276 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Anarya wrote...

What the endgame choice determines is how Hawke is seen by the rest of the world, since this is a major, major earth-shaking event in Thedas. Origins' events were equally scripted, but it allowed you choices that mainly affected which NPCs show up in certain places and what epilogue cards you get. That said, does it *feel* like you have more agency in Origins? I would say yes overall. DA2 could have let you affect the outcome of sidequests (Merrill's personal quests, for example) more than it did and I think it would have improved the illusion. Something to consider for future games I suppose.

No it does not, the rest of the world already sees Hawke the Legend from the prologue. That history is already written.

[Anarya]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

What the endgame choice determines is how Hawke is seen by the rest of the world, since this is a major, major earth-shaking event in Thedas. Origins' events were equally scripted, but it allowed you choices that mainly affected which NPCs show up in certain places and what epilogue cards you get. That said, does it *feel* like you have more agency in Origins? I would say yes overall. DA2 could have let you affect the outcome of sidequests (Merrill's personal quests, for example) more than it did and I think it would have improved the illusion. Something to consider for future games I suppose.

No it does not, the rest of the world already sees Hawke the Legend from the prologue. That history is already written.

Uh yes, it does. You're a legend regardless but why and to whom changes depending on how you played.

[ashwind]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Because the game is over, it's showing you the results of your actions in the game, same as they did in FO. That shows you the player that what your character did in the game had meaning.

In DAO, I cannot let the Archdemon win no matter how hard I try... in a way the ending is fixed. Archdemon dies. We get to fill in the how.

In DA2, 10 years after the blight, there is a global crisis, it will happen no matter what Hawke does.

Difference:
DAO - they show an epilogue of what happened to characters/events you interacted with.
DA2 - they didnt.

DAO's ending may give the player a sense of accomplishment and closure. The disadvantage with this is - somehow future story is limited - because there are just too many variable, better not touch/expand the story in that direction.

DA2's open ending may leave the player with a sense of emptiness. Advantage is, the story can freely expand without worrying about being consistant with the previous epilogue.

Which is better? I dunno. I have my preference but I will not try to convert everyone to believe what I believe.

Perhaps the real question is: Why do people try so hard to convert others to their side (DA2 is bad/good and this is why and it is the one truth that all shall accept)?

Modifié par ashwind, 23 mars 2011 - 12:27 .

[zthix]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yes, but there is a difference between a degree and totality of scripting deciding the outcome.

It's more like this is not the game you told us we were buying/advertised.

To me it's the difference between accepting the shortcomings and defending them as some how good things. I like Alpha Protocol , but it's a flawed game and I accept that. I don't try to convince others that it is not.

I wouldnt disagree the game has shortcomings, but i dont think the plot, or the choice system is one of them.
 I was expecting the game i bought,  for a story to be told and for the ending to reflect the choices made, but overall be a product of a greater narative. Im not arguing this as a good or a bad thing, just my expectations given other bioware games. The ending doesnt have a hundred different outcomes, and yes during the end sequence i did find myself looking alternative ways to act niether side being right, but again thats more to do with expectations of the player and the nature of the story being told.

I too liked Alpha Protacol, and again i would say similar things, technically it was a bit of a mess but in terms of plot/action/choice i really enjoyed it.

[AkiKishi]

Anarya wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

What the endgame choice determines is how Hawke is seen by the rest of the world, since this is a major, major earth-shaking event in Thedas. Origins' events were equally scripted, but it allowed you choices that mainly affected which NPCs show up in certain places and what epilogue cards you get. That said, does it *feel* like you have more agency in Origins? I would say yes overall. DA2 could have let you affect the outcome of sidequests (Merrill's personal quests, for example) more than it did and I think it would have improved the illusion. Something to consider for future games I suppose.

No it does not, the rest of the world already sees Hawke the Legend from the prologue. That history is already written.

Uh yes, it does. You're a legend regardless but why and to whom changes depending on how you played.

The rest of the world made up it's mind 10 years ago I think you are clutching here.

[Anarya]

I would spell it out for you if we were not in the spoiler-free forum. But it's obvious you're made up your mind and I've made up mine so it's pointless to continue.

[AkiKishi]

Anarya wrote...

I would spell it out for you if we were not in the spoiler-free forum. But it's obvious you're made up your mind and I've made up mine so it's pointless to continue.

There is nothing to spell out. The world made up it's mind already that's why Cassandra is suprised by some of what Varric says. At best you can say Varric is attempting to put the record straight. Hawke was in fact not a Legend, just some poor powerless smo' dragged around by events beyond his control.

[Fredvdp]

I played both games on PC in case that's relevant in the following comparison.

The game had many shortcomings but so did Origins. For every flaw in DA2 I can find two in Origins. They're both good games but I think that Dragon Age II is much better because it steers away from the cliché high fantasy storyline and characters. In DA2 they picked a couple of elements from the story that hadn't been overdone, like the qunari and the Cirlce of Magi, and focused on that. In Origins these are just details in a story I've heard dozens of times already.

The biggest flaws in DA2:

Recycled levels
Enemy waves
Little customization

The biggest flaws in Origins:

Bad storyline
Unoriginal characters
Absurd load times
Not being able to level a character before being ambushed on the world map
Dungeons that are way too long
The Fade
Main character has no personality
Shallow design

So I'm not denying that DA2 is a flawed game. I just find it amazing that DA2's critics prefer Origins which has even more flaws. I know the list of flaws is very subjective. i know many people don't like that DA2 is not an epic game. I think it's a bold move to write a high fantasy story that is not epic but instead more personal.

[zthix]

BobSmith101 wrote...

There is nothing to spell out. The world made up it's mind already that's why Cassandra is suprised by some of what Varric says. At best you can say Varric is attempting to put the record straight. Hawke was in fact not a Legend, just some poor powerless smo' dragged around by events beyond his control.

Thats the point of the story though, you are not a "save the world hero" you could have been anyone caught up in the events. The story in DA2 is told in such a way as to deconstruct the idea that Hawke was some predestined hero on a quest and reduces him to effectivly a noteworth citizen or Kirkwall.

Edit: thats not to say Hawke isnt important, his rise to nobility and fame is the catalyst for the story.

Modifié par zthix, 23 mars 2011 - 12:47 .

[Malakar1]

Aireoth wrote...

Thats my question, we all know that this game has the following massive problems:

A) Enemies recycled/poping out of thin air.
Recycled Areas. 
C) Average plot : I will quantify this, by plot I mean the wholistic feeling of immersion, freedom to chose (and face consequences), reaction of characters in the world to you (and you to them) as well as your NPC companions stories, the plot was poor/average from bioware. This is better then most other developers, but we hold bioware to a higher standard, otherwise we might as well play Two Worlds.
D) Lack of Replay value : Tied to plot problems.
E) Lack of Polish: ie Lack of Finishers/Silly body explosions, under designed character models (darkspawn), under populated areas (city).

I am not going to touch on DAO, or how it differed and thus upset many of us. In reality the big problems are as above. What I don't get is peoples insistance that this game be defended, even upheld, as one of the greats from Bioware:blink:. Sure its fun compared to Two Worlds, but its a load of garbage compared to DAO, ME, ME2, KOTOR, BG, BG2. 

I for one will not, and cannot defend or excuse this game. I know the Short Dev Cycle is to blame, but its biowares fault for trying to reinvent the wheel within that short cycle, rather then reusing resources from DAO. My only option is to try and hold Bioware accountable, and hope they listen to a long time fan (I visited their HQ in Edmonton when they first opened). If I don't, I can't expect them to be any better then every other cookie cutter developer.

:EDIT: pulled from response below because it helps clarify

I understand you enjoy the plot, as I said, I didn't find it bad, just poor compaired to other bioware games. To clairfy, picking up and item and bam, a quest to deliver it. Also having no actual effect on the plot or ending based on my choices. That also leads to only one play thru.

C) You felt that your choices, actions and friendships shapped the game? and thus D you could replay it to experience a different game? I am not trying to hash out the 'big evil' vs 'rags to riches', but the actual effect you had on the world itself through choice and action (thus making it yours). Perhaps I said it wrong in my post.

E) Are you (and others) saying that the city didn't feel empty? That the exploding bodies didn't seem a bit.. .out of place at times?

I am trying to keep opinions out of this, but of course they do factor in, as 'I have no issues with A and B' thats an opinion, it doesn't change the fact that it breaks the realism of the game, you just chose to ignore it. What I'm saying is, why defend it? Do you want your games to be well, better? Can you really say that fixing A & B (which are my biggest problems) would break the game?

Just because you and some folks are thinking that doesn't mean the rest of the universe should think like you. Recycled areas? Sure, that's bad. In the end it never really annoyed me and it didn't stop me from starting a new game right after finishing the first one (which never happened to me before)

I loved the story way more than the one in lord of the rings... heum, I mean DAO (I mean common, getting the support of elves dwarfes and those human dudes to go to the big city to make a last stand against the evil monsters? Isn't EXACTLY what happens in lord the ring, minus the hobbits and the ring?) Maybe it was lighter but it felt more personal, more realistic. I really felt like I played 10 years of Hawke's life. And thank god I didn't have to save the universe for 10 years of repetitive epicness. 

Exploding bodies, hmm, so what? Who cares, I like blood, guts and brain matter exploding in my virtual face. 

So sure, there are some flaws (like every freaking game in the history of the world, yeah, even Uncharted!), but after replaying Origins, I really think DA2 is a step forward. Doesn't mean Bioware can sit ont their asses give themselves a HIGH FIVE and do the same think in the 3 one. It's a good start.

More customization, bring back the ability to talk to your companion whenever you feel like it and not just 3 times per act, more maps, more impact due to your important decisions etc. I still enjoy the sh*t out of DA2

Modifié par Malakar1, 23 mars 2011 - 12:46 .

[zthix]

Anarya wrote...

I would spell it out for you if we were
not in the spoiler-free forum. But it's obvious you're made up your mind
and I've made up mine so it's pointless to continue.

This is probably quite true

Modifié par zthix, 23 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[yodama]

Hello. I think the worst thing is that i can´t begin a new campain with my character when I finish the game like me2 o me1

Hola para mi lo peor es que no pueda volver a jugar de nuevo con mi personaje una vez terminado el juego como en el me2 o el me1

[Maverick827]

ashwind wrote...

DAO's ending may give the player a sense of accomplishment and closure.

This is a prime example of the bias most players hold (no offense, you just provide a good example). A few months ago, Origins' tacky text-only epilogue was looked down upon very much; it was one of the least-satisfying elements of the game, in fact.

Now that DA2 is out, though, it's something to be missed.

Modifié par Maverick827, 23 mars 2011 - 01:02 .

[upsettingshorts]

yodama wrote...

Hello. I think the worst thing is that i can´t begin a new campain with my character when I finish the game like me2 o me1

Think of the "main character" of Dragon Age as Thedas.  Mass Effect is a different creature, as it is and always has been the story of Shepard.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 mars 2011 - 01:15 .

[AkiKishi]

zthix wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

There is nothing to spell out. The world made up it's mind already that's why Cassandra is suprised by some of what Varric says. At best you can say Varric is attempting to put the record straight. Hawke was in fact not a Legend, just some poor powerless smo' dragged around by events beyond his control.

Thats the point of the story though, you are not a "save the world hero" you could have been anyone caught up in the events. The story in DA2 is told in such a way as to deconstruct the idea that Hawke was some predestined hero on a quest and reduces him to effectivly a noteworth citizen or Kirkwall.

Edit: thats not to say Hawke isnt important, his rise to nobility and fame is the catalyst for the story.

I get that, it just does not fit with the way Bioware was presenting the game. I wonder if false advertising applies to games.

The catalyst is the "item" from the deep roads.

[Pandaman102]

Maverick827 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

DAO's ending may give the player a sense of accomplishment and closure.

This is a prime example of the bias most players hold (no offense, you just provide a good example). A few months ago, Origins' tacky text-only epilogue was looked down upon very much; it was one of the least-satisfying elements of the game, in fact.

Now that DA2 is out, though, it's something to be missed.

Perhaps you'd have more of a point if you can use something more than generalizations. What proof do you have that a majority of people missing the text epilogues are the same people who badmouthed them in the first place? What proof do you have that the people who are praising DA2 aren't the people who complained about DA:O before?

The forum tracks user posts, don't cry hypocrisy until you've gone through all the haters' posts and actually have something more tangible than your biases to stand on.

[Kusy]

People are defending DA2 because it's a good game that apealed to many. I have no problems with people liking it, but they should have exacly as much problem with me ranting on how I don't like things and how I think Orgins was a better game.

[Maverick827]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Perhaps you'd have more of a point if you can use something more than generalizations. What proof do you have that a majority of people missing the text epilogues are the same people who badmouthed them in the first place? What proof do you have that the people who are praising DA2 aren't the people who complained about DA:O before?

The forum tracks user posts, don't cry hypocrisy until you've gone through all the haters' posts and actually have something more tangible than your biases to stand on.

Did you just say I was a hypocrite for assuming biases on another person, and then assume biases about me? That's some impressive meta-hypocrisy you've got there.

[Tezzajh]

I thought it was a good plot, only 2 bad things I can think of and that is the graphics of the elf characters, why they changed if from origins i will never understand, armour deatail very poor and faces look terrible, the 2nd bad feature is money, after youve bought uprgrades you can never buy a powerful weapon worth 168 gold for example , why dont they do a fable or AC system of money every 20 mins?

[Pandaman102]

Maverick827 wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Perhaps you'd have more of a point if you can use something more than generalizations. What proof do you have that a majority of people missing the text epilogues are the same people who badmouthed them in the first place? What proof do you have that the people who are praising DA2 aren't the people who complained about DA:O before?

The forum tracks user posts, don't cry hypocrisy until you've gone through all the haters' posts and actually have something more tangible than your biases to stand on.

Did you just say I was a hypocrite for assuming biases on another person, and then assume biases about me? That's some impressive meta-hypocrisy you've got there.

1) No, I'm saying you're using ad hominem arguments. That's not hypocrisy, that's just bad logic.
2) I noticed you haven't answered my questions.

[ashwind]

Maverick827 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

DAO's ending may give the player a sense of accomplishment and closure.

This is a prime example of the bias most players hold (no offense, you just provide a good example). A few months ago, Origins' tacky text-only epilogue was looked down upon very much; it was one of the least-satisfying elements of the game, in fact.

Now that DA2 is out, though, it's something to be missed.

:lol:

Well, just to put (back) in context of what I wrote - I am simply noting the different styles of ending in DAO and DA2. Hence I wrote "may".

Honestly, text epilogue has been around since ... forever? So while people may as you say "look down" on it, it has been around for so long that... sometimes people just feel a game does not end properly without it. I am not saying that I like this style - just saying I can understand why some may consider that to be better than DA2's ending, I may not agree or share their view but I can understand.

Also, I noted that I believe an open ending like DA2 has its merits because without a text epilogue - as a developer, I am free to change my ideas/story without worrying about consistancy with something I wrote 18 months ago.

People defend DA2 because some who hate it write as if - DA2 is bad and it is the ultimate, absolute and only truth to be had. **EDIT** Just take the post below mine as an example. 


People defend DA2 because some who dislike recycle maps insists that DA2 have a score of 4/10 while others who equally dislike recycle maps gives it a 7/10 because they do not think that this matter alone justifies voiding all the other things they like in DA2.

Modifié par ashwind, 23 mars 2011 - 02:33 .

[BounceDK]

Fangirls are a strange bunch, no matter how horrible a product really is they'll defend if like their lives depended on it. PS: The game sucks.

[AkiKishi]

ashwind wrote...

:lol:

Well, just to put (back) in context of what I wrote - I am simply noting the different styles of ending in DAO and DA2. Hence I wrote "may".

Honestly, text epilogue has been around since ... forever? So while people may as you say "look down" on it, it has been around for so long that... sometimes people just feel a game does not end properly without it. I am not saying that I like this style - just saying I can understand why some may consider that to be better than DA2's ending, I may not agree or share their view but I can understand.

Also, I noted that I believe an open ending like DA2 has its merits because without a text epilogue - as a developer, I am free to change my ideas/story without worrying about consistancy with something I wrote 18 months ago.

People defend DA2 because some who hate it write as if - DA2 is bad and it is the ultimate, absolute and only truth to be had.

People defend DA2 because some who dislike recycle maps insists that DA2 have a score of 4/10 while others who equally dislike recycle maps gives it a 7/10 because they do not think that this matter alone justifies voiding all the other things they like in DA2.

Well compared to the 20+ minute cinematic at the end of FFXIII it does feel "cheap" but it's still better than having nothing at all. FO has the same sort of post game wrap up so you can see if things turned out as intended .. or not.

[UnstableMongoose]

Some people defend Dragon Age II because the characters are some of the best that have ever been in a Bioware game. Were the recycled areas and some parts of the combat (i.e. Ninja Templars) annoying? Yes. Do we expect better from Bioware? Yes. Does that eliminate the fact that this is, in fact, still quite a damn good game? Nope.

If you really hated it, fine, it is a perfectly normal opinion to have. But to say that anyone who found extremely convincing redeeming qualities in it is just drowning in a sea of fanboyism is to admit that you are enormously shallow and your opinion is devoid of any sort of significance.

[ashwind]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Well compared to the 20+ minute cinematic at the end of FFXIII it does feel "cheap" but it's still better than having nothing at all. FO has the same sort of post game wrap up so you can see if things turned out as intended .. or not.

I am not saying DA2's ending is good - I honestly think of it as average, acceptable but not extremely bad.

My1st impression of the ending is: "Stay tune for Dragon Age II - The Legend continues". Kind of like the Hammer of Thor in the last scene of Iron Man 2. 

It does leave me wanting to know more... so to that extend it is.. somewhat successful. 

I think the choices you make in DA2 will be played out in future expensions - that is why it is not shown in the ending. Maybe... maybe not.