206 réponses à ce sujet

[Slugwood]

fathomless33 wrote...

Great then, i cant wait for Biowares next game, it's an RPG based on you running a coffee shop that the hero of the story comes in on thursdays.

I'm late, but I just have to say—there are so many different ways in which this could go amazingly well.  You might have to substitute silly coffee-brewing mini-games for that old clichéd "combat" nonsense... but there's a ton of potential for interactivity and storytelling.

Restrictions are often amazing catalysts for creativity.

ON TOPIC: I'm hemming and hawing over DA2's story.  I do feel like the overall themes were daring, and my emotional state when I realized I was trying to morally justify mass murder on the part of my love interest was...well, I was reeling for hours.  That kind of impact is rare.  But I wish there was more connectivity between acts because sometimes I felt like I was making pivotal decisions without enough information...information Hawke had, but I didn't.  It was frustrating, and jarring on many occasions.

[Greed1914]

I'll give the story credit for being thought-provoking in its depictions of the Templars and mages. The easy choice is to go with the mages since they are oppressed, but then we constantly run into mages who are corrupted. At the same time, we have decent Templars like Cullen, but then others that abuse their power. Yes, lots of mages turn out to be blood mages, including the First Enchanter who constantly harped that not all mages were blood mages, but as Varric said, the two sides were reacting to each other.


As for the choices, I'm not sure where I stand. I enjoyed all the options given by Origins, such as flat out ignoring or killing companions, but at the same time, making outcomes the same and having choices be more about reactions makes for a stronger narrative. Hopefully, we can somehow get both in the next game.

[Zan Mura]

MortalEngines wrote...

This definitely sums up the feelings I've had for the game. Fantastic story, let down by unpolished and rushed mechanics. People beat up the game for not feeling as 'epic' as Origins, but I love that, I'm tired of having the "started as nothing but became a hero!" story line.

I mean, I love my Warden, but I feel much more closer to Hawke. When I'm playing the Warden, I feel like some story book hero but when I play Hawke I feel like a PERSON.

I definitely like DA2, no doubt about that. And especially because it's rather something different from the norm. But there's no way around the fact that epicness is something I will *never* tire of. While the BG series, KOTOR, Jade Empire and ME had a lot of things going for them... one of the big basics was knowing that your actions mattered. That your protagonist was on the centerstage of events that would affect the entire world. Or if not so much affect it, then at least on a personal level meant that you were meant for some truly great things.

DA2 doesn't fall short really, but it is closer to the restraints of realism than what I would like. The political leader of a city has zero appeal to me, since I'm not at all a politically inclined person. But the story was still good enough that I HAD to like it, because I got to know and relate to the people of the story.

Still easy to see where people are coming from though. Do you want to rise to become a God? Do you want to be the badass who ends up saving the entire galaxy from a cycle of extinction? Or do you want to be the champion of some random city on a planet set in medieval age? Epicness is like the myth of everlasting love, it represents things that all people dream of. Things that are in practice impossible to find.

[Annie_Dear]

Relshar wrote...

If people think this is a good game after playing DA:O, then they wouldn't know what a good game is if it slapped them in the face with a wet fish.

Opinions are like a-holes: Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

[Rob Sabbaggio]

Totally agree with the original post, which was excellent. Overall themes, plots, characters, were incredible, I never got as involved emotionally in DAO. It more than made up for some of the bugs and mechanic changes I didnt like as much. I really liked Hawke more than the Warden, and I hope we get to play Hawke again. Hopefully, as it sounds like they are looking for the Hawke and the Warden, we could get to play both in future!

One other thing that was good was the optional nature of some of the quests. I never found Fenris, I kept wondering who these upgrades were for in shops! And on these threads I keep hearing references to Nathaniel and other characters I never met. This means I am definitely going to go back.

The only thing stopping me from re-loading and trying again to see what would happen with different choices is the scripting bugs for Merrill which caused me to have her last conversation before the clan massacre (I'll admit, I thought she was talking about the mirror!) and also meant that in the final VO Isabella stayed with me, not Merrill. I'll wait for a patch, and some new DLC as well.

[Funker Shepard]

AntiChri5 wrote...

DA2 was an incredibly emotional experience for me. Definitely moreso then Origins or ME2.

When you strip out all of the mechanics, that is what matters.

Yep, definitely. Also agree with a lot of points the OP brings up - as well as the threat topic.

[cast_]

Act 1 was fine, Act 2 was brilliant, Act 3 and the ending was a total mess. I don't mind sad endings, my favorite RPG ever had a sad ending (persona 3), but this wasn't sad, it was lame. Nothing you did mattered and you just bail at the end? Retarded. Worst Bioware story with ease.

[JOwnsYou]

I read nothing but the title and I have to state how disappointed I am. People keep saying its only generally considered bad because the trolls got hold of it on the review sites but no, its truly on the same level as Fable 3...bad.

To repeat what I said on Kotaku.com, the next time BioWare wants to export game development to Obsidian, please don't. Dragon Age: Origins is my 3rd favorite game ever, please don't ruin the IP.

[Sammyjb]

Vandicus wrote...

I find this statement somewhat ironic. The difference I see between DA2 and DA:O is that in DA2, quests had decisions that were made that had results that could be seen playing out. DA:O just gave us epilogue. The four major choices in DA:O, in the grand scheme of things are irrelevant. Chosing who to rule Fereldan is a somewhat relevant choice, but I haven't seen it actually matter yet. Save or don't save a single village in an Arling, doesnt' actually affect armies in DA:O. Work with elves or werewolves, only relevant to a single Dalish tribe. Orzammer was somewhat more interesting, but only because it was epilogue, yet to see anything real from it. Save the Circle or annul it, in the long run, Fereldan will still have a Circle. DA2 made choices more personal, because the results come back to reward the player or give them a swift kick in the pants. It changed the side questing system and questing as a whole from being filler content(lyrium smuggling, killing wolves,spiders,bears, ect., collecting random gems, and I could go on forever, listing perhaps 90% of Origins quests) that had relevance almost purely in gear and xp terms, to being things that my characters did, or refused to do, based on beliefs.

To me DA:O feels the same everytime I play it. The only "new" thing is the Origins story if I haven't played it yet, and those don't really have much variation within themselves either. I sincerely despised the Fade and Deep Roads on subsequent playthroughs. I only got to see my decisions through an the viewing glass of an epilogue, and what annoys me the most now is that DA:O, which advertised as dark fantasy, had a yay everyone survives and goes home happy option now for almost every single quest, the decisions weren't difficult or complex at all.

Well I guess this is just a variance of opinion. The little things in Origins is what made it great for me- Dagna and the Circle, helping the Orzammar girl become a noble, helping Ser Otto purge a warehouse- those things I remember. Quite honestly, an perhaps this is just because I haven't played it nearly as much, I can't remember a single meaningful thing that I chose to do. Also, I don't see the great "epilogue playing out for you" that you do. I can't remember a single quest that I did that had any real repurcussions besides "You made me mad, and now I'll kill you" or "you helped me out in the past, here's some gold". Except for Aveline and Donnic.

[Vandicus]

Sammyjb wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

I find this statement somewhat ironic. The difference I see between DA2 and DA:O is that in DA2, quests had decisions that were made that had results that could be seen playing out. DA:O just gave us epilogue. The four major choices in DA:O, in the grand scheme of things are irrelevant. Chosing who to rule Fereldan is a somewhat relevant choice, but I haven't seen it actually matter yet. Save or don't save a single village in an Arling, doesnt' actually affect armies in DA:O. Work with elves or werewolves, only relevant to a single Dalish tribe. Orzammer was somewhat more interesting, but only because it was epilogue, yet to see anything real from it. Save the Circle or annul it, in the long run, Fereldan will still have a Circle. DA2 made choices more personal, because the results come back to reward the player or give them a swift kick in the pants. It changed the side questing system and questing as a whole from being filler content(lyrium smuggling, killing wolves,spiders,bears, ect., collecting random gems, and I could go on forever, listing perhaps 90% of Origins quests) that had relevance almost purely in gear and xp terms, to being things that my characters did, or refused to do, based on beliefs.

To me DA:O feels the same everytime I play it. The only "new" thing is the Origins story if I haven't played it yet, and those don't really have much variation within themselves either. I sincerely despised the Fade and Deep Roads on subsequent playthroughs. I only got to see my decisions through an the viewing glass of an epilogue, and what annoys me the most now is that DA:O, which advertised as dark fantasy, had a yay everyone survives and goes home happy option now for almost every single quest, the decisions weren't difficult or complex at all.

Well I guess this is just a variance of opinion. The little things in Origins is what made it great for me- Dagna and the Circle, helping the Orzammar girl become a noble, helping Ser Otto purge a warehouse- those things I remember. Quite honestly, an perhaps this is just because I haven't played it nearly as much, I can't remember a single meaningful thing that I chose to do. Also, I don't see the great "epilogue playing out for you" that you do. I can't remember a single quest that I did that had any real repurcussions besides "You made me mad, and now I'll kill you" or "you helped me out in the past, here's some gold". Except for Aveline and Donnic.

Feynriel is a good example of the type of DA2 quest I'm referring to just off the top of my head. Also, I didn't see the DA:O epilogue instead of visible results thing as great either. That was my point.

[Beerfish]

I just finished my 1st play through. I agree with the majority of what the op said except for the ending to some extent. When you have invested a lot in the companions during the game there should be at least some cursory wrap ups as to where they went or what happened to them, even if you will be seeing them again in potential future offerings. I also was not sure about the meaning of it stating the person that stayed with the champion as it was not the person I had romanced.

OP is certainly right about the dark part of the game. I was genuinly shocked and aghast at what happened to the mother,

[Sammyjb]

Vandicus wrote...

Feynriel is a good example of the type of DA2 quest I'm referring to just off the top of my head. Also, I didn't see the DA:O epilogue instead of visible results thing as great either. That was my point.

I didn't love the epilogue either: but I found it better than the one or two good visible things we saw. I remember Feynriel now that you say it, but I don't see much of an impact on what I did: he just headed off to Tevinter.

I think DA ]['s epilogue in story is good in theory, but not very well executed. I hope they come up with a better system than either than these for DA ]I[.

I think we both agree that epilogues are things to be worked on for the (hopefully) next entry.

[DanteCousland]

This game is maraas compared to the first one...

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Wintermist wrote...

Not to say anything bad about Dragon Age 2 but I hope Dragon Age 3 is more like Dragon Age 1.

I don't want to go backwards I want go forward. Dragon Age: Origins was a great introduction to Dragon Age Universe, Dragon Age II was an overall better story (even if the flashback structure was not as good as it could have been) and more likable and relatable characters.

[Ziggeh]

Sammyjb wrote...

I can't remember a single quest that I did that had any real repurcussions besides "You made me mad, and now I'll kill you" or "you helped me out in the past, here's some gold". Except for Aveline and Donnic.

It's possible that's a good thing. That you didn't notice that the paths could diverge because it felt like natural progression. Nothing I hate more than having it highlighted, "hey, remember that decision you made? yeah, well, this is the consequence".

It's equally possible there just weren't any.

What I'm not keen on is that a day after finishing it, I don't really remember any of the decisions themselves. In Origins I think we'd all agree what the "big decisions" were, as they were complex and required though, even angst and personal reflection.The only thing that even gave me pause was whether stopping fruitcakes from a massacre was worth a potential massacre.

[Vandicus]

Sammyjb wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Feynriel is a good example of the type of DA2 quest I'm referring to just off the top of my head. Also, I didn't see the DA:O epilogue instead of visible results thing as great either. That was my point.

I didn't love the epilogue either: but I found it better than the one or two good visible things we saw. I remember Feynriel now that you say it, but I don't see much of an impact on what I did: he just headed off to Tevinter.

I think DA ]['s epilogue in story is good in theory, but not very well executed. I hope they come up with a better system than either than these for DA ]I[.

I think we both agree that epilogues are things to be worked on for the (hopefully) next entry.

Its more apparent if the player doesn't stick with the uber good(seeming) options. Even accessing his dream quest is based off of the choices in the previous quest. The quests one can access and how people react are changed based off of previous quests.

[Vandicus]

Ziggeh wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...

I can't remember a single quest that I did that had any real repurcussions besides "You made me mad, and now I'll kill you" or "you helped me out in the past, here's some gold". Except for Aveline and Donnic.

It's possible that's a good thing. That you didn't notice that the paths could diverge because it felt like natural progression. Nothing I hate more than having it highlighted, "hey, remember that decision you made? yeah, well, this is the consequence".

It's equally possible there just weren't any.

What I'm not keen on is that a day after finishing it, I don't really remember any of the decisions themselves. In Origins I think we'd all agree what the "big decisions" were, as they were complex and required though, even angst and personal reflection.The only thing that even gave me pause was whether stopping fruitcakes from a massacre was worth a potential massacre.

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...

I can't remember a single quest that I did that had any real repurcussions besides "You made me mad, and now I'll kill you" or "you helped me out in the past, here's some gold". Except for Aveline and Donnic.

It's possible that's a good thing. That you didn't notice that the paths could diverge because it felt like natural progression. Nothing I hate more than having it highlighted, "hey, remember that decision you made? yeah, well, this is the consequence".

It's equally possible there just weren't any.

What I'm not keen on is that a day after finishing it, I don't really remember any of the decisions themselves. In Origins I think we'd all agree what the "big decisions" were, as they were complex and required though, even angst and personal reflection.The only thing that even gave me pause was whether stopping fruitcakes from a massacre was worth a potential massacre.

Because if an RPG only consists of story, and one story that cannot be changed, then you play it once, know the story and are done. I mean how many books do you read twice in a row? Well I suppose some people do that, but unless you're forgetful or think you didn't get it first time it makes little sense. Good story is fine. But it is an RPG. Aside from the story Bioware neglected almost everything RPGs are about. Only exception are the companions, but it is not  a dating sim either.

The art would have been to take this story and make the player feel he accomplished something. That Hawke did. But you never really get that. Between being pushed around and being helpless you can just follow the one and only path.

[chester013]

I agree with the OP, great story very well told.

I loved that I'm not the hero, the white knight who rides in, does the nigh impossible and cleans up everyone's mess. Try as you may to avert the tragic event in DA2 there's just nothing you can do to stop the fanatics on a collision course, even if you wanted to just wash your hands of it and walk away there's no avoiding it and you end up loosing everything.

Flemeth's narration on the 'Destiny' trailer makes a lot of sense after playing this game, sounded like like marketing waffle at first. You sly dogs Bioware.

Modifié par chester013, 20 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[Ziggeh]

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Because if an RPG only consists of story, and one story that cannot be changed, then you play it once, know the story and are done. I mean how many books do you read twice in a row?

I do that constantly. Films even more so, there are films I've literally watched dozens of times. Familiarity alters the experience, it doesn't render it pointless.

Only RPG i've ever made it through twice was ME2. I dislike the sensation of having "do-overs", even if that's a meta problem.

[Eterna]

The companions also seem to be more developed, At least in my opinion. I actually cared about what happened to them.

[Robhuzz]

I pretty much agree there. Especially the dark and drama part. BioWare seems fully okay with killing your siser (or brother) your mom, having your friends betray you and what not. I was actually furious at the templars for taking bethany to the circle while I'd really want to have just killed those goons (I mean there were just 3 templars, and at night you just dump their bodies into the sea, no big deal)

After playing DA2 (loved the game btw) I'm no longer sure about what might happen in ME3. Before DA2 I was convinced BioWare would not just kill off a bunch of squadmembers in either arrival or ME3 (or both). Now, I'm no longer sure. Heck, Arrival DLC is going to be tense and ME3 even more!

Modifié par Robhuzz, 20 mars 2011 - 07:00 .

[Vandicus]

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Because if an RPG only consists of story, and one story that cannot be changed, then you play it once, know the story and are done. I mean how many books do you read twice in a row?

I do that constantly. Films even more so, there are films I've literally watched dozens of times. Familiarity alters the experience, it doesn't render it pointless.

Only RPG i've ever made it through twice was ME2. I dislike the sensation of having "do-overs", even if that's a meta problem.

Lol, well I usually play a good RPG 5-6 times. But I can't watch the same movie or read the same book twice short after. Some months later maybe or half a year. Guess people are different.