260 réponses à ce sujet

[A5ko]

I think this post is too mature for Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par A5ko, 17 mars 2011 - 05:57 .

[jds1bio]

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

What a ridiculous thread. If you thought the subject matter of DA2 was emotionally challenging or deep then I feel sorry for you.

Your pity is noted.  Thanks for your opinion.  Can you offer up a game that is more emotionally challenging or deep than DA2?

[Aesieru]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

In any case, the truly mature stuff is going to be the complex and darker stories or things that have alot of depth to them, having boobs and what not doesn't make something mature, just immature or normal... depending on how it's exaggerated.

I agree. And I think that DAII does have the complex and dark story with depth, etc. DAII is not all about Isabela's chest (as much as it pains me to admit).

I can agree with you that the Templar vs Mage thing has some complexity, but the game pretty much forces you against mages a lot throughout the game and they are always painted in a negative light so that siding with them is really just because they're oppressed, but being oppressed is irrelevant because of what you encounter every time, and yet at the same time the Templars are the oppressers and "protects of the righteous", but they're corrupt too as in DA, but worse than that they are shown only in a negative light, with no positives to the idea...

Whichever choice you make really ends the same and the game may not be so much entirely LINEAR, but it does literally push you to a point that the only reason you'd reject is because of a personal desire to change the story-flow, such as "well I'll side with them because "insert personal reason", which you might say is story or roleplay or normal, but in the way it does it..."

It's forced.

DA1 however had a lot more complexity and potential, and I imagine if DA2 was actually Origins style it would be much better in the darker complexity department.

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...
But then how would you fare against a real-life Dungeon Master?  That DM is going to put more limitations on you than any computer game.

Continuing the chess anology. Chess works because certain pieces can do certain things on a limited gameboard.

Now lets transfer that to an RPG, what if your character could only move diagonally ? That would be a bit silly wouldn't it?
Yet it works fine in chess because in chess it's only a game function. Just like the board.

The trick of being a good DM is to let the player do what they want without them being able to "break" your story. It's much easier as a DM because you can adapt in real time. A computer RPG can't do that.

If you transfered DA2 to PnP then any player I've ever played with will want to know what there character was doing for the 3 year time skip while Kirkwall went to hell. And why they could only react once it was too late to change that single outcome.
Without those 3 years that are skipped over DA2 comes acorss as completely forcing you down a pre-set path.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 mars 2011 - 05:59 .

[Carlsbad]

jds1bio wrote...

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

What a ridiculous thread. If you thought the subject matter of DA2 was emotionally challenging or deep then I feel sorry for you.

Your pity is noted.  Thanks for your opinion.  Can you offer up a game that is more emotionally challenging or deep than DA2?

Read a book instead.

[PurpleJesus]

jds1bio wrote...

And I'm not talking about the M rating or the behavior of some forum users.  I'm talking about the game's subject matter and its gameplay. 

In some respects it is much easier to see ourselves in a purely good vs.evil. scenario (like in Origins), where no matter our deepest flaws, we are clearly the good guy. We may also enjoy dressing up our characters in different armors like they are dolls, and when we lose such an ability in DA2, we are really losing the ability to control.  Perhaps some gamers are being confronted with these situations for the very first time in their lives, and don't quite have a handle on them yet.  But analyzing these situations help us understand ourselves, and perhaps that is what scares people the most about this game.

Anyone who has ever been screwed over by a family member, suffered a family loss, or had to make a decision regarding another family member's health will recognize that the writing and the treatment the characters are given in DA2 is completely plausible, and just may hit home for some of you like it did for me.   For my first playthrough, with a party made up of mostly women who have lost greatly, but still find something to live for, the experience has been like no other in gaming so far. 

As for the gameplay, there have been lots of complaints over the oft-used settings where the combat takes place.  Well, consider a different game for a moment, like chess.  Do chess players complain about chess because it's the same board over and over?  Or that the opening moves are always the same ones?  Or that the chess pieces are always coming from the same place?  Or that the game doesn't allow them to plan ahead as easily as they did with the last game (checkers)?  No.  Chess players allow their maturity to guide them to discover the grand depth of the game locked inside an an 8x8 square.

So what do you think?  Are gamers mature enough for DA2?

They made DA2 to appeal more to children . 
im a ranked chess player , you are out to lunch... 

They have had Super computers trying for years to solve chess , that is to find every possible combination of moves .
It has yet to be done. 
It took players 14 hours to solve DA2 ...  

Perhaps we can make chess more mature , by having pawns randomly appear on the board ,  when taking a piece they explode into blood splatters , we could hang a disco ball on the board to simulate combat , then have the rook try to hump the Kings leg every once in awhile ....... 

Don't even try to compare one to the most tactical games invented by man , to DA2 .

[jds1bio]

Carlsbad wrote...

I sincerely hope OP's post is a joke.

Ok, let's say it isn't a joke.  What would your reply to that be?

[Carlsbad]

jds1bio wrote...

Carlsbad wrote...

I sincerely hope OP's post is a joke.

Ok, let's say it isn't a joke.  What would your reply to that be?

[Aesieru]

PurpleJesus wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

And I'm not talking about the M rating or the behavior of some forum users.  I'm talking about the game's subject matter and its gameplay. 

In some respects it is much easier to see ourselves in a purely good vs.evil. scenario (like in Origins), where no matter our deepest flaws, we are clearly the good guy. We may also enjoy dressing up our characters in different armors like they are dolls, and when we lose such an ability in DA2, we are really losing the ability to control.  Perhaps some gamers are being confronted with these situations for the very first time in their lives, and don't quite have a handle on them yet.  But analyzing these situations help us understand ourselves, and perhaps that is what scares people the most about this game.

Anyone who has ever been screwed over by a family member, suffered a family loss, or had to make a decision regarding another family member's health will recognize that the writing and the treatment the characters are given in DA2 is completely plausible, and just may hit home for some of you like it did for me.   For my first playthrough, with a party made up of mostly women who have lost greatly, but still find something to live for, the experience has been like no other in gaming so far. 

As for the gameplay, there have been lots of complaints over the oft-used settings where the combat takes place.  Well, consider a different game for a moment, like chess.  Do chess players complain about chess because it's the same board over and over?  Or that the opening moves are always the same ones?  Or that the chess pieces are always coming from the same place?  Or that the game doesn't allow them to plan ahead as easily as they did with the last game (checkers)?  No.  Chess players allow their maturity to guide them to discover the grand depth of the game locked inside an an 8x8 square.

So what do you think?  Are gamers mature enough for DA2?

They made DA2 to appeal more to children . 
im a ranked chess player , you are out to lunch... 

They have had Super computers trying for years to solve chess , that is to find every possible combination of moves .
It has yet to be done. 
It took players 14 hours to solve DA2 ...  

Perhaps we can make chess more mature , by having pawns randomly appear on the board ,  when taking a piece they explode into blood splatters , we could hang a disco ball on the board to simulate combat , then have the rook try to hump the Kings leg every once in awhile ....... 

Don't even try to compare one to the most tactical games invented by man , to DA2 .

The chess-board analogy does work in the game design theorem sense, when you look at it in perspective.

But objections aside, Wizard Chess from Harry Potter would be much more entertaining.

[jds1bio]

PurpleJesus wrote...

They made DA2 to appeal more to children . 
im a ranked chess player , you are out to lunch... 

They have had Super computers trying for years to solve chess , that is to find every possible combination of moves .
It has yet to be done. 
It took players 14 hours to solve DA2 ...  

Perhaps we can make chess more mature , by having pawns randomly appear on the board ,  when taking a piece they explode into blood splatters , we could hang a disco ball on the board to simulate combat , then have the rook try to hump the Kings leg every once in awhile ....... 

Don't even try to compare one to the most tactical games invented by man , to DA2 .

Hold on, grandmaster. You're telling me that as a ranked chess player, a presumably analytically gifted person, that you believe that the entirety of DA2's combat across all classes, abilities, and difficulty levels was conquered by someone in 14 hours?  Or are you saying that someone who reached the end of DA2 once has the game completely figured out. That's like saying I solved chess by winning one chess game.

[LordAiden]

Honestly, I think the amount of enjoyment you get from this game is very much affected by how much you can connect to the characters in the story. The last big decision you make in the game is easy, unless you really think about the people you've interacted with along the way and how that would really affect the decision.

I've played every bioware rpg, and this one has by far the most unique story yet. Every rpg is about saving the world/city/universe, so that's a given. In most games you have a character that's following a series of tasks... maybe it's their responsibility, or for profit, or just a job. Either way most of the story is driven by external influences. This game did a good job of internalizing most of the motivation, the plots and decisions seem more personal, the NPCs have strong stakes in the outcomes of various quests. Every decision felt more personal than in most other games.

[jds1bio]

Carlsbad wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Carlsbad wrote...

I sincerely hope OP's post is a joke.

Ok, let's say it isn't a joke.  What would your reply to that be?

Please use your own words or leave the thread, thanks.

[Therion942]

AAHAHAHAHAAHHA
OH WOW

[Aesieru]

I don't want this thread to die, I had some interest in it and it's a good distraction, plus I got a few game suggestions, though I'm not sure about the Legacy of Kain thing, I might try Planescape.

[Carlsbad]

jds1bio wrote...

Please use your own words or leave the thread, thanks.

I'd tell you that you're a philistine and you need to get cultured, but I'm afraid that if Dragon Age's ****** poor story is capable of moving you emotionally, something like Citizen Kane or Taxi Driver will make you want to kill yourself.

Modifié par Carlsbad, 17 mars 2011 - 06:12 .

[AkiKishi]

LordAiden wrote...

Honestly, I think the amount of enjoyment you get from this game is very much affected by how much you can connect to the characters in the story. The last big decision you make in the game is easy, unless you really think about the people you've interacted with along the way and how that would really affect the decision.

I've played every bioware rpg, and this one has by far the most unique story yet. Every rpg is about saving the world/city/universe, so that's a given. In most games you have a character that's following a series of tasks... maybe it's their responsibility, or for profit, or just a job. Either way most of the story is driven by external influences. This game did a good job of internalizing most of the motivation, the plots and decisions seem more personal, the NPCs have strong stakes in the outcomes of various quests. Every decision felt more personal than in most other games.

I'd agree with that except that being taken out of the world for 3 years at a time makes a mockary of the whole thing.

Anyone who remember KOTOR will probably recall how you greeted the "suprise" determined quite a bit how people judged the game. I hated KOTOR, because the clues were everywhere but you still had to run the maze in ignorance until the game was ready. I get the exact same feeling playing DA2.

The difference is, with KOTOR l liked the combat , in DA2 I don't.

[Carlsbad]

Therion942 wrote...

AAHAHAHAHAAHHA
OH WOW

I know, right?

[Aesieru]

I liked KOTOR, I had an idea but I was surprised the first time... not the 15 times after, lol.

[Il Divo]

Aesieru wrote...

Whichever choice you make really ends the same and the game may not be so much entirely LINEAR, but it does literally push you to a point that the only reason you'd reject is because of a personal desire to change the story-flow, such as "well I'll side with them because "insert personal reason", which you might say is story or roleplay or normal, but in the way it does it..."

It's forced.

It depends. What I really enjoyed was how Fenris/Anders were intended to portray two opposing extremes in the Mage-Templar conflict. Most of the time in DA2 is spent exploring both sides of the issue.

It actually reminded me very much of the graphic novel Watchmen. It takes place during the cold war, and one of the characters creates a plan designed to unite the U.S. and Soviet Union, believing that it's only a matter of time before the two destroy each other. The Mages/Templars struck me as a similar conflict; Kirkwall is simply a powder keg waiting to explode and Hawke happens to be right in the middle when things go wrong.

DA1 however had a lot more complexity and potential, and I imagine if DA2 was actually Origins style it would be much better in the darker complexity department.

I must disagree. Although I found Alistair/Morrigan to be more complex than the DA2 cast, as a whole I was not impressed by the Origins plot-line. At least, not from a moral perspective.

Ex: When presented with the option to execute Loghain, I did not feel like I had presented with a moral dilemma.

While the choices in DA:O are enjoyable, they struck me as merely role-playing opportunities (which is a good thing, as this is an RPG), but from an outside perspective I never felt the need to truly think out the right/wrong course of action.

[yellow cake]

jds1bio wrote...

As for the gameplay, there have been lots of complaints over the oft-used settings where the combat takes place.  Well, consider a different game for a moment, like chess.  Do chess players complain about chess because it's the same board over and over?  Or that the opening moves are always the same ones?  Or that the chess pieces are always coming from the same place?  Or that the game doesn't allow them to plan ahead as easily as they did with the last game (checkers)?  No.  Chess players allow their maturity to guide them to discover the grand depth of the game locked inside an an 8x8 square.

........as a life time chess player and as a gamer (not a hardcore gamer but a gamer) i thought this was just funny in that you made this comparison. 1. the board does not effect the game of chess and yes some people get diffrent styled boards to change it up. i have a traditional board a frosted glass board a christmas board (green and red) a very funny "gang chess" board of blood vs crips (red and blue and the pieces make me laugh) but it never bothers me that i mostly play on my traditional board because the "world" doesn't matter in chance it relates in no way. now in a video game it does. people like to be drawn into a game and escape if you will the reality if even for a brief moment. much like a movie only one you can control and this applies greatly to an rpg game. going into the diffrent yet same cave for the entire game makes this effect go away. chess pieces only startat the same place but the number of ways that they attack and defend from is vast so..yeah. and opening moves are always the same? it makes me cringe to hear that because...no..just no not ever no. people that repeat are people that lose. it not even always a pawn so just no. as for planning yeah we can never plan to far ahead in chess or even a video game unless the game is...well i can't think of a video game to where you could really plan in great a deal. and for the maturity i rarely show it. just my two cents on that post like i said it made me laugh cause just....no



super mario rpg > all

[mesmerizedish]

Il Divo wrote...

*snip*

Basically, all of this.

[17thknight]

Yeah, I just don't know if I'm mature enough to handle a world where morality exists in this nebulous grey area where upper right means "good", lower right means "bad", and middle means "sarcastic ******" or "I want a sandwich".

Such a mature, thoughtful, almost...philosophical view of society.

[AkiKishi]

Aesieru wrote...

I liked KOTOR, I had an idea but I was surprised the first time... not the 15 times after, lol.

I only played once. I really wish Obsidian had been able to complete KOTORII as they wanted. It's one of the great unknowns in RPG history.

[Aesieru]

Il Divo wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Whichever choice you make really ends the same and the game may not be so much entirely LINEAR, but it does literally push you to a point that the only reason you'd reject is because of a personal desire to change the story-flow, such as "well I'll side with them because "insert personal reason", which you might say is story or roleplay or normal, but in the way it does it..."

It's forced.

It depends. What I really enjoyed was how Fenris/Anders were intended to portray two opposing extremes in the Mage-Templar conflict. Most of the time in DA2 is spent exploring both sides of the issue.

It actually reminded me very much of the graphic novel Watchmen. It takes place during the cold war, and one of the characters creates a plan designed to unite the U.S. and Soviet Union, believing that it's only a matter of time before the two destroy each other. The Mages/Templars struck me as a similar conflict; Kirkwall is simply a powder keg waiting to explode and Hawke happens to be right in the middle when things go wrong.

DA1 however had a lot more complexity and potential, and I imagine if DA2 was actually Origins style it would be much better in the darker complexity department.

I must disagree. Although I found Alistair/Morrigan to be more complex than the DA2 cast, as a whole I was not impressed by the Origins plot-line. At least, not from a moral perspective.

Ex: When presented with the option to execute Loghain, I did not feel like I had presented with a moral dilemma.

While the choices in DA:O are enjoyable, they struck me as merely role-playing opportunities (which is a good thing, as this is an RPG), but from an outside perspective I never felt the need to truly think out the right/wrong course of action.

I was more indicating the Templar vs Mage thing was a bit more mature, even in the journal entries, in the Dragon Age: Origins game, as opposed to Dragon Age 2.

I thought a few of the ideas were darker, but there was always the over-arching "ultimate good" option, like with the ability to sidestep the sacrifice for the kid's survival in Redcliffe, which meant you had to go to another main-quest area and stay along a certain line, or the werewolves.

Modifié par Aesieru, 17 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[Aesieru]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

I liked KOTOR, I had an idea but I was surprised the first time... not the 15 times after, lol.

I only played once. I really wish Obsidian had been able to complete KOTORII as they wanted. It's one of the great unknowns in RPG history.

Well, Obsidian admits they never even played KoTOR before they made KoTOR II...