41 réponses à ce sujet

[Aloradus]

I love Bioware games; they always do an amazing job.  Great dialog, good characters,
environment etc.  Because of this I expected more, and am dissapointed.  DA:2
suffers from a serious story flaw in my opinion, does anyone else feel this way?

Every story needs a hero, and what that hero desires, their calling- the injustice they see in the world, or maybe an injustice they want to inflict, it doesn’t have to be something good.  DA:2 does not have this. Our character is
reactionary he dictates no events, and has no drive merely being pushed around by others wants/desires/the events of history. 

This game throws me out for the simple reason of why am I playing?  We start with a goal of wanting
to escape, then get Coin (okay, admirable but this can’t float a story everyone in the world wants to be rich this is nothing unique nor a goal for a tale.)  This isn’t so bad however as Bioware hints, “he didn’t know what was there”, “something evil is unleashed from the Dark Roads Expedition.”  Okay, cool the player forges ahead with false hope the REAL story will start.  We will learn what our Hero’s calling is!

Yet SPLAT nothing, instead we muddle through a game with occasional cut scenes saying ‘OH there is something more, something grand afoot! But, we can’t tell you what that is…’

At the games ends, there isn't even an apparent goal for our Champion in the next story presented. 

Because our Hero has no real goals and just sort of floats through the game, there is no Villain trying to stop him, or that he is trying to stop.  They just pop out when they are ready/needed, Meredith at the end, Oroson, the Varishock.  All these characters have been going about their plans oblivious to the Hero, he never confronts them, nor knows what they have been doing until the very end when he just happens to be in the right place at the right time and they attack.

Adding insult to injury none of the companions have any deep obtainable goals that coincide with our Hero’s own personal quest (save Anders but his goal was never our Hero’s goal- and Anders accomplishes his task in
secret.) DA:O had side characters with goals the Hero could crush or accomplish.   But in DA:2 our Hero has no quest except to live- DA:1 stop the blight and defeat Logain, DA:2 just exist man…

 I am going to guess that a good story got outlined and presented, and EA or someone threw out hey let’s turn this into multiple games…

Modifié par Aloradus, 22 mars 2011 - 04:21 .

[NinjaRogue]

Some of us actually loved Dragon Age 2's story.Go re watch the Destiny Trailer. Hawke only had one goal, protecting and providing for the one's he loved. Destiny swept him along, and he grabbed ahold of it.

[Arppis]

He always has a goal. You just need to listen and read the dialogue. It's always explained there.

[BanksHector]

I liked the story in Dragon Age 2 more then I did in DAO. I like that he has no clear goal, and he is just doing what he has to do while getting by in this world. If we play as him again in future game, Dragon Age 2 will just be like one big Origin story.

[NinjaRogue]

BanksHector wrote...

I liked the story in Dragon Age 2 more then I did in DAO. I like that he has no clear goal, and he is just doing what he has to do while getting by in this world. If we play as him again in future game, Dragon Age 2 will just be like one big Origin story.

And that makes me all excited. :innocent:

[ongnei]

im quite shock the entire story is about mage and templar,i was expecting another blight..lol

[Giltspur]

Sometimes the hero is the guy that didn't die.  I take it that Bioware is reacting to the traditional hero with something more personal.  I like that as an idea.  It is more realistic. Oftentimes, your plans don't pan out and any greatness comes from how you react to the adversity you face.  

Now, doing this presents challenges.

If you have an immediate conflict and a great antagonist,  that's a good way to hook your audience quickly and to keep them hooked.  No denying that.  And Dragon Age II doesn't do that.

But I still think what it does is cool.  And I think it's about time someone didn't follow the traditional quest or adventure model in a game.

So what's the summary of the game.

Act I
Hawke is poor.  So he has to make money.  (Hi, Baldur's Gate II.)

Act II
Hawke is swept into political importance because of his earlier interactions with the Arishok (who noticed a certain competence in Hawke) and with Petrice (who's looking for some irrelevant person to take advantage of).

Act III
Hawke's defeat of the Arishok makes him a  man of a  people in a time of crisis that has the ability to shape popular opinion.

It's an interesting approach they took.  Deconstructing the myth of heroes and trying to make a guy more real by having him end up a hero.  Some people want escapism (maybe that's not the right word--I'm not trying to use that word negatively).  Bioware seems to have wanted to tell a different story.

I liked it, but I can see why others might prefer a more traditional model with a clear conflict and villain at the outset.

Modifié par Giltspur, 22 mars 2011 - 05:51 .

[Nelzeben]

I like the more personal approach. I've played enough games as "the chosen one" who has to save the world and is the only one able to do so. I'm not saying the plot couldn't use some polishing, but overall, I quite like it.

And I disagree on the companions - while it doesn't make as much sense as it did in DA:O that they tag along with you for the most part, I like that they actually seem to have lives of their own. I don't think they have more or less of a goal than the characters in DA:O.

[Glegnus]

Hawke is like Gordon Freeman from HL, average Joe who gets involved in events greater than him and somehow pulls it off.

[heman14]

Glegnus wrote...

Hawke is like Gordon Freeman from HL, average Joe who gets involved in events greater than him and somehow pulls it off.

I was thinking this. 

[Lianaar]

DA2 reached more into the classical table top rpg (or at least that is how I prefer playing table tops). You actually role play, that is the fun of it. It is not only important what you do, but how you do it and to whom. You can actually "live" the life of Hawke, you can relate to it. It is not "better then life". It is not a sugar coated, rainbow, everything nice hero. He is someone people see as hero, because they need a hero. Wether he was heroic or not.

You can be just a regular person, in a fantasy setting, who is offered chances, and which chances you can decide to take or skip. The being unique doesn't come from "being chosen", it comes from deciding to grab the chances. This gives the replayability for me.

[Evolution33]

I have read a lot of stories that don't have a hero.

[texasskickin]

It feels always like you are in a historical cursade;

[Legbiter]

Nice change of pace in DA 2 IMO.

[Aloradus]

All good points. To tell the truth I am tired of the 'chosen one' that has to save the world (all life is in peril haha).  I appreciate them for not doing that in this game. But still a character needs aspirations, and something should be at stake the player cares about, be it a love story, a comedy or lotr epic.

And yes I read the dialog, Arppis just because someone doesn't like something you do... I appreciate other peoples insight, into what I didn't see. I guess others found what I didn't in this game.

I am still excited about whatever game Bioware puts out next.. I just found this one a labor at times to get through because I felt uninvolved and nothing I cared to work towards for the character, I never felt an apparent goal or desire of the character in my mind. Others saw this so its obviously there.

Modifié par Aloradus, 22 mars 2011 - 06:05 .

[Aloradus]

Every story has a main character and something they desire or need.

Modifié par Aloradus, 22 mars 2011 - 06:02 .

[Maria Caliban]

Aloradus wrote...

Every story needs a hero, and what that hero desires, their calling- the injustice they see in the world, or maybe an injustice they want to inflict, it doesn’t have to be something good.  DA:2 does not have this. Our character is reactionary he dictates no events, and has no drive merely being pushed around by others wants/desires/the events of history.

This is the problem with most Western RPGs.

The Warden was also reactionary. As was the Bhaalspawn, the Spirit Monk, Revan, and even Shepard. The difference between them and Hawke is that Hawke is shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately fails wherein the others are shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately win.

You could also blame Star Wars and Lord of the Rings for being popular and Joseph Campbell for the concept of monomyth. The idea that heroes should be farmboys who'd be content to milk cows their entire life if it weren't for the horrible event that tosses them into maelstrom has infected large parts of fantasy.

Aloradus wrote...

Every story has a main character and something they desire or need.

No, every good story does.

cRPGs with undefined PCs have to compensate for that lack.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 mars 2011 - 06:30 .

[RubiconI7]

Hawke is presented to us in the form of an "eventful character" where in history, it means that he was there when something grand happened. At the same time, he is also an "event making" character in a sense that his actions did affect history.

Hawke is unique in the sense that he is not your stereotypical story hero where he saves the day. (Shepherd, Warden, Master Chief) He is a normal person with no background and is "plunged into chaos". He is more akin to characters like Niko Bellic where as there was no ultimate goal looming over you.

[Taleroth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aloradus wrote...

Every story needs a hero, and what that hero desires, their calling- the injustice they see in the world, or maybe an injustice they want to inflict, it doesn’t have to be something good.  DA:2 does not have this. Our character is reactionary he dictates no events, and has no drive merely being pushed around by others wants/desires/the events of history.

This is the problem with most Western RPGs.

The Warden was also reactionary. As was the Bhaalspawn, the Spirit Monk, Revan, and even Shepard. The difference between them and Hawke is that Hawke is shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately fails wherein the others are shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately win.

You could also blame Star Wars and Lord of the Rings for being popular and Joseph Campbell for the concept of monomyth. The idea that heroes should be farmboys who'd be content to milk cows their entire life if it weren't for the horrible event that tosses them into maelstrom as infected large parts of fantasy.

It's a problem of most narrative focused games.  The character gets directed about by circumstance or superiors from the beginning of the plot to the end.  Even Half-Life and Call of Duty do that.

I think it's a need on the designers' parts to remind the player of their objective and help them establish sub-objectives.  Meaning that you can't place a character in the world with an oppressive empire, say "beat them!" and leave them to figure out how.  You need someone to come along and tell them how to do it or they'll get lost.

I'm not sure it's necessarilly the fault of the narrative frameworks they are inspired by.  But maybe that's a part, too.

Attempting to come up with the narrative structure for a game that's not reactionary or directed by other agents is an interesting thought exercise.

Modifié par Taleroth, 22 mars 2011 - 06:44 .

[Lulia]

Completely agree with the OP...

[SonOfOrpheous]

The only real problem I had with the game was the lack of an over-arching climax. Like when the Witch of the Wilde foretold of the coming change in power and to "find the courage to leap" into the abyss that follows. Where was the abyss? I was expecting to fight her at some point, or that Sundermount would sprout arms and legs and attack Kirkwall.... or something.

[sarahN7]

For a while I too wondered what the "real" plot was. However, once I realized act two was near over, I came to the conclusion all I was doing would be tied together to a more epic thing that previously thought. I knew my actions (specifically in the main plot) had weight, but didn't know to what extent until act three, and this is exactly their intentions. From a realistic standpoint, how often is a hero's goal clear? Not usually. You usually don't have all this wonderful information presented in convenient timelines to guide you on. It comes together when sh++ hits the fan, so to speak. I had no idea what Anders was doing, for example, and knew it probably wouldn't end well, but I trusted my companion and LI for the time, and when he blew up the Chantry, it was a moment. I liked that because it felt real.

[Maria Caliban]

Taleroth wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aloradus wrote...

Every story needs a hero, and what that hero desires, their calling- the injustice they see in the world, or maybe an injustice they want to inflict, it doesn’t have to be something good.  DA:2 does not have this. Our character is reactionary he dictates no events, and has no drive merely being pushed around by others wants/desires/the events of history.

This is the problem with most Western RPGs.

The Warden was also reactionary. As was the Bhaalspawn, the Spirit Monk, Revan, and even Shepard. The difference between them and Hawke is that Hawke is shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately fails wherein the others are shuttled along by outside forces and ultimately win.

You could also blame Star Wars and Lord of the Rings for being popular and Joseph Campbell for the concept of monomyth. The idea that heroes should be farmboys who'd be content to milk cows their entire life if it weren't for the horrible event that tosses them into maelstrom as infected large parts of fantasy.

It's a problem of most narrative focused games.  The character gets directed about by circumstance or superiors from the beginning of the plot to the end.

It's a flaw in most narratively focused games. It's problem in BioWare RPGs.

I think it's a need on the designers' parts to remind the player of their objective and help them establish sub-objectives.  Meaning that you can't place a character in the world with an oppressive empire, say "beat them!" and leave them to figure out how.  You need someone to come along and tell them how to do it or they'll get lost.

No, you need to tell or show the player why this character, as opposed to the millions of others, cares so much about defeating the evil empire.

This about it this way:
Do you know *why* Anders blows up the Chantry?
Do you know *why* Fenris hates mages and will abandon you if you side with them?
Do you know *why* Isabela grabs the relic and runs?

These are well-defined characters. Hawke is an undefined character. Hawke could hate mages, or not. Hawke could hate the templars, or not. Hawke could want to protect her family, or not. Hawke could want to protect Kirkwall, or not.

I'm not sure it's necessarilly the fault of the narrative frameworks they are inspired by. But maybe that's a part, too.

When a single plot becomes popular, people mistake it for the best plot or the only plot.

I think attempting to come up with the narrative structure for a game that's not reactionary or directed by other agents is an interesting thought exercise.

Grand Theft Auto and Silent Hill II come to mind.

[Reidbynature]

I like what they tried to do with DA2. I think there is a point to the OP's post. It doesn't feel like his calling, more that he was forced down a path. Mind you I never felt that my Warden really had much choice either since it was just him and Alistair (and you know Alistair would just run away unless you managed to eventually harden him. ).

[GreyLord]

sarahN7 wrote...

For a while I too wondered what the "real" plot was. However, once I realized act two was near over, I came to the conclusion all I was doing would be tied together to a more epic thing that previously thought. I knew my actions (specifically in the main plot) had weight, but didn't know to what extent until act three, and this is exactly their intentions. From a realistic standpoint, how often is a hero's goal clear? Not usually. You usually don't have all this wonderful information presented in convenient timelines to guide you on. It comes together when sh++ hits the fan, so to speak. I had no idea what Anders was doing, for example, and knew it probably wouldn't end well, but I trusted my companion and LI for the time, and when he blew up the Chantry, it was a moment. I liked that because it felt real.

Last I checked, doesn't matter what you chose, you still have to fight and kill Orsino and Meredith. The Circle is still broken, and Kirkwall has still been burned and wrecked twice in 3 years (or would that be 4 years).

Modifié par GreyLord, 22 mars 2011 - 06:54 .