Aller au contenu

Photo

Design and Writing Flaws


168 réponses à ce sujet

#126
pvdturtle

pvdturtle
  • Members
  • 5 messages

Foolsfolly wrote...

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.


Well, different stories have different hooks because you want to emphasize different things.  In a Sci-fi action flick like the Inception movie you mentioned, you want lots of fast cuts and movement, because you're trying to sell excitement and, well, action.  In a more thoughtful drama, like say the Godfather, you start slow with a funeral director promising a favor to the Don for some help, during the Don's daughter's wedding.  They're both memorable beginnings (I LOVE the opening line "I love america" said with an accent by the funeral director) that serve their purpose.  Also keep in mind that movies HAVE to grab your attention faster, because it's a shorter medium, time-wise.  You're talking about 2-3 hours of story telling, while a video game should last 40+ hours.

By your l;ogic, you're right that the opening of DA2 serves its purpose, but it actually bolsters the argument of the original poster of this topic.  DA2 did emphasize the gameplay, and specifically the action of the battles, NOT the story.  The beginning did exactly what they intended, which was to highlight and showcase the entirely new battle system that they developed.  It was so effective in doing so, that they took the beginning section wholesale and turned it into a demo.

I have to say I enjoyed the beginning for what it was as well, it was exciting, it was fun and enjoyable on its own right as an intro to the battle gameplay, although after a few playthroughs (I was playing through the beginning a number of times because I was troubleshooting some random crashes in the game) I kinda wanted to hit the ESC key to fast forward the Varric's tall-tale version of the battle.:P

But the story? The key happening of the death of a sibling? so off-key, so without impact, and completely forced melodrama.  The sibling was a red-shirt whose death meant nothing to me as a player.  There was another death in the beginning with an NPC that was a lot more impactful because you actually had more introduction during the intro about that NPC and another NPC's relationship to him.  It was more impactful because the game asked me to feel something that required less investment (sympathy for the suffering of others) for the level of story invetment that we had (less than a few minutes).  If I'm actually going to feel something, I need to invest, and that means develp some time in interacing with the character that's going to die, or betray me, or whatever.

#127
Jaduggar

Jaduggar
  • Members
  • 187 messages

Axis Swordarm wrote...

I'm afraid our discussion ended the moment you dropped this gem.  


No, it didn't.

Stop avoiding my rebuttal.
These last few posts of ours have been nothing more than a minor tangent off our original argument.

Obviously you found something wrong with that statement of mine, and that’s good—you were supposed to. That was the point.

RicAlmighty wrote...

Jaduggar wrote...


I could write a ten page document on why I think 90% of the characters in The Wire are bad


Please please do this. I could use a laugh. If you honestly believe that, then you simply have no idea what good writing is, period. No wonder you're arguing this point, you clearly do not know any better!



Clearly, you miss my point.

The standards on which I would judge the quality of the characters are different than your own. Perhaps you would fully accept/agree with some of my criticisms, but, operationally, they could be weighed differently.

And in case you’re curious, I think that 90% of the characters on The Wire fall lame, while the remaining ten percent are some of the greatest characters in television history.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 07:42 .


#128
SamimaS

SamimaS
  • Members
  • 23 messages
I love people who say this game has a story, let alone those who say its better than origins!

A Monkey could have scripted this game!

Escape the blight,
50 Side Quests,
Go into Deep Roads, for half an hour,
Another crap load of sidequests! This is where Im up to!

So after 20 hours of gameplay I've had about 45 minutes of Plot and 19 hours 15 minutes filler!

Shocking!

#129
Jaduggar

Jaduggar
  • Members
  • 187 messages

SamimaS wrote...

I love people who say this game has a story, let alone those who say its better than origins!

A Monkey could have scripted this game!

Escape the blight,
50 Side Quests,
Go into Deep Roads, for half an hour,
Another crap load of sidequests! This is where Im up to!

So after 20 hours of gameplay I've had about 45 minutes of Plot and 19 hours 15 minutes filler!

Shocking!


...The same fallacy works against Origins:

Survive Ostagar
Help some Elves
Help some Dwarves
Deal with magic
Chop up some undead
Kill a dragon

Great.
45 Hours of running around.

(Please note that the above is not an example of what I think about Origins.)

#130
mtripp

mtripp
  • Members
  • 36 messages
 I find it strange when people talk about how they hate the design of this game but put ME2 as an all-time favorite.  Yes, the constant re-use of the same Kirkwall home and cave is horrendous.  But, the entirety of ME2 maps were simply rooms connected by corridors. Even the "cities." Walk down hallway.  Enter room. Fight. Repeat. If you fought in a corridor it was a sweet surprise. I'm not far into the game but I find Kirkwall better in those regards. It isn't quite rooms connected by hallways.  I certainly would like to see more expansiveness to locales and Kirkwall in particular.  I don't see why a game like this, that focuses on the city, couldn't be played in a city as expansive as, say, Liberty City from GTA IV. Or in city as populated as they are in Assassin's Creed.

#131
SamimaS

SamimaS
  • Members
  • 23 messages
You dim wit,

In origins you could do side quest when you wanted and plot when you wanted! also, the plot was way more interesting and involved! as yet in DA2 Ive had no big decisions to make, at all!

20 Hours into DAO I'd have been able to make loads of decisions, Circle of Magi Templars/Aldred, Dalish Keeper/wolverines, Harrowmont/Other guy, Blanka/No Golems, Kill the Bann for rape or let him go etc!

#132
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

mtripp wrote...

 I find it strange when people talk about how they hate the design of this game but put ME2 as an all-time favorite.  Yes, the constant re-use of the same Kirkwall home and cave is horrendous.  But, the entirety of ME2 maps were simply rooms connected by corridors. Even the "cities." Walk down hallway.  Enter room. Fight. Repeat. If you fought in a corridor it was a sweet surprise. I'm not far into the game but I find Kirkwall better in those regards. It isn't quite rooms connected by hallways.  I certainly would like to see more expansiveness to locales and Kirkwall in particular.  I don't see why a game like this, that focuses on the city, couldn't be played in a city as expansive as, say, Liberty City from GTA IV. Or in city as populated as they are in Assassin's Creed.


ME gave you an impression of being part of something bigger DA2 just confines you to an area with no reason beyond you not being able to leave because nothing else exists.

DA2 was a horrible failure for me. You can't make people feel, it either happens or it does not. When what happened after act II (leaving Beth home) occured I wanted some payback I wanted to level the chantry, but I never got the option I'm only allowed to rampage when the game allows me again without a good reason.

Now BG2 did much the same with Imoen, but at least there was a reason why you could not go on a rampage. I mean the gallows is right there if I wanted to try to kill every Templar then the only thing stopping me is the game design, not anything "in character" and that just feels wrong.

(sorry it's a bit disjointed hard to do without spoilers).

#133
Maelora

Maelora
  • Members
  • 608 messages
Agree completely. Just because you're not 'saving the world' doesn't absolve Bioware of the having to provide a compelling story. It all plays out the same regardless of what choices you make. You never really feel a sense of purpose about Hawke - supposedly 'the most important character in the DA universe'. Just feels like some big Mary Sue.

#134
Blacklash93

Blacklash93
  • Members
  • 4 154 messages
I feel the same way.

I just didn't feel attatched to anything in the story.

#135
Bostur

Bostur
  • Members
  • 399 messages
Some very good points in this thread, and an enjoyable read.

I always found it interesting why some stories work almost universally, some almost universally fail and then some tend to have a 50/50 audience.

DA:O absorbed me like a good book, or a good movie. Almost through the whole game, which is impressive considering the sheer size of it. At some point it struck me that we got all the best gems in the start of the story, not just in terms of storytelling but also graphics design. That probably helps a lot to keep us hooked, we are more inclined to accept slightly weaker storytelling later because we want to see were the story takes us.
One of my favorite cutscenes in DA:O was the actual initiation to the grey wardens, where one recruit fails the cut, and the other is brutally murdered because he is scared and panics. Seeing such ruthlessnes from the good guys added a lot of depth.


In comparison as a few other mentioned here, the start of DA2 is rather weak. I felt it was really odd that the 1st year as a smuggler or mercenary was cut away completely. Even though the initial scene fighting Darkspawn is superficial, the 1st year could have served the purpose to introduce us to the characters through some linear missions, in much the same way as Ostragar did in DA:O. After a linear action packed and narrative sequence it would seem much more natural to have the game open up with the freeform play of Kirkwall.
Somehow I got the feeling that this was the intention, but maybe cut out due to time restraints.

Of course that wouldn't have fixed that fact that most party members seems to lack purpose and direction.

#136
Beerfish

Beerfish
  • Members
  • 23 870 messages

SamimaS wrote...

You dim wit,

In origins you could do side quest when you wanted and plot when you wanted! also, the plot was way more interesting and involved! as yet in DA2 Ive had no big decisions to make, at all!

20 Hours into DAO I'd have been able to make loads of decisions, Circle of Magi Templars/Aldred, Dalish Keeper/wolverines, Harrowmont/Other guy, Blanka/No Golems, Kill the Bann for rape or let him go etc!


Now now, you are coming off as being rather codexish with that 1st line there.

#137
mtripp

mtripp
  • Members
  • 36 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

mtripp wrote...

 I find it strange when people talk about how they hate the design of this game but put ME2 as an all-time favorite.  Yes, the constant re-use of the same Kirkwall home and cave is horrendous.  But, the entirety of ME2 maps were simply rooms connected by corridors. Even the "cities." Walk down hallway.  Enter room. Fight. Repeat. If you fought in a corridor it was a sweet surprise. I'm not far into the game but I find Kirkwall better in those regards. It isn't quite rooms connected by hallways.  I certainly would like to see more expansiveness to locales and Kirkwall in particular.  I don't see why a game like this, that focuses on the city, couldn't be played in a city as expansive as, say, Liberty City from GTA IV. Or in city as populated as they are in Assassin's Creed.


ME gave you an impression of being part of something bigger DA2 just confines you to an area with no reason beyond you not being able to leave because nothing else exists.

DA2 was a horrible failure for me. You can't make people feel, it either happens or it does not. When what happened after act II (leaving Beth home) occured I wanted some payback I wanted to level the chantry, but I never got the option I'm only allowed to rampage when the game allows me again without a good reason.

Now BG2 did much the same with Imoen, but at least there was a reason why you could not go on a rampage. I mean the gallows is right there if I wanted to try to kill every Templar then the only thing stopping me is the game design, not anything "in character" and that just feels wrong.

(sorry it's a bit disjointed hard to do without spoilers).


I appreciate you leaving the spoilers out.  I'm not going to argue the story or immersion issues with DA2 as I am not very far into the game.  I was just referring to the level design criticism. On that front ME2 and DA2 are quite similar I think.  

I, personally, don't mind what they did to combat in DA2.  I just wish a story so focuse on a single city would have made the city in a grand fashion like I felt GTA IV had.

#138
Jaduggar

Jaduggar
  • Members
  • 187 messages

SamimaS wrote...

You dim wit,

In origins you could do side quest when you wanted and plot when you wanted! also, the plot was way more interesting and involved! as yet in DA2 Ive had no big decisions to make, at all!

20 Hours into DAO I'd have been able to make loads of decisions, Circle of Magi Templars/Aldred, Dalish Keeper/wolverines, Harrowmont/Other guy, Blanka/No Golems, Kill the Bann for rape or let him go etc!



*Cough*

"(Please note that the above is not an example of what I think about Origins.)"

But, there we go! At least we now got a non-fallacious argument out of you.
Personally, as I have said before, I didn't care for the story in DA:O. It tried to be epic, but fell flat for me due feeling so enclosed.

I wish the decisions in DA:O reflected into something more than a small box of text at the end of the game, but they weren't, so I hold little enthusiasm for that aspect of the game.

And, yes, it seems DA2 does lack powerful decision making. It's a valid argument for not appreciating the game.

#139
EccentricSage

EccentricSage
  • Members
  • 1 067 messages

Jaduggar wrote...

You know, I was sort of hoping you would pay a little bit of attention to my other post as well.

I said not to explain to me why you don’t think they are good or bad characters, and I said exactly why. There’s no workable argument here. Is motivation what makes a good character, then? Personality? I don’t know—sure? I mean, they are a least valuable to some degree; but we can’t argue these things without such undefined, unlisted, and un-operational definitions.

I could write a ten page document on why I think 90% of the characters in The Wire are bad, but if I hand it to random people on the street, no proper consensus would be created.

Now, if you would. Pay some attention to my post that I told you to pay attention to. That’s where our argument is.

Also, this is your daily reminder to stop using hyperboles.


For what it's worth, his posts arguing against the writing has had more of an impact on my opinion than your continuously answering in so many words with 'lol nope'.

His opinions won't be the only opinions I take into consideration when deciding weather or not to get this game, but he's explained his POV pretty well, and that informs me to some extent. 

For example, I shall look further into the characterisation of Isabella.  I had high hopes for this character.  Now I'm wondering if she's just a murderous thug, and why she's staying in Kirkwal for such a huge portion of her life when it contradicts the very basis of her background as a pirate who lives for complete freedom and pleasure.  (It's bad enough they re-designed her)

Everyone's opinion, when presented clearly with examples, has a purpose here.  His time is no more wasted than your own.

#140
RicAlmighty

RicAlmighty
  • Members
  • 48 messages

Jaduggar wrote...
And in case you’re curious, I think that 90% of the characters on The Wire fall lame, while the remaining ten percent are some of the greatest characters in television history.


Please explain why, and use concrete examples of where they "fall lame." I'll be waiting anxiously. :lol:

#141
Impresario

Impresario
  • Members
  • 38 messages
Another example about what's wrong w/ the writing (as others have noted) is the Isabela romance (the only one I've tried).

In a game that gets it right like "Deadly Premonition," York and Emily's relationship develops in such a quirky natural way (and achieving that in a surreal environment is no little feat). When York occasionally visits Emily's house for dinner and teaches her about cooking it's extremely funny and endearing. The banter between the two has a certain twisted Hepburn & Grant repartee--much closer to Morrigan's witticisms than what Isabela offers.

But Isabela, yikes, it as if her romance dialogue was taken straight from some cartoonish script that goes bawdy, brash, pirate covering up a good heart. It's "Pretty Woman" ultra light. Sure that's a common theme in various mediums but the big difference is that when the romance works it's because the writers have a sense of their character's identity. The romance isn't just a device created as an option w/ throwaway dialogue that fits the character's expected template.

#142
Nikkae

Nikkae
  • Members
  • 1 messages

TaHol wrote...

Thank you OP for saying everything I was thinking of. I'm just starting the act 2, and I still have no clue why Hawke exist, what is the point of the whole story, and why I'm playing this game. I was thinking that DA:O was meant for people in their 30's, and DA2 obviously for people who are not much over 15. At least in DA:O I knew form the start that my character is on the mission. What is Hawkes mission, I don't know, and I don't even care. I just keep killing respawning bandits in recycled caves. Mind you, I like killing pixels, but for that I have other games. This I bought for the story, and I found there is no story.



Yes I too bought this game for the story and character development. I am also starting act 2 and maybe if I continue to play I will come to enjoy it more but there is no "heading back to camp to chat with your friends" like there was in DAO. I cannot engage my teammates in dialogue while we are out exploring or raise their approval with gifts and witty comments. There is no interaction with my fellow groupmates that I have seen other than meeting them in their own setting once. Has anyone else been able to talk with the ppl you recruit to build up relationships?

#143
Jaduggar

Jaduggar
  • Members
  • 187 messages
Haha, Ric, this isn't exactly the place for that, now is it?

EccentricSage wrote...
For what it's worth, his posts arguing against the writing has had more of an impact on my opinion than your continuously answering in so many words with 'lol nope'.

His opinions won't be the only opinions I take into consideration when deciding weather or not to get this game, but he's explained his POV pretty well, and that informs me to some extent. 

For example, I shall look further into the characterisation of Isabella.  I had high hopes for this character.  Now I'm wondering if she's just a murderous thug, and why she's staying in Kirkwal for such a huge portion of her life when it contradicts the very basis of her background as a pirate who lives for complete freedom and pleasure.  (It's bad enough they re-designed her)

Everyone's opinion, when presented clearly with examples, has a purpose here.  His time is no more wasted than your own.



What?

He has been unclear, and I am helping him clear up his argument. I've said this. I am only working with him, not denying everything he says--if anything he's the one who turned a shoulder to me by saying my reasons for enjoying the characters were not reasons for enjoying the characters.

And don't you dare start with the 'lol nope' sorts of exaggerations. I'm insulted. He argued something I've already said was impossible to argue at the moment. If he wants to argue good characterization, then we'd have to work together to establish some common, operational merits.

What we're discussing now is the quality of writing in this game, how Bioware is unable to create 'real' characters, how the narrative structures interferes, and how the presentation of writing is separate from the writing itself.

On these issues, I do not have a stance. I am just having him clear some things up.

And, I apologize, but I can't really discuss all too much about Isabella. I don't really know much about the depth of her character. I, personally, wouldn’t read too much into it. Sometimes its best just to experience things rather than spoil yourself.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 09:28 .


#144
Driveninhifi

Driveninhifi
  • Members
  • 463 messages
I felt the writing was quite poor in general. It's hard to go into detail without spoilers. There's no overarching plot - no reason to really care about Kirkwall or what is happening. Most of the characters are one-dimensional, boring or painful. I did like Varric and I thought Aveline had some personality.
There's a whole, whole lot of "this is happening because the plot demands it even though it doesn't make sense" (which was also true of the worse parts of ME2's writing). The ending in general is a perfect example of this. I appreciate the difficulty in making a branching story, but it's better to try a different tact than it is to force it - and DA2 feels very forced.
Combat is also deeply flawed; every encounter is the same, with waves of guys spawning on top of you. The combat is quite fun, but is almost ruined by the designs of the fights.

#145
iTIMMEH

iTIMMEH
  • Members
  • 46 messages
I wholeheartedly agree with this post. The writing generally alternated between mediocre and cringe-inducing. There are several scenes that are presumably meant to be dramatic and emotional that fall flat on their face, there is no internal consistency, a good deal of dialogue is poorly written or poorly acted (or both).

The city of Kirkwall is a failure. If you're going to make the player spend most of their time in the same location; give it a life of its own. Give it a character and have it react to our presence. Kirkwall as it is feels like a bunch of disjointed, lifeless locations that share the same textures.

Oh and I'd like the name of the person who decided normal attacks should have a stagger effect. I plan to follow him around for a day and give him a shove every time he tries to do something, see how fun he finds it.

#146
Cajeb

Cajeb
  • Members
  • 151 messages

Jaduggar wrote...

Haha, Ric, this isn't exactly the place for that, now is it?

EccentricSage wrote...
For what it's worth, his posts arguing against the writing has had more of an impact on my opinion than your continuously answering in so many words with 'lol nope'.

His opinions won't be the only opinions I take into consideration when deciding weather or not to get this game, but he's explained his POV pretty well, and that informs me to some extent. 

For example, I shall look further into the characterisation of Isabella.  I had high hopes for this character.  Now I'm wondering if she's just a murderous thug, and why she's staying in Kirkwal for such a huge portion of her life when it contradicts the very basis of her background as a pirate who lives for complete freedom and pleasure.  (It's bad enough they re-designed her)

Everyone's opinion, when presented clearly with examples, has a purpose here.  His time is no more wasted than your own.



What?

He has been unclear, and I am helping him clear up his argument. I've said this. I am only working with him, not denying everything he says--if anything he's the one who turned a shoulder to me by saying my reasons for enjoying the characters were not reasons for enjoying the characters.

And don't you dare start with the 'lol nope' sorts of exaggerations. I'm insulted. He argued something I've already said was impossible to argue at the moment. If he wants to argue good characterization, then we'd have to work together to establish some common, operational merits.

What we're discussing now is the quality of writing in this game, how Bioware is unable to create 'real' characters, how the narrative structures interferes, and how the presentation of writing is separate from the writing itself.

On these issues, I do not have a stance. I am just having him clear some things up.

And, I apologize, but I can't really discuss all too much about Isabella. I don't really know much about the depth of her character. I, personally, wouldn’t read too much into it. Sometimes its best just to experience things rather than spoil yourself.


I agree. You are lol noping him and aren't really serving a purpose in this argument

#147
Akjosch

Akjosch
  • Members
  • 30 messages
As for "how to write good characters" (or what makes their characterisations good), I'd go with James N Frey's "How to write a damn good novel" (ISBN: 0312010443), if only because it's very accessible (I could cite Aristotle and Egri as well, of course ...).

First of all, there are two kinds of characters in fiction: Some are "background characters" - they appear, speak their line or two (or even just hand over some paper), and disappear. Those aren't important, and don't warrant out attention.

The others are three-dimensional characters.Those have three important dimensions:

* Physiological. Weight, size, age, sex, race, looks, scars, stuff like this. This one is easy, but the important thing to remember is that is matters. Somebody with a speech impedment will make a vastly different king then somebody without.

* Social: Where did the character live up, how did his or her life colour how he or she looks at himself or herself, what religion does the character belong to, the character's family life, and so on. This part is important in that most of the motivations of the character are grounded in his or her social dimension.

* Psychological: This is the result of the other two. The character's phobies, morale, wishes, phantasies, fears and so on - but also knowledges - are found here. This dimension is important because it explains why the character is doing what he or she is doing, and what his or her preferred methods are.

If a character is well-written, he or she not only has those dimensions, it's also possible to deduce details about them from their activities. This goes the other way as well: Everything the character does is based on who the character is (and yes, this also means that fictional characters are more "deterministic" and predictable than real people; they have to be, we have a need to be able to "understand" them to care about them). Also, these dimensions remain mostly constant through the character's lifetime, with one exception (but more about it later).

Every well-written character needs one more thing, and the reader (or player) has to know what it is for each characters (though there are exceptions for criminal novels, thrillers and the like): A central driving force. This needs, of course, to be grounded in the three dimensions, but it doesn't need to be the only possible motivation for the character: Just the one which drives him or her during the whole story. If a character lacks this force, it's uninteresting. If the force changes midway, people will have a hard time understanding the character.

Finally ... a good character changes during the story. Egri goes so far and suggest picking one of the characteristics and changing it from one side all the way to the opposite; this might be too far for most computer game characters. The important thing to note is that this change has to be build on what the character is, and what he or she expiriences. A change where we don't get to know why the character suddenly acts differently is shoddy character writing.

#148
Jaduggar

Jaduggar
  • Members
  • 187 messages
Alright then…

By agreeing, you are saying that it is absolutely possible to reach a consensus with everybody familiar with a character and without any understanding of the standards the bunch of you will use to weigh the merits of said character.

Do you also agree with this? You shouldn’t.
This very thread shows it’s contradictory.

EDIT:
Why am I pushing this?
I kind of want to get back on topic.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 14 mars 2011 - 10:09 .


#149
TheRealJayDee

TheRealJayDee
  • Members
  • 2 952 messages

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.


Wait... what? Posted Image

As to the OP: I think I have to agree with you, based on my rather short experiences with the game so far.

#150
EccentricSage

EccentricSage
  • Members
  • 1 067 messages

Jaduggar wrote...

Haha, Ric, this isn't exactly the place for that, now is it?

EccentricSage wrote...
For what it's worth, his posts arguing against the writing has had more of an impact on my opinion than your continuously answering in so many words with 'lol nope'.

His opinions won't be the only opinions I take into consideration when deciding weather or not to get this game, but he's explained his POV pretty well, and that informs me to some extent. 

For example, I shall look further into the characterisation of Isabella.  I had high hopes for this character.  Now I'm wondering if she's just a murderous thug, and why she's staying in Kirkwal for such a huge portion of her life when it contradicts the very basis of her background as a pirate who lives for complete freedom and pleasure.  (It's bad enough they re-designed her)

Everyone's opinion, when presented clearly with examples, has a purpose here.  His time is no more wasted than your own.



What?

He has been unclear, and I am helping him clear up his argument. I've said this. I am only working with him, not denying everything he says--if anything he's the one who turned a shoulder to me by saying my reasons for enjoying the characters were not reasons for enjoying the characters.

And don't you dare start with the 'lol nope' sorts of exaggerations. I'm insulted. He argued something I've already said was impossible to argue at the moment. If he wants to argue good characterization, then we'd have to work together to establish some common, operational merits.

What we're discussing now is the quality of writing in this game, how Bioware is unable to create 'real' characters, how the narrative structures interferes, and how the presentation of writing is separate from the writing itself.

On these issues, I do not have a stance. I am just having him clear some things up.

And, I apologize, but I can't really discuss all too much about Isabella. I don't really know much about the depth of her character. I, personally, wouldn’t read too much into it. Sometimes its best just to experience things rather than spoil yourself.


Perhaps I've missunderstood you.  You were coming off quite a bit differently from how you intended.

I can't just experience this game without some spoiling unless I plan to ether steal it, or spend $60 based only on the franchise name despite hating the look of the game. 

Seriously, this game is hideous.  That's a bit of criticism I don't need to play the game to come up with myself.  The elves look severely deformed... Like some sort of alien/human hybrid, and the colors are so washed out.  Everything looks so flat.  The change in art style has done nothing to improve the week points in the rendering of the previous game from what I've seen thusfar.  If anything, it looks more cartoony to me now, with overexagerated, overstylised bodies and faces, instead of an attempt at believable natural skin textures and anatomy.  The humans look decent, if a bit flat, sure, but I can't get past the elves, who are supposed to be so atractive, looking like tall emaciated freeks with eyes too far apart and deformed nosees that are super thick at the upper bridge and taper to a point.  It reminds me of when American action figure and doll makers first tried to enterpret anime faces into 3-D figures.  (it was frighteningly bad)  I think it's wonderful that they gave us Zevran fans a cameo, but my god, how do I even describe how bad he looked, without being accused of hiperbole? 

If I'm to stare at this for hours on end, the story and world have to be so engaging and immersing, and the combat so well balanced and fun (tactical fun, not hack n'slash), that I will come to enjoy it despite all the ugly.  That is what I'm trying to find out more about from the few well thought out threads like this.  I already don't like the dialogue system, I know that much.  

I really hope they'll change course for the next game, and dedicate more than one year to development.  I mean, really, many Origins fans are still playing Origins.  Give us a decent DLC once every three months over a two year period while you put most of your effort in to a really deep second instalment, and take the time to make it the best it can be.  That's what most fans seemed to want.