125 réponses à ce sujet

[Zing Freelancer]

I had to face palm for five minutes and then scream "WHAT THE **** AM I FIGHTING FOR?" to my monitor when Orsino turned to blood magic...

Now thinking of playing for the second time with a warrior Hawke makes me irc, I dont want to be stuck with Anders as healer again!

[Noatz]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Well that's your opinion I guess, but I prefer both of those in DAO compared to DA2 overall.

I cannot ever grasp why you would think this, but lets just leave it at that.

Firstly I don't want to play Hawke's background, I want to roleplay a character.  I guess that's one of the fundamental problems here... DAO was about roleplaying a character while DA2, like Mass Effect, is more about playing a character Bioware designed.  I prefer the former.

Secondly blood magic is not something only an "anti-mage nut" would want to stop.  It is the calling of demons and considered quite evil in pretty much every other situation we see it in througout both games.  Why Merril can do it so casually and you're not allowed to have a serious problem with it is beyond me.

You're given the option to role play and develop Hawke's character, but what you want instead is to just warp the world to your whims. You may as well play Shepard in ME and complain that you like Saren and agree with him so you therefore you should be able to join up with him. Choice in DA2 isn't perfect (when is it?), but this hardly serves as a good example as to why.

I want my Hawke raised in a family of apostates to be able to slaughter Merril on sight for using blood magic before she can complete the ritual integral to the ongoing plot despite the fact that most templars probably wouldn't go that far.

I want my Hawke to commit sepukku after failing to protect their sibling from the ogre just to **** with the plot and so I can complain about lack of choice. <_<

Modifié par Noatz, 20 mars 2011 - 12:26 .

[Kurupt87]

I want my Anders to die in Awakenings so I can exert some influence over the story and inexplicably he's still there in DA2 to blow the living bejeesus out of the Chantry, despite the game checking for this plot flag!

[ShrinkingFish]

The story of Dragon Age 2 wasn't about Hawke. It was about Kirkwall being the catalyst to a global conflict between Mages and Templars. Hawke was simply the most central character in this tale because he was constantly caught in the middle, between extremists, until the climactic ending when it all came crashing down.

And I do not view Merrill's presence as a weakness in this matter. I view it as a strengthening of your character identity. Since you cannot choose to either kill or abandon Merrill (though you can, technically, choose to abandon her once she reaches Kirkwall) then your character must have reasons and justification for not doing so.

It isn't so much a rp roadblock as it is an rp challenge. Though most people don't like to rp that way and it is only my take on the matter. Personally I'd have liked to slap Sebastian around a few times. But never got the chance.

Sebastian: "If you spare him, I will return to Starkhaven and come back to Kirkwall with such an army!"

Hawke: "No you wont! You'll go home, full of all spit and fire, likely try to retake the city, realize raising an army is 'too hard and scary' go find a new nice, peaceful Chantry to hide in and lock yourself inside! You can't fool me!"

Sebastian: "I will not fight you now... cause... I have reasons. But I WILL be back!"

Hawke: "See?! SEE!? You don't even have the balls to fight for your convictions when the travesty is still fresh!! The High Cleric's corpse is still smoking up there and you're just walking away..."

And then he did... God, that boy needed a beating so bad. At least Fenris stuck to his guns and straight up challenged me!

[Sparda Stonerule]

How exactly was this different than DAO? Having Werewolves or Elves, Templars or Mages, Dwarves or Dwarves/Golems, and Humans or... well there was no choice there; meant nothing. No matter who you sided with in treaties it made no difference because you still received troops in the last battle. All choices did in DA:O was affect the context of quests happening. Same as in DA 2. I mean no matter what you fight the Arch Demon at the end of the game. The blight ends and the lives of the side you sided with are better (shown in epilogue text which is only barely touched upon in the expansions and sequels).

No matter how you look at it the choice system works the same as it always did. Certain things will always happen in both games and you can not bypass them. I liked what I liked in Origins, how my choices were reflected immediately and how I learned about my companions through their reactions to what I just did.

Let's put it this way. Let's say you want to Roleplay your Warden in DA:O as someone who is upset at the drawbacks of becoming a warden. Say you want to Kill Alaister for lying to you when he tells you about your lifespan. You can't. It's because the game doesn't let you. There is no difference between wanting to murder Alaister on the spot nor wanting to end Merrills life then and there.

[focoe]

in DA:O if you side with the dalish, they join you in the final fight, and if u didnt you get the werewolves. no matter what you decide in DA2, all you end up is fighting blood mages, even when you side with them. and you have to kill the top mage and templar no matter what

look we all know that its not real life.  we know they have to guide us down to a certain limited number of endings.  but, hey could have easily given us diplomatic and peaceful options to talk down that mage or templar from being that nuts.  they could have left in the fight sequence and come up with something  creative to keep it in there, like the idol she holds uses her image to fight everyone even though shes surrendered.

Modifié par focoe, 20 mars 2011 - 01:59 .

[Baelyn]

Noatz wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Well that's your opinion I guess, but I prefer both of those in DAO compared to DA2 overall.

I cannot ever grasp why you would think this, but lets just leave it at that.

Firstly I don't want to play Hawke's background, I want to roleplay a character.  I guess that's one of the fundamental problems here... DAO was about roleplaying a character while DA2, like Mass Effect, is more about playing a character Bioware designed.  I prefer the former.

Secondly blood magic is not something only an "anti-mage nut" would want to stop.  It is the calling of demons and considered quite evil in pretty much every other situation we see it in througout both games.  Why Merril can do it so casually and you're not allowed to have a serious problem with it is beyond me.

You're given the option to role play and develop Hawke's character, but what you want instead is to just warp the world to your whims. You may as well play Shepard in ME and complain that you like Saren and agree with him so you therefore you should be able to join up with him. Choice in DA2 isn't perfect (when is it?), but this hardly serves as a good example as to why.

I want my Hawke raised in a family of apostates to be able to slaughter Merril on sight for using blood magic before she can complete the ritual integral to the ongoing plot despite the fact that most templars probably wouldn't go that far.

I want my Hawke to commit sepukku after failing to protect their sibling from the ogre just to **** with the plot and so I can complain about lack of choice. <_<

I may have just found my new favorite person on these forums....

[Helena Tylena]

XX55XX wrote...

You could kill Zevran in the first game when you met him.

Zevran was there for comic relief. He delivered zero imput to the story of Origins, unlike every party member of DAII. BioWare sacrificed that illusion of choice to allow them to weave the party members deeper into the story.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

I thought it was pretty ****** poor design to have mages under lock and key but if you play one no one seems to care.

[TexasToast712]

StingingVelvet wrote...

DA2 disappointed me in the area of choice and playing a character the way I want to, as in him/her having a personality and my decisions in the game being based on that personality.  I think the Merril introduction is a great example why.

Merril wants to open a magic door and so she uses blood magic to summon a demon to do so.  Now, her personal beliefs aside this is a pretty ****g HUGE deal in the world of Dragon Age.  A pro-chantry templar sort of player should want to kill her outright, or at least subdue her.  An Anders-like mage supporter who views evil mages as the reason all mages are hated and feared should certainly want to stop her or leave her or something.  Blood mages are found throughout the game are are always treated as evil characters to be stopped, abominations waiting to happen.

So... what are your potential responses to Merril?

"No problem" or "hey you're naughty but let's keep going."

Is it just me or is that lazy design?  In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.  In DA2 the whole game feels much more on rails and there is nothing I can do there but shrug my shoulders and move on.  For someone roleplaying a templar or something it must be absolutely infuriating.

I felt like there were moments like this all through the game, though this one is a great and easy to understand example.  Thoughts?

I picked option D. I romanced her. LOL

[StingingVelvet]

Noatz wrote...

You're given the option to role play and develop Hawke's character, but what you want instead is to just warp the world to your whims. You may as well play Shepard in ME and complain that you like Saren and agree with him so you therefore you should be able to join up with him. Choice in DA2 isn't perfect (when is it?), but this hardly serves as a good example as to why.

I want my Hawke raised in a family of apostates to be able to slaughter Merril on sight for using blood magic before she can complete the ritual integral to the ongoing plot despite the fact that most templars probably wouldn't go that far.

I want my Hawke to commit sepukku after failing to protect their sibling from the ogre just to **** with the plot and so I can complain about lack of choice. <_<

You don't need to explain it to me, I understand the reasons and style they were going for.  I am saying I disagree with it.

Like I said on page one I know Bioware make story-focused and more linear RPGs with a cinematic style.  I have played every Bioware game ever made, so I know they are not as choice-focused as games like Gothic or Fallout.  I know that.  My point is that I feel DA:O hid this better, did a better job of it, than DA2.  In DA2 my lack of real power to change anything seemed much more in my face and obvious than it did in Origins.

[Bmeszaros]

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of the Framed Narrative is that the ending is already written. What turned out to be achilles heel wasn't the overarking theme of Mages Vs. Templars, but how it was ultimately delivered. If I haven't already said so, I thought most of writing, as far as characters and their motivations, were good.

Personally, I think they could have had more integration as far choices effects things without fundamentally changing the story, I feel like it was billed as a "first" in the realm of Interactive Framed Narratives, but it truly failed to deliver on that promise... Some people want to blame the conversation wheel, but I actually liked along with voice acting for Hawke.

To each his own, certainly, but to my own, Framing a story around one persons exploits and expecting you to make, what turn out to be, meaningless choices, seems like it could have been easier to just do away with the whole concept of having a voiced main character or even the option to say anything, but why does it matter if you're pushed to the exact same climax?

I thought the Bigger Picture was good, I thought the way it got us there was poor.

[Big I]

Zing Freelancer wrote...

I had to face palm for five minutes and then scream "WHAT THE **** AM I FIGHTING FOR?" to my monitor when Orsino turned to blood magic...

My facepalm moment came when I got to the Gallows while supporting the mages and Meredith said "tell your people to prepare"...and they all left. WTF?! Meredith is RIGHT THERE. KILL HER! That's the whole point of this conflict! Why the hell would she let the mages prepare anyway?! Did she want them to summon demons or something?

[Capeo]

There was no real choice in DAO. I can't understand how people keep arguing that there were so many choices that effected the game. The outcome is the same, the choices just revolve around who is there at the end and that's it. It's all window dressing with no consequence.

[_purifico_]

XX55XX wrote...

Good point there. Replaying the game as a pro-Chantry person, I too thought it was curious I couldn't threaten Anders or Merrill over their use of magic and refusal to submit to the Circle.

You could kill Zevran in the first game when you met him.

Yeah, and where is that choice (to kill Zevran) now? In the dumpster! No matter what you do he's still alive and kicking in DA2. So even if you could kill Merril for being a dumb bimbo that she is, she'd probably still be alive in DA3. God, I miss Mass Effect... At least there dead people stay dead.

Modifié par _purifico_, 20 mars 2011 - 05:02 .

[LobselVith8]

_purifico_ wrote...

Yeah, and where is that choice (to kill Zevran) now? In the dumpster! No matter what you do he's still alive and kicking in DA2. So even if you could kill Merril for being a dumb bimbo that she is, she'd probably still be alive in DA3. God, I miss Mass Effect... At least there dead people stay dead.

Why is Merrill a "dumb bimbo"? I never got that impression from her in DA2. Merrill''s willing to leave behind everyone and everything that she knows for a culture she's completely unfamiliar with, in the attempt to restore a piece of her people's history. Despite everything that it's costing her, she never waivers. She knows the risks that are involved, and she's willing to gamble her life on the slim chance that restoring the Eluvian and dealing with the demon will give her people back a piece of their lost culture, even though there's a high chance that it'll end in failure.

[StingingVelvet]

LobselVith8 wrote...

_purifico_ wrote...

Yeah, and where is that choice (to kill Zevran) now? In the dumpster! No matter what you do he's still alive and kicking in DA2. So even if you could kill Merril for being a dumb bimbo that she is, she'd probably still be alive in DA3. God, I miss Mass Effect... At least there dead people stay dead.

Why is Merrill a "dumb bimbo"? I never got that impression from her in DA2. Merrill''s willing to leave behind everyone and everything that she knows for a culture she's completely unfamiliar with, in the attempt to restore a piece of her people's history. Despite everything that it's costing her, she never waivers. She knows the risks that are involved, and she's willing to gamble her life on the slim chance that restoring the Eluvian and dealing with the demon will give her people back a piece of their lost culture, even though there's a high chance that it'll end in failure.

From a chantry point of view she's a "dumb bimbo" for thinking anything justified blood magic and working with demons.

[MColes]

In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.

That's only an illusion.  You just notice this, because it disagrees with what you wanted to do.  Both games were like this, and they always have been.  Name a single BioWare game and I can tell you something similar.  But in this case, fact is, SHE had to perform the ritual on Flemeth's amulet.

[StingingVelvet]

MColes wrote...

In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.

That's only an illusion.  You just notice this, because it disagrees with what you wanted to do.  Both games were like this, and they always have been.  Name a single BioWare game and I can tell you something similar.  But in this case, fact is, SHE had to perform the ritual on Flemeth's amulet.

You could kill Zevran and leave Sten to die.  You can probably reject other companions, though I didn't personally.  Even when you could not they presented the illusion of choice better in DAO, which I have said countless times in this thread.  I know Bioware games are not like Fallout games, the choices are not as impacting on the world and game, but the illusion was done better in DAO.  In DA2 I feel how railroaded it is.

[Shepard Lives]

Nah.

It's not like in DAO you could, say, expose the Warden's secrets because you hated them for inducting you.

Or kill Morrigan because she was an apostate, to make an example that is closer to the sitation you described.

There will never be enough choices to satisfy everyone.
Frankly, I'm willing to lose a little agency if it means a better story and more interesting characters. Never mind the fact that some people (not necessarily the OP) view "player agency" as "murder people to your heart's content".

[StingingVelvet]

Shepard Lives wrote...

Nah.

It's not like in DAO you could, say, expose the Warden's secrets because you hated them for inducting you.

Or kill Morrigan because she was an apostate, to make an example that is closer to the sitation you described.

There will never be enough choices to satisfy everyone.
Frankly, I'm willing to lose a little agency if it means a better story and more interesting characters. Never mind the fact that some people (not necessarily the OP) view "player agency" as "murder people to your heart's content".

Again, I know this is Bioware's style.

Again, I think DA2 does a worse job of it.

[Stevie 402]

Dragon age had 6 or 7 years in development before releasing. While the overall story was cliched, the telling of the story and character development were top notch. Dragon Age 2 had about 2 years and the story itself seems interesting but the storytelling and character development are lacking. Dragon age 2 could have used another year or so for development. I love Dragon age and really like Dragon Age 2. Hopefully the 3rd one they will take the time needed to give us what we really want... a deep engrossing rpg.

[vigna]

Kurupt87 wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Secondly blood magic is not something only an "anti-mage nut" would want to stop.  It is the calling of demons and considered quite evil in pretty much every other situation we see it in througout both games.  Why Merril can do it so casually and you're not allowed to have a serious problem with it is beyond me.

That would be because Blood Magic is not inherently bad, only the humans (because of the Chantry) view it so. Some aspects and spells are bad but the School is not.

Name me one blood mage whose story ends up good in DA?

Merrill might be the first and that story didn't end so well either, it could have ended up worse than simply wiping out a village. She could have ended up liek Anders and started  a war.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

You can rival her and stop her from talking with the demon or whatever it was she was doing I forgot lol