99 réponses à ce sujet

[Theduke2]

Lianaar: You've had some really thoughful posts, and I wasn't even aware a PnP was in the works, or the extent they intend to flesh out the universe. My counting isn't statistically relevant, but I posed the same things to the reddit community for a larger sample, and also found a few--not many, but a few--who also felt it was over-rated: http://www.reddit.co...ith_the_dragon/



(I also got people actually answering the question, rather just attacking my analysis, which was nice. I now wonder whether it would've made more sense to just post the question with no explanation--but then I run into a problem of "what do you mean the game isn't superwonderful???" and have to explain anyway.)



Is measuring sales really the best instrument? I mean, Transformers 2 banked, but apparently sucked. One of my favorite games, System Shock 2, basically flopped and led to the demise of the developer. My only comfort is that its about 20 spots higher on metacritic than DA:O

[Krenmu]

You really aren't seeing the picture..I really do feel for you. Did you take the time to talk to your characters?..did you actually go through and do their side quests? did you listen to the banter they have back and forth? They are very well fleshed out..and each has their own reactions to different situations. I'm thinking you treated them as generic NPCs that have no feelings and got pissed off when they started hating on you.



It seems that you were expecting something much different from this game than what it is. Just accept that you have a different taste in gaming..and quietly move on your way, rather than trying to recruit members to the "I HATE DA:O" bandwagon.

[Fudzie]

I also find myself not really caring much one way or another about

any of the characters. I can't tell whether it's a failure of writing,

design, or just storytelling. There's no emotional connection, the

romances are comical, either bad or non-existent character arcs (don't

tell me "I lost my sword" counts as an arc), and if any of the

characters died, I wouldn't care at all (except the dwarf--he's

amusing, and his VO by Steven Blum is great).

Could whether or not characters are believable or not simply be tied to how invested a reader/player will allow themselves to be in a particular media? For all intents and purposes, the characters ARE fleshed out; we know their motives, their goals, their personalities, their histories, their likes and loves and dislikes and hates. If one goes in allowing themselves to look at NPCs as people rather than "characters", that should be enough for the feeling to show, right?



I'm not going to try to engage in a debate over the setting as a whole, or the story, I am just curious about this particular point you made, considering that, despite any other issues I had with the game, I thought the characters were the real gems of the whole package, personally.



Could you go into more detail about what you felt was wrong with the characterization?

[Hurbster]

I find the concept of darkspawn weapons a reasonable concept to agree with. A race with mages and a concept of tactics should easily be able to knock up some weapons and armour. The negative penalty on most of the stuff simply denotes it's not that well made. If they are the orc/gobbo equivalent then I don't see how smiths would be stretching things.

As for the OP - what did you expect ? Bioware have been going on about the adult/dark theme of the game for over a year now.

Modifié par Hurbster, 17 novembre 2009 - 01:01 .

[Sunstar]

Dragon age has many similarities with NWN and KoTOR etc.  But I expected that as the same
people made it.  I like the gift system in DA as that allows for getting on better terms with the NPC with out having
to spend forever in camp talking to the npc’s you do not play very often.  Now if the characters comments were more based on how they felt about you – that would be more fun – Morigan is just a shrew and I can’t seem to say anything right to her so I don’t bother talking to her anymore than have to.  She IMHO isn’t an interesting character – she’s a pain.

Personally I have very fond memories of some really ”oldschool’ role playing games – but in reality I don’t think the game play wasreally that different from what it is now. It was new then – ideas where being used for the first time and as a result I look back on the games in question and think they were ground breaking.  Maybe DA didn’t break any amazing new ground in terms of game play.  Maybe it’s a re-hash of NWN and KoTOR etc…  it’s all a matter of personal opinion I guess.

But who’s to blame?  The groundbreaking aspect of DA is the actual game engine – the graphics and the
effects.  If I had seen them 20 years ago, I’d have wet myself – but these days they’re just a “next step”.

I think that we as consumers (gross generalisation please forgive me but I’m talking about the lowest common denominator of gaming and  the Play station – Xbox 360 etc make it more and more important to appeal to
that section of game players) are more interested in the new graphics engine – the new effects - lip synced characters – than they are about the story and characters etc.

If this weren’t true – NVIDIA wouldn’t bring out a new range of graphics cards every year and sell them $700+ Australian. 

When the screen had four colours – they had to impress with story and new ideas –  but then all game play
ideas were new… just like when movies didn’t have CGI effects they had to rely more on story telling.   It costs more, because it takes so much time, to develop game engines with the level of special effects we expect and movies with the CGI and as a result, it becomes the selling point of game and movies.  

Personally, I am enjoying DA – I cannot stand Morigan so she is never in my party.  But on the whole I like the characters I play with and the story and the setting.  I like the accents – they could have tried to make up their own accents – but in all honesty I think that would just have been silly.  French accents are good as are German or Spanish for different countries in a game world.  We know what they are -  but we can suspend disbelief and just go with it if we like. The voice acting is pretty good as are the accents - i lived in Paris for three years and it brought back very fond memories. 

IMHO The days of truly “ground breaking” game play is over.  At least until they develop holo suits or we can jack ourselves into a virtual reality via a plug into the back of our heads.  Playing Pools of Radiance – DnD on a computer was really ground breaking when it came out – not because of the game play – but because it was DnD on a computer.  UItima 1 – the original - which I still have for the Apple 2e computer was ground breaking when I played it nearly 30 years ago – because it was a computer game and the whole idea of computer games was ground breaking 30 years ago. 

While I wait for the “next big thing” – I’m happy to play what’s good now and IMHO DA is good fun and I’m grateful to be able to play a story I havem’t played before.  (just like i'm grateful to be able to read a good fantasy book i haven't read beforeor see a movie I haven't seen) Maybe a variation on a theme but still unplayed and new until I play it.   But I think it’s important to keep the “good old days” of “ground breaking” computer games in perspective as well.

(sorry about the formatting -  i had to paste it all into a very narrow box because my browswer won't let me paste into the main screen and so it made it all very short lines)

Modifié par Sunstar, 17 novembre 2009 - 01:08 .

[Malkut]

Theduke2 wrote...

Nor are those elements really rubbed in your face in FO

Did you just skip New Reno, or something?  There's a guy on the very first scream yelling about all the "ladies" you can pay for. (stupid word filter)

My problem with you bringing up Fallout isn't the game itself, which is fine.  It's that you think that there was a single shred of originality.  It wasn't even meant to be original.  That's the entire point.  It's largely a stream of references to other works and to 1950s culture and sci-fi, often accompanied with a wink and a wave so you'll know that it's a reference.

You're comparing Dragon Age to Tolkien, but you also seem to be coming to the conclusion that Fallout is original because it's not fantasy.  True, it's not a fantasy cliche.  It's a post-apocolyptic one, and it's proud of that.

Whereas in Fallout, drugs were just what people resorted to in the hopeless post-apocalypse. One definitely seems more contrived to me.

Yes, it's entirely contrived that people in a miserable, pre-modern world of drudgery and class inequality would harbor racist feelings, or have sex, or take drugs.  No, every fictional society on the level of the Middle Ages must be some Merry Olde England, with funny hobbits running errands for the lollipop guild.  Otherwise, it's the same as watching the news, right?

Lianaar wrote...

Either they are mindless beasts who only know how to kill, then their weapons shouldn't be any special

I thought that the darkspawn had a group-intelligence, which takes the form of the so-called "taint."

Modifié par Malkut, 17 novembre 2009 - 01:11 .

[Theduke2]

I talked to my characters, gave them gifts, went through a couple laughable romances. I don't really like the gift system, which to me just further turns companions into a minigame of gaining approval so you can do romances, learn their class specialties, go on their simple side quests. I thought Morrigan, shrew that she is, had the most interesting and novel side story with Flemeth, but only really truly enjoyed Oghren...and his need to woo the ladies and get laid. I don't know what that says about me, but as far as I can tell, my reputation on this thread bottomed out long ago.



In most storytelling, characters have arcs where they develop, learn something powerful about themselves and the way they see the world, grow or change in some meaningful or profound way. I didn't get that from the characters, even after doing their side quests, especially Sten and Shale and Lilianna...well, most of them, actually. What is really just happening is that as you build approval, they usually just share with you more of their story, like peeling back an onion. That's great for some people, but felt empty to me. I guess my ideal, as far as character development in a fantasy environment, is probably Thomas Covenant, or maybe Gorath from BAK, or *gasp* maybe even some characters from console RPGs. Thomas Covenant is unrealistic in a game, but I'd still rather my characters did heroic, dastardly, things on their own volition, tied into the story, rather than just shared their stories or engaged in ridiculous romances. Party banter is sometimes humorous, and not poorly written, but doesn't have the emotional impact a real arc can offer. To put it in perspective, I cared a lot more about the character's father in Fallout 3, and was sorry for his loss, more than any of the NPCs in DA:O. They do an excellent job characterizing that character from the first scenes of that game, to his death.



Now take Wynne. Nice enough lady. Has NO side quest, other than the Circle (at least, from what I found, and I think I got her approval fairly high). Joins to help fight the blight. Likes it when I do "the right thing". But she doesn't really do anything dramatic, or change in any meaningful way. If you side with the Templars, she still inexplicably stands by you and doesn't bat an eyelash.



Some people are reading this, and mistakenly feeling sorry for me, because I "hate" the game, having rated it a tragically low, low 7/10. Obviously, I'd really be slamming it if I thought it was a 1/10, and be clamoring for a refund yesterday. I don't hate it, I just feel like I was oversold on the reviews, and I probably need to be more skeptical in the future.



I'll share two of my high points:

1) Pickpocketing in Denerim or the Dalish camp caused repercussions, including being hunted down by growing number of guards. First time I can recall a consequence, even if you aren't caught by your target.

2) Sten & Oghden in the circus performer routine in prison.



They probably stand out as high points to me because I can't recall seeing them being done, ever.

[Sanguinius_nz]

Debating your point at the end of the day is pointless, its your
opinion and your probably not going to change it no matter what people
say, but I am a sucker for a good discussion.

Theduke2 wrote...
First, the game breaks for me the cardinal rule of fantasy: keep it
different! Instead, DA made a conscious decision to incorporate many
contemporary elements into their world: slavery, racism, castes, drug
use, and, of course, French people. This was really clever when Ultima
7 tried it 15+ years ago, but not so much today. And don't I play
fantasy games to become immersed in a world that is "fantastical", not
contemporary? Isn't the whole beauty of fantasy that you can do
whatever you like, be as creative as your imagination allows? If I want
to learn about the problems associated with social structures in India,
I'll go watch Frontline. Strip away these elements, and you're left
with an incredibly generic, Tolkien-esque universe. Yawn.

I also find myself not really caring much one way or another about
any of the characters. I can't tell whether it's a failure of writing,
design, or just storytelling. There's no emotional connection, the
romances are comical, either bad or non-existent character arcs (don't
tell me "I lost my sword" counts as an arc), and if any of the
characters died, I wouldn't care at all (except the dwarf--he's
amusing, and his VO by Steven Blum is great).

In the end, the game just feels like a retread of NWN but with
dumbed-down tactical combat. All the same conventions are there: the
"minigame" trying to earn companion's approval, a similar combat
system, even similar plots. I'm struggling to reconcile all that with
the stellar reviews and how "groundbreaking" the game is being
called...and I haven't even touched on the graphics, ridiculous
inventory management, how rudimentary ("take this item to this guy!")
most quests are, and some other elements. Other than a couple of
interesting plot twists, there didn't seem to be anything novel here.
Anyone agree, or can help me understand why they were particularly impressed with
the game?

The setting itself is closer to a low/dark fantasy basis, horror themes
with contemporary themes mixed in with the typical swords and sorcery
that is the hall mark of a fantasy world.
The basis of the world
is closer to a George R.R Martin than Tolkien. Added to this I’m sorry
but everyone and their dog starts trotting out Tolkien when making
fantasy based comparisons yes there are vague similarities and general
arcs that match up but as has been pointed out they are superficial,
elves and dwarves are both painted in a very different light to
anything seen in Tolkien literature. The lore involved diverges a great
deal from the norm and this is what has captured a great many people
imaginations, elves are no longer the aloof near immortals depicted in
almost every fantasy game and book dwarves while they are still
underground dwelling stumpies also diverge from the commonly held
conceptions.

This is a personal take on the characters, I myself found the
interactions with the characters to be excellent and was saddened and
elated at many points through the interactions with my party. Morrigans
voice acting is top notch and the banter between your characters as you
travel adds a real depth to the game and made it feel as if I was part
of a group of people instead of a group of mutes.

Gameplay wise your right there is nothing fantastically new or innovative regarding the combat system its basically the same thing we have seen from as far back as Baulders gate and Planescape: Torment. It did try to add a more MMOesque feel with the whole tank and healer aspect, personally I didn't like this I felt it had to real place in the game and its one of my few gripes. I would have preferred to see something more similar to the temple of elemental evil combat system.
The approval mini game as you call it while it is similar to things we have seen before (ME) the way its done is fairly refreshing, you cannot just take the nicest dialouge options, you actually have to consider the character you are talking to, added to which the back stories for your party memebers are often very compelling.

The reason the game is getting stellar reviews is not so much the combat (which while it should be solid should always be secondary to the story in any crpg) or the graphics but the lore and the story, the fact that DA flies in the face of many of many of the fantasy conventions we see in the CRPG realm and goes even further by making the game dark and tragic and the story about sacrifice and hardship in a brutal world which we make our way through as we see fit.

Modifié par Sanguinius_nz, 17 novembre 2009 - 01:42 .

[Driveninhifi]

Tolkien is actually pretty dark - and there's plenty of politics and infighting there as well. There's plenty of nasty stuff - orcs catapulting severed heads into cities under siege to scare people, etc.



Dragon Age seems VERY close in spirit to it. Sure, the elves are second class citizens and the dwarves have a caste system, but that's about the only thing that really jumps out as "different." The elf NPC is a gay stereotype, the dwarf is a drunk. Morrigan is an interesting character, but only if you are male and romance her. Otherwise she could have been plucked from any number of fantasy stories - she's essentially Morgana Le Fay. And if you do romance her, the game ends right as she is becoming an interesting, conflicted, two dimensional character in favor of a heavy-handed cliffhanger and hook for the sequel.



Not to say I didn't like it, but I do think that Torment and maybe even Mask of the Betrayer are better in terms of writing. Torment is a far less typical setting though, so a direct comparison may not be very apt - it just had a ton of really interesting ideas (though it really wasn't a good game to actually play).

[Teshronesh]

The reason the game is getting stellar reviews is not so much the combat (which while it should be solid should always be secondary to the story in any crpg) or the graphics but the lore and the story, the fact that DA flies in the face of many of many of the fantasy conventions we see in the CRPG realm and goes even further by making the game dark and tragic and the story about sacrifice and hardship in a brutal world which we make our way through as we see fit.





That is the best conclusion i read so far.

One addition: The characters are at least among the best developed i encountered so far in a game. If I really want characters with a long story arc - well, there is always George R.R. or the Wheel of Time. I guess an story arc, spanning thousands of pages might be long enough even for the op.

[Theduke2]

Unfortunately, you seem to still be conflating my appreciation for Fallout with my need for original story telling. But, other than Wasteland, who else made a game set in that universe, with that level of depth, believability, storytelling, or open-endedness in a computer RPG? At that time, no one (arguably few since then, too). And Wasteland was no "Ulysses" of computer games...not by a long shot. The nods & winks you're referring to--wouldn't you say they added to the gameworld and storytelling? You seem to think that I believe every element of the story and gameworld must be totally original, as though that were even possible. I'm just quite happy to be on an adventure that doesn't revolve around building the same old army to fight an ultimate evil that is overwhelming the world with a horde of identical hooligans. I would call it Tolkien-esque, because he was the first to do it in literature, of a different nature than what Lewis was doing, and it still seems like the same premise used in DA:O. You can call it whatever you like, and if you're happy with the SOS, have fun with it.



I agree that every fictional society on the level of the Middle Ages shouldn't be the same; that would be incredibly dull. But I part ways when, rather than making something really original or clever or well-thought out, you just blend real-world button-pushing issues as the centerpieces for your medieval world. But now we're two pages back, talking about high versus low fantasy again. My first impression was still: did these guys play Ultima 7? I just wasn't impressed. If it works for you, good for you. And thanks for stopping with the ad hominem junk.



Oh, and New Reno is one of my favorite towns! But there's still a difference in something being an element of the gameworld and something shoved in my face. Every dwarf you talk to HAS to chime in with their two cents of the caste system, or how badly it's ruining their lives, etc. It operates in forefront of most of the dwarven quests. Slavery or prostitution were just part of the background in the Fallout universe, by comparison. I don't recall them impacting the main quest in any really meaningful way, other than maybe rescuing Vic from Metzger (but you could just buy Vic, and never have to mess with it again, right?).

[Ninja Ataris]

OP, I feel you're just discussing numbers right now, which is silly. Both GTA4 and MW2 are going skyhigh in the scores and none of them are original in any way, if I dare say so. Ultimately you yourself have to decide what a game is worth to you. A lot of gamers nowadays are new and have only just started to experience the old school RPGs, starting with DA:O. A lot of the oldies that review it probably see it as a blast to the past and reliving old memories.



For me, DA:O easily catches a spot in the top 10, and I have played games as far back as Fallout and BG. On the other hand some people love Mask of the Betrayer, which I myself found to be an incredbly boring game, both story and character-wise.

NWN2 was -not- made by Bioware. It was made by Obsidian Entertainment, which is pretty much the remnants of Black Isle.

Also, Teshronesh speaks wisely.



DA:O deserves it's praise.

[Theduke2]

Most movies accomplish story & character arcs within 120 minutes. DA:O is a 50+ hour game. I assume, at some point, games will actually start trending this direction. Hence the recommendation from me, and others, to hire screenwriters. It's a completely different kind of writing.



I tried the Wheel of Time books. I couldn't take it anymore around page 100 of the first book and never looked back, and didn't do much fantasy reading after that. I don't really know what that means, although you will assume I just don't like fantasy, I'm not sure that's the case. Some of my favorite books and games are fantasy, including Tolkien and Thomas Covenant, the IE engine games, BAK, etc. I said earlier that I'd look into George R.R.

[Teshronesh]

Interesting that you assume I will assume anything about you just because you disliked a book. When I first read Tolkien I found it just boring, when I read it now I think it is great. The first wheel of time book (the english original) looks very much like a copy of Tolkien's work, (which makes me wonder a bit why you disliked it - or probably you just thought it was a clone, I really don't know) but then he uses more and more /mostly own ideas. Sure, they originate in some asian cultures, but which idea has no real life background?

[vyvexthorne]

As someone else pointed out.. there is a rather large amount of RPG starvation.. Maybe just good games in general starvation so that reviewers are more likely to give games higher ratings than they would have ten years ago.

But I have to say I am completely enjoying the game and that's enough for me. I never pay attention to hype.. I read all the reviews I can and try to make the best choice I can when it comes to buying games.

I think your having the problem of comparison. If you constantly try to compare something new to something old that maybe you loved.. you'll never have it live up to any expectations and you'll constantly be let down. It's like going to a remake of a movie. You can't compare it..But you can watch it and enjoy it as a completely separate entity. It's basically a choice.. You can look for good and have some satisfaction or you can look for bad and have no satisfaction.. Unless of course finding the bad is what gives you satisfaction.

[Devlen12]

Theduke2 wrote...

slavery, racism, castes, drug
use, and, of course, French people.

the rest of it was yawn but that... THAT made me lawl.  I keep shaking my head and scoffing at the french every time im in Denerim

[Theduke2]

I didn't like the Wheel of Time book because it felt like I had already read a better written, more interesting version of it. Same experience with, say Tom Clancy or whatnot, after I'd read The Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. If someone wants to write a psychological thriller, it better to be to that standard or it's a waste of my time--that's what I'm thinking after reading 100 pages of hackneyed drivel. Sounds harsh, but how else could we prioritize when there is so much content out there?



Through others' reviews and recommendations, of course. And if they're inflated, then some people will be burned. When Pauline Kael or Ebert review movies, they use the context of every movie before them--why wouldn't I do the equivalent when looking at games?

[Malkut]

Theduke2 wrote...

 But, other than Wasteland, who else made a game set in that universe, with that level of depth, believability, storytelling, or open-endedness in a computer RPG?

The first Fallout does not have a strong story.  The second one is lacks a believable world.  The third one is ludicrous, as it takes place 200 years after the war, when all traces of the old civilization should have been worn away by time.  At no point is it all of those things at once, and I say this as someone who's played every game with the Fallout label, even the console one.

The nods & winks you're referring to--wouldn't you say they added to the gameworld and storytelling?

I would say the same thing about Dragon Age.  If anything, I'd say that the similarities actually add to the setting.  When you think of elves, you think of nature, goodness, and light.  Contrast that with what you see in the game: a poor, miserable, abused people who have lost everything, living simple lives in a ghetto.  Dwarves conjure images of strength and honor, so how does it feel to watch them betray and assassinate each other? 

If you're going to bring up comparisons to Tolkien, then I would say that this is Middle-Earth with the high fantasy idyllic Merry Old England blinders taken off: just as ugly, dirty, and primitive as a world without democracy or regular bathing should be.  Even the great evil horde you keep going on about is a minor threat at best. except when compounded with the backstabbing politics and petty personal grievances of the so-called "good guys."

Oh, and New Reno is one of my favorite towns! But there's still a difference in something being an element of the gameworld and something shoved in my face. Every dwarf you talk to HAS to chime in with their two cents of the caste system, or how badly it's ruining their lives, etc. It operates in forefront of most of the dwarven quests. Slavery or prostitution were just part of the background in the Fallout universe, by comparison.

You literally cannot take three steps without tripping over a junkie or a "lady of the evening."  Freaking word filter!  The wh- word is even in the game!

I don't recall them impacting the main quest in any really meaningful way

That's because it's a different kind of RPG.  Sandbox games aren't entirely about the main quest.

[Fudzie]

Theduke2 wrote...

I talked to my characters, gave them gifts, went through a couple laughable romances. I don't really like the gift system, which to me just further turns companions into a minigame of gaining approval so you can do romances, learn their class specialties, go on their simple side quests. I thought Morrigan, shrew that she is, had the most interesting and novel side story with Flemeth, but only really truly enjoyed Oghren...and his need to woo the ladies and get laid. I don't know what that says about me, but as far as I can tell, my reputation on this thread bottomed out long ago.

In most storytelling, characters have arcs where they develop, learn something powerful about themselves and the way they see the world, grow or change in some meaningful or profound way. I didn't get that from the characters, even after doing their side quests, especially Sten and Shale and Lilianna...well, most of them, actually. What is really just happening is that as you build approval, they usually just share with you more of their story, like peeling back an onion. That's great for some people, but felt empty to me. I guess my ideal, as far as character development in a fantasy environment, is probably Thomas Covenant, or maybe Gorath from BAK, or *gasp* maybe even some characters from console RPGs. Thomas Covenant is unrealistic in a game, but I'd still rather my characters did heroic, dastardly, things on their own volition, tied into the story, rather than just shared their stories or engaged in ridiculous romances. Party banter is sometimes humorous, and not poorly written, but doesn't have the emotional impact a real arc can offer. To put it in perspective, I cared a lot more about the character's father in Fallout 3, and was sorry for his loss, more than any of the NPCs in DA:O. They do an excellent job characterizing that character from the first scenes of that game, to his death.

Now take Wynne. Nice enough lady. Has NO side quest, other than the Circle (at least, from what I found, and I think I got her approval fairly high). Joins to help fight the blight. Likes it when I do "the right thing". But she doesn't really do anything dramatic, or change in any meaningful way. If you side with the Templars, she still inexplicably stands by you and doesn't bat an eyelash.

Last time I sided with the Templars, Sten ended up cutting Wynne's head off in the resulting combat between the party and her.

The characters DO have arcs, but their stories are more how they develop around you. Each of the companion quests are supposed to represent turning points in their relationships in relation to you; finding Lelianna's betrayer, finding Sten's sword, finding Alistair's sister, finding Wynne's lost apprentice. The reason why they don't have anything grander or bigger than that for their arcs is because, for the most part, either their story is inextricably tied into yours (such is the case with Alistair and Morrigan) or their stories have already come and gone (Wynne, for instance). Granted, Wynne's not a good example as nothing concrete except for a new NPC healer in the Brecilian woods develops from her companion quest, but for Lelianna and Alistair these quests can lead to a change in personality. After doing Sten's quest, he'll refer to you as Kadan, showing that searching for and returning his sword to him has greatly affected his views of you and your actions.

That might be the hangup; the arc in their stories is decidedly different from and very muted compared to the arcs you express a fondness for; those do sound good, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean that they're missing from this game in particular. I feel like the relative subtlety of the companion arcs in DA:O is what made them feel real to me.

[TokkanRAM]

Theduke2 wrote...

Now take Wynne. Nice enough lady. Has NO side quest, other than the Circle (at least, from what I found, and I think I got her approval fairly high). Joins to help fight the blight. Likes it when I do "the right thing". But she doesn't really do anything dramatic, or change in any meaningful way. If you side with the Templars, she still inexplicably stands by you and doesn't bat an eyelash.

Uh... She has a side quest, it's called "Wynne's Guilt". It's takes you to Brecillian Forest.

[Driveninhifi]

The thing about all the characters: they are basically all defined by you. Their influence is a direct result of you do, they essentially mold themselves based on your whims.



Even Morrigan - which is why her ending is so jarring as it's disingenuous with the rest of the character development. This is kind of unfortunate, since it would be more realistic for the characters to develop in relation to each other and the general experience they are going through (not changing at all during a war like this is very unrealistic) - if you don't talk to a character they do not develop AT ALL. This isn't meant to be picking on Bioware - all RPG's of this style are like this. Your PC is the center of the story and he/she controls the world. (which also contributes to morrigan's ending feeling a bit off)

[adembroski11]

I would not call Dragon Age ground breaking... I would, however, call it very high quality.



I feel it draws on a lot of influences and brings them together in an incredibly comprehensive and nonsensical way. The world very much reminds me of Krynn and the mood is generally the same, many of the same themes are tackled (though from a somewhat different perspective).



One thing that I actually liked was the use of Elves as slaves in human society with little to no real moral judgment, as though it's just "how it is". I'd really like to see a medieval fantasy game deal with the realities of the time period it's based on in a more "here's how it is, deal with it" kind of way like that. The contemporary human playing the game wants to free those slaves, but the decidedly "Good" character I'm playing doesn't bat an eye. It's just how it is. The philosophical concepts dealing with the rights of the individual really haven't been developed to any meaningful degree as yet, so I imagine in a lot of ways, it doesn't even occur to people that elves are "people too!"

[Fudzie]

Until you tell it to them as an Elf. It's funny watching Lelianna falling all over herself when you chat her up as an elf.

[Elsmallo]

For me the pleasure of the game resides mainly in harking back rather than breaking new ground - leading my party to battle in the mountain temple or mage's tower in gorgeous isometric 3D reminds me of the fun I had playing Baldur's Gate.

Since this is a discussion mostly about the game setting, however, I can only offer one thing that (I think) hasn't already been said. My head begins to drop with fantasy when I start thinking 'this is all great, but who makes all the food?'

The DA universe has its plus and minus points for me, and overall I feel the writers deserve credit for creating their own universe from scratch. Nonetheless, I feel myself questioning it fairly often. There doesn't seem to be a credible real-world economic system binding the place together, which makes a lot of the history seem fairly arbitrary to me. The background is mostly centred around emotional and personal differences - revenge, mistrust, arrogance etc. There's a (slightly too) robust spiritual system - andraste, the darkspawn, the fade and the linkage of spirits and demons to the material world, which ties up the 'fantasy' parts fairly well. There's a lot of social and political and religious forces in the mix which do their best to convince you, but I think it's the lack of economic incentives for actions that leave you with that 'just how it is' feeling. Ultimately, I found myself running around doing the quests without much genuine interest in the history and setting.

Games based on well-established fantasy franchises have a huge advantage over newer efforts in that they can rely on instant authenticity, and players come into them normally well-versed (or at least keen to learn) and thus more willing to suspend disbelief and immerse themselves. The BG series is a case in point - although for me my first experience of D&D forgotten realms, the fact that there was a history and pedigree to the universe beyond the game did a lot to help me accept it. The gameworld was also superbly introduced in Candlekeep and then the first quest concerned an economic problem - the Nashkell iron shortage - which made the place feel alive and breathing, as well as downplaying the PC's initial significance. Obviously, anything based around Tolkein or Star Wars is going to suffer few problems in this regard - while not allowing much room for originality either.

I think the devs are doing the right thing in introducing the DA novel and p&p game alongside the main game. Truthfully, I find it's quite hard to play a new game and simultaneously get to know an entire new universe by scratch - you're keen on the one hand to just get out there and bash some heads and on the other to treat the experience properly and pay attention. In time, as the universe is built upon, perhaps this burden will ease.

In terms of the characters, I again have mixed feelings. Like many here I warmed to Ohgren easily, despite (or because of) the fairly familiar stereotype. Morrigan reminds me of someone I knew at university (not hot, sadly) but I like her look, at least, and Alistair is generally likeable. The others I more or less left alone. I'm eternally comparing them unfairly to the BG joinable NPC's, which is eternally unfair. I loved the BG2 portraits and found they gave a great sense of character which wasn't actually in any sense present in the gameplay at all. You had a 2D portrait, a basic paper-doll and the occasional line of voice-acting, and the rest was just text. I think this gave the player much more scope to use their imagination to fill in the blanks. However great the DA voice-acting and character models are, they actually require less of your own input and are in my opinion therefore less engaging. I generally enjoyed the challenge of getting to know them, however, even if I was worried a little too much with working out what the 'right answer' was and their corresponding gameplay benefits.

Overall I agree with the poster on points and can sympathise with some of his disappointment. I recognise, however, that I am not easy to please, and have overwhelmingly enjoyed DA despite my reservations. It's not easy to reinvent the wheel, and I think credit is due to this fairly ambitious effort. 

Modifié par Elsmallo, 17 novembre 2009 - 06:46 .

[Lughsan35]

Malkut wrote...

Theduke2 wrote...

Strip away these elements, and you're left with an incredibly generic, Tolkien-esque universe. Yawn.

Yeah, I have to agree with the guy above.  If you think that having a group of stumpy cave people with beards makes a story "Tolkien-esque", then you're really selling the man's accomplishments short.

And if you don't think that Tolkien didn't touch on some pretty heavy stuff that applies just as much  to the real world as his own, then you need to reread the books with a more critical eye.

I have and remain unimpressed with JRR 's pacing... too many asides with no real purpose other than look kids I want to sing... or cook or indulge in Heraldry that has no place in the very real and current chase scene that is unfolding..

Frankly I don't care what frank the baker's favorite recipe is as too little fat potheads are streaking through the village at night with death itself on their heels...