails to generate anything approaching immersion or invitation to care.  Hawke is as charismatic as a cinder block and his absolute lack of purpose shatters any real meaning in the game.

You need motivation, you don't need a world shattering evil to craft a story and I appreciate this was an attempt to do just that but it's either incompetence on the writers part or a conscious decision not to have any form of hook for the story.  Your companions simply say they'll stick around, in most cases there is no reason for you even to be friends except to play the suck up minigame that guarantees a poorly thought out romp in your rumpus room.

The dialogue was poor on a number of levels, leaning toward exposition over actual engagement.  Why should I give a damn about NPC 289676 When their first act is to start describing in monotonous detail the circumstances that led them to one of 3 reasons for needing help from Kirkwalls resident pizza boy?

I genuinely want to know what the writing process was and whether you will actually evolve and learn anything from this? 

Why do characters talk about the Templars with fear and worry because they're mages as they stagger through the streets blowing fire from their gigantic permanently on display Wizard Staffs in full view of their apparent ennemies? 

Compiling hooks for each character that are logical and make sense along with a narrative that entertains is the central part of the writing process. You can do either on their own, but it works best when matched together.  There has been very little logic in DA2 and even less sense, worst of all there is no true narrative or depth to any events.  The greatest issue is that it's boring, there is no investment, it's simply going through the motions without any drama or real change.

There's no drive here, there's no power to anything that happens.

What are you going to take away from this to improve future games?

So we have another "expert" writer judging the works of others. Good to know.

OMG. You people would bash the Faust of Goethe if it was for your "judgments". Really I would like sometime that people that really don't understand of what the hell they are talking about would just shut up. Actually this would mean shutting-up 80% of the population, but that would be fine for me, more silence would be good.

But naturally there's always the confort of "it's my opinion" when you express judgements that you really are not in a position to make, thinking you are an expert when you know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about.

[Alastanir]

I enjoyed DA2's writing. It never directly engaged my awe the way DA:O's did, however it entertained rather well.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Modifié par Alastanir, 14 mars 2011 - 08:23 .

[enrogae]

Hey Amioran... I have a Bachelors in English... and I also think the writing is poorly done. Do I not know what I am talking about, either? Saying that something is poorly written is subjective opinion. I've thought some novels were useless, inane drivel, while others thought they were masterpieces. You don't have to be an expert writer, if there is such a thing, to know whether you think it was well done or not. Not everybody is a fan of Goethe, or Faust for that matter.  If they bought a book they might feel it was poorly written.  If they paid $60 for a non-refundable, story-driven game, and feel it was poorly written, they will likely provide constructively negative criticisms.  They are justified to have an opinion regardless, as are you.  Even people holding a Ph.D. in English disagree about what quality writing is.

But while we are on the subject of bad writing... it's "comfort", not "confort".

Modifié par enrogae, 14 mars 2011 - 08:14 .

[Foolsfolly]

Also having the game begin anywhere but that awful mountain with some kind of introduction and soul would have been preferable to me.

I'm kinda meh on the game but that intro was great. You have someone dragged into a dark room and threatened at knife point. Apparently the whole damn world's a blink away from a massive war and this person named Hawke is needed.

They call Hawke a Champion, so you're anticipating the who this character is and why their so important. Then we see Hawke and someone else in action, fielding waves of enemy monsters and then a drago--

Bull****. And the guy's been lying, he smiles and you smile with him. He's convinced to start his tale just as Hawke's escaping the Blight with his family.....

That's beautiful. That introduced Hawke with a style that no BioWare game can match. That's one of the best parts of the whole game....and it's SKIPPABLE! Praise to the Maker, if I ever do a 8th character I can skip all those cut-scenes with a button press!

[Axis Swordarm]

Amioran wrote...


So we have another "expert" writer judging the works of others. Good to know.

OMG. You people would bash the Faust of Goethe if it was for your "judgments". Really I would like sometime that people that really don't understand of what the hell they are talking about would just shut up. Actually this would mean shutting-up 80% of the population, but that would be fine for me, more silence would be good.

But naturally there's always the confort of "it's my opinion" when you express judgements that you really are not in a position to make, thinking you are an expert when you know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about.

If you're going to place the writing in this game on such lofty levels then please give a better reasoning for why you think this is the case.  Criticism actually makes things better and being blind to faults for absolutely no reason and denying they exist with such vehemence isn't really helping me to understand why Dragon Age II is a masterpiece that deserves to only be discussed by literature students such as yourself.

I'd be glad to leave you with an echo chamber, but some of us want things to improve.

[Jaduggar]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

It's much worse than I'm making it out to be as I'm avoiding going into detail of the Tranquil Solution. Also having the game begin anywhere but that awful mountain with some kind of introduction and soul would have been preferable to me. 

I'm glad you're finding every reason to enjoy the characters, you keep asking me to justify why these characters are lifeless shells, what makes them vivid and entertaining to you?

What is it that makes them worthwhile instead of simply sock puppets that push the plot along with dog whistle dialogue?

Listen, quit it with the hyperboles.
They are both very annoying and useless in an argument.

And when did I say they were vivid? I enjoy the characters.
Because I enjoy the characters they must be the greatest characters ever designed in the history of gaming?

I enjoy Varric and his honest(?) narcissism.
I enjoy Aveline and her role as the tragic authority, with not a hint of "I'm a girl in a Bioware game! Bed me!"
I don't enjoy Anders, but dammit, I enjoyed Justice too much in Awakenings to not make him my third man.

From what I've seen of Merrill, she's got some of the best writing as well as a great vocal performance.
Isabela is a character I don't think I've ever seen take a lead role in a game before. And guess what? It works for me, and I enjoy it.

They aren't the best characters a mind has ever been capable of conceiving, so what?
They totally work for me. And I absolutely enjoy them. They make the game and the story much more involving for me.

And I'm sorry the writing couldn't improve the mountain for you.

[Homebound]

Main writing flaw, the SPINE of the story did not arc throughout the game. The ending was unexpected, but it did not make sense nor looking back did it seem like the inevitable consequence of previous actions.

[Taura-Tierno]

I'm really enjoying the writing. The banter between the NPC's is particularly good - perhaps even better than in Origins. I enjoy Isabela and Fenris a lot more than any characters in DA:O, at least. They're just hilarious together.

[Homebound]

^The banter was extremely good. definitely the highlight of the game.

[Axis Swordarm]

Jaduggar wrote...

Listen, quit it with the hyperboles.
They are both very annoying and useless in an argument.

And when did I say they were vivid? I enjoy the characters.
Because I enjoy the characters they must be the greatest characters ever designed in the history of gaming?

There's a slight disconnect there.

You've been trying to argue for the sake of arguement this entire thread.  I can understand it, you like the characters and you don't like someone saying that they're badly thought out and explaining it in a way that sounds like I'm disparaging people who enjoy said characters.

The thing is the reasons you mentioned for liking them are very bare.  They should be better and Bioware should, with their claims of the best writing staff on the planet, be working every game to improve their presentation.  Dragon Age 2 showed that they're not bothered about that and that perhaps they shouldn't improve because some people are happy with what they get.

I don't believe that's a good way for things to go.

Modifié par Axis Swordarm, 14 mars 2011 - 08:28 .

[Alastanir]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Main writing flaw, the SPINE of the story did not arc throughout the game. The ending was unexpected, but it did not make sense nor looking back did it seem like the inevitable consequence of previous actions.

I'm beginning to wonder if this was intentional. Perhaps there's a master plan to tie the story together with multiple DLC releases.

At least that's what I'm hoping for -- plot resolution, that is. It would be nice if the sum of the parts is greater than any individual one.

Modifié par Alastanir, 14 mars 2011 - 08:39 .

[Jaduggar]

Axis Swordarm wrote...

There's a slight disconnect there.

You've been trying to argue for the sake of arguement this entire thread.  I can understand it, you like the characters and you don't like someone saying that they're badly thought out and explaining it in a way that sounds like I'm disparaging people who enjoy said characters.

The thing is the reasons you mentioned for liking them are very bare reasons for enjoyment.  They should be better and Bioware should, with their claims of the best writing staff on the planet, be working every game to improve their presentation.  Dragon Age 2 showed that they're not bothered about that and that perhaps they shouldn't improve because some people are happy with what they get.

I don't believe that's a good way for things to go.

I've actually got a post at the top of this page that you have yet to respond to.
Don't try to make an argument on the side seem like the main one.

Also, a couple of notes:

-You never explained why the characters were bad. You used exaggerations to declare your nature towards it.
(Don't explain why the characters are bad. As of now, it's totally subjective as we don't have any layout of standards on which to base anything that could possibly resemble a rationale argument).
-"Best writing staff on the planet?" Why? Why do you seriously do this to me? You're showing off. I know what you mean, but you still want to show off. This isn't poetry. It's an argument.
-I'm only arguing because you are unclear. Once you clear your thoughts, I'll be out of your hair.

EDIT:
In fact, you're the one that had flat-out asked me for my opinion on the characters. Before that post, I never once declared my stance on anything

...You know what? It's 5:00 in the morning.
I'll just pick my order up cold.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 08:42 .

[enrogae]

Actually, he showed you very specific examples that show glaring differences in the writing/story, specifically between this game and Uncharted. I thought he was quite clear, but then again I didn't focus on the animations when I watched those videos he posted. His comments about exposition vs. characterization were also quite clear. I'm not sure what else you can ask of him. :/

Modifié par enrogae, 14 mars 2011 - 08:42 .

[Jaduggar]

Ah, that's alright, enrogae. I can clear things up:

Right now, I'm confused on whether he is arguing about the quality of writing (in which case the Uncharted video shows off nothing special), or the presentation (which Dragon Age can never achieve an 'Uncharted' level due to its narrative structure, but can easily improve upon via character animation).

If he's still arguing about the writing, I would like him to provide examples.
I've already provided a very basic rebuttal to the only one he's pointed out.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 08:46 .