100 réponses à ce sujet

[GunMoth]

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Many of you may already know this, but I'm going to post some information and definitions so that I can avoid miscommunication because there has been a lot of that. 

ART: the expression of an idea through various mediums. (language arts, visual arts etc.)
NARRATE: the art or technique, the process of narrating. 
NARRATING: to give an account or tell the story of (events, experiences,etc.).

ELEMENTS OF ART IN CINEMATIC PRESENTATION
Setting, Atmosphere, Cinematography, Lighting, Decor/Clothing, Pace (momentum), Suspense, Sound/Music, Editing, Character, Acting, Plot, Narrative Structure, Conflict, Point of View, Themes. 

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Movie critics will review a movie by first finding the main "element" used to give the narrative momentum. In the Dragon Age world, characters are the driving force of the world. Your choice as one of the characters shapes the world around you and drives the story. Supporting characters also shape the story based on the decisions they make. (Isabela can run away with the book, abandoning you and Arishok. Merill chooses to leave her clan etc.)

The relationship between the characters, the setting and the plot were disjointed and made the narrative less powerful than it could have been. 

Storm2k pointed out that the characters have a lot of depth and compelling personal flaws. However, unlike Origins, the optional supporting characters offer little insight on the setting of Thedas or Kirkwall itself. Their personal issues add more dimensions to the characters, but further removes them from the setting. This is something that is easy to change. (This refers to characters like Merril) It makes it easy to become emotionally involved in the characters, but not the setting. Although the setting isn't the main artistic element, Dragon Age 2 is simply one large plot device made to create a setting for Dragon Age 3. "Sequel syndrome" is not an excuse for a narrative to fall flat. It also doesn't explain why there seems to be a missing connection between the characters and overall setting. 

Foolsfolly wrote...

The main plot needed to have more umph.

There is no excusing not meeting the biggest characters from the finale (Meredith, Orinso) so late in the game. We needed to meet them earlier on. Look at Saren, Loghain, Master Li, Jon Irenicus, and the like. We met them early and that allowed them to both grow as characters and show us who they really are. Meeting the big guys right before picking between them is a wasted opportunity to those characters and the plot in general.

And that's just storytelling basics. We didn't meet Darth Vader during the Death Star run. He was there before Luke. Same with the Joker in Dark Knight. We need the meet and know the villains before the finale; not during the finale.

Companion characters are great. I do not like a few of them, especially Isabella and Anders, but they're real characters who are rather fleshed out. They have goals and ambitions that sometimes, and very often, don't mess with the Player. They're a pretty big step up from some other companion characters in the past.

But the plot was weak and because of that there's no forward momentum. It didn't have to have an ultimate evil but if the city's on the brink of war twice in 7 years then there should be momentum.

Mortalengines wrote...

Just a quick point, you must remember that some characters are optional and are not actually required to be in your party, this means that yes, sometimes they don't feel quite intergal to the storyline as they could be. But to some extent, they can't be, because if they were then they would cease to be truly optional characters. Just like Leliana, Sten and Wynne don't really feel tied to the plotline that much (Other than her vision, Leliana is not really intergated the plot, just like Merrill).

 


Feel free to discuss:
Parts of the narrative you thoughts were weak.
Things you noticed setting up for Dragon Age 3.

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 08:12 .

[GunMoth]

Augh, and its full of typos and weird sentences. @_@ Sorry in advance.

[Wulfram]

I don't think the main story lacks a climax. It lacks a good epilogue, and instead has a sequel hook, but the story to me stands on it's own fairly well.

[GunMoth]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think the main story lacks a climax. It lacks a good epilogue, and instead has a sequel hook, but the story to me stands on it's own fairly well.

It doesn't lack a climax, it lacks closure.

I used Mass Effect 2 as an example because (it was undoubtably a source of inspiration - I don't think this was a bad thing) it left off on a cliff hanger. It made the player feel accomplished during that scene where you look at your party's survivors after the suicide mission. It didn't offer that sense of "We just kicked some ****ing ass, and we lived thinking that we were ALL going to die going into this mission." 

It made the player feel like "Well, this city is destroyed and now there will be a massive civil war. :| Oh well." And then you find out the Champion and Warden go missing. There was no sense of accomplishment. There's a sense of relief because you stopped Meredith, but you didn't really do anything "epic". Or rather, help stall the world from ending. 

EDIT: I'm arguing the same point with you because I think you misread my OP hahaha. I agree. It lacked a good epiloge. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 12:23 .

[Maria Caliban]

GunMoth wrote...

I'm here to help explain why Dragon Age 2 may have felt lacking in a seemingly unexplainable way and possibly left your subconscious screaming "WHAT THE ****?"&

Thank goodness. I certainly couldn't figure out why I like or dislike something on my own.

GunMoth wrote...
This isn't just my opinion, but the opinion of many people who felt something was missing.

Naturally, this makes your opinion extra special.

STORYLINE AND ATMOSPHERE

Many of you may remember the conversations with Sten, Zev, or Leliana about their homelands in Dragon Age Origins. None of us have ever set a virtual foot in Orlais, Par Vollen or Antiva. However, I'm sure many of us have mental images of what those countries would be like.  Without character interaction or dialog to illustrate a setting for the audience (especially if 'characters' are responsible for delivering the narrative) they will not be able to immerse themselves in the game. Kirkwall felt extremely isolated, and I believe the characters are to blame for that.

Not every game in the Dragon Age series needs to be an introduction to the wonderful world of Thedas. If you've played the first game, you already have a general idea what these places are like. The emphasis in Kirkwall was on Kirkwall.

They did some things very right when it came to the architecture. Hightown looked the part while Lowtown and Darktown were a bit too... neat looking.

CHARACTER VARIETY AND COMPANIONSHIP
When it boils down to the female romance options, there isn't much variety. Both Fenris and Anders are two sides of the same coin. They're stubborn, speak their mind, and were oppressed by some group of people because of the way they were born (not having magic and being an elf vs. having magic). They have unique viewpoints, but they express them in the same way. Because of this, many male players had a difficult time being friends with them (I'm not speaking for EVERY male player). Even I had issues trying to like Anders or Fenris outside of romance. They wouldn't allow the player to explore their history. Even after Fenris recovered his memories, he didn't share a single moment of them with the player, he simply wants to move on (which is understanable) but not an excuse to remove depth. 

This kind of interaction with the cast wasn't fair for male OR female players who enjoy good character development. I'm not hating on the writers because they are simply trying to please a HUGE audience, but I don't think creating 2 dimensional characters is going to make casual players happy either. 

In Origins, the companions were very much about who they used to be and where they were from. They were a combination of setting encyclopedia and biography. What they lack was a sense of individual motivation and purpose.

DA II is the opposite. There's little time spent on their background but instead much of the focus is on what they want now and how they go about doing it.

The ideal solution would be to combine both of those features. That would double the amount of writing needed for the companions, who are already a resource hog.

It's also possible there's a middle ground of balanced perfect, though it might also simply displease everyone.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 mars 2011 - 12:58 .

[GunMoth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I'm here to help explain why Dragon Age 2 may have felt lacking in a seemingly unexplainable way and possibly left your subconscious screaming "WHAT THE ****?"&

Thank goodness. I certainly couldn't figure out why I like or dislike something on my own.

Which is why we have threads like "Homosexuals and female players are the bane of our existence." 

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world can analyze something critically like you can. 
EDIT: I wanted to offer insight on the technical aspect of videogames and cinematic presentation. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 12:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

GunMoth wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I'm here to help explain why Dragon Age 2 may have felt lacking in a seemingly unexplainable way and possibly left your subconscious screaming "WHAT THE ****?"

Thank goodness. I certainly couldn't figure out why I like or dislike something on my own.

Which is why we have threads like "Homosexuals and female players are the bane of our existance."

It's like a double scoop of stupidity and arrogance with bigoted sprinkles on top.

[GunMoth]

So you're saying that when making a narrative, one should ignore basic elements of design?

[MrStorm2K]

Dragon Age 2 is not a game about Thedas. It is not a game about the Free Marches.

It is ultimately a game about Kirkwall. It's a fantastic case study of a deteriorating culture, a look at the ordinary elements of a fantastic world, and ultimately a compelling tragedy.

To compare it to Origins in terms of story focus or scope is a disservice to both games. They tackle entirely different issues, and just because DA2 explores characters more than foreign realms (using your example) does not make it bad.

[GunMoth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I'm here to help explain why Dragon Age 2 may have felt lacking in a seemingly unexplainable way and possibly left your subconscious screaming "WHAT THE ****?"

Thank goodness. I certainly couldn't figure out why I like or dislike something on my own.

Which is why we have threads like "Homosexuals and female players are the bane of our existance."

It's like a double scoop of stupidity and arrogance with bigoted sprinkles on top.

social.bioware.com/http%255Burl/u003dhttp:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6661775/1



Edit edit: I'm saying because people have little understanding of how a story should be composed, we get a lot of upset responses like those pointing fingers at audiences that shouldn't be blamed. 

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

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

Dragon Age 2 is not a game about Thedas. It is not a game about the Free Marches.

It is ultimately a game about Kirkwall. It's a fantastic case study of a deteriorating culture, a look at the ordinary elements of a fantastic world, and ultimately a compelling tragedy.

To compare it to Origins in terms of story focus or scope is a disservice to both games. They tackle entirely different issues, and just because DA2 explores characters more than foreign realms (using your example) does not make it bad.

I'm not comparing to to Origins in terms of story, if I had done that, I would say that Dragon Age 2 has a better story simply because of originality and the way they chose to approach Thedas. I liked the topics they wanted to focus on, but they didn't present them in compelling ways.

It lacked depth because they didn't follow basic artistic principles that most people consider when making a film or videogame. You focus on one element in order to explain an idea or story. Dragon Age 2 neglected the character development (their main focus when it came to story telling) and because of that the atmosphere wasn't as strong as it could have been. 

EDIT: OOPS sorry. I referenced Thedas because it stands for "THE DRAGON AGE SETTING" x___x I need to stop doing that. 

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

[Foolsfolly]

The main plot needed to have more umph.

There is no excusing not meeting the biggest characters from the finale (Meredith, Orinso) so late in the game. We needed to meet them earlier on. Look at Saren, Loghain, Master Li, Jon Irenicus, and the like. We met them early and that allowed them to both grow as characters and show us who they really are. Meeting the big guys right before picking between them is a wasted opportunity to those characters and the plot in general.

And that's just storytelling basics. We didn't meet Darth Vader during the Death Star run. He was there before Luke. Same with the Joker in Dark Knight. We need the meet and know the villains before the finale; not during the finale.

Companion characters are great. I do not like a few of them, especially Isabella and Anders, but they're real characters who are rather fleshed out. They have goals and ambitions that sometimes, and very often, don't mess with the Player. They're a pretty big step up from some other companion characters in the past.

But the plot was weak and because of that there's no forward momentum. It didn't have to have an ultimate evil but if the city's on the brink of war twice in 7 years then there should be momentum.

[StowyMcStowstow]

I just watched a lot of Epic meal Time, and I began reading this in the guys voice. It was amazing.

And I agree. When I finished my first playthrough, I was like "there's still more game, right?" Nope. I don't think that it had any closure, but that may be due to the fact that DA2 is part 2 in a three part series, similar to Mass Effect.

[GunMoth]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The main plot needed to have more umph.

There is no excusing not meeting the biggest characters from the finale (Meredith, Orinso) so late in the game. We needed to meet them earlier on. Look at Saren, Loghain, Master Li, Jon Irenicus, and the like. We met them early and that allowed them to both grow as characters and show us who they really are. Meeting the big guys right before picking between them is a wasted opportunity to those characters and the plot in general.

And that's just storytelling basics. We didn't meet Darth Vader during the Death Star run. He was there before Luke. Same with the Joker in Dark Knight. We need the meet and know the villains before the finale; not during the finale.

Companion characters are great. I do not like a few of them, especially Isabella and Anders, but they're real characters who are rather fleshed out. They have goals and ambitions that sometimes, and very often, don't mess with the Player. They're a pretty big step up from some other companion characters in the past.

But the plot was weak and because of that there's no forward momentum. It didn't have to have an ultimate evil but if the city's on the brink of war twice in 7 years then there should be momentum.

That's a great point, I didn't consider that. 
I always thought the order in which they presented the acts was a bit sloppy as well. However, the mage vs. templar issue was an issue even before you enter Kirkwall when Bethany gets upset at Leandra's notion. There's no way that they could have presented them in another order for it to make sense. You definitely just solved that issue. 

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

I'm not comparing to to Origins in terms of story, if I had done that, I would say that Dragon Age 2 has a better story simply because of originality and the way they chose to approach Thedas. I liked the topics they wanted to focus on, but they didn't present them in compelling ways.

It lacked depth because they didn't follow basic artistic principles that most people consider when making a film or videogame. You focus on one element in order to explain an idea or story. Dragon Age 2 neglected the character development (their main focus when it came to story telling) and because of that the atmosphere wasn't as strong as it could have been. 

EDIT: OOPS sorry. I referenced Thedas because it stands for "THE DRAGON AGE SETTING" x___x I need to stop doing that. 

They did. Again, the "element" they focused on was Kirkwall/Hawke.  Focusing on a single person or place as the subject of your tale -- instead of something like an event -- is an old idea. Not as traditional, sure. But it's certainly been used.

And personally, I thought the story depth was truly impressive as a result. 

[GunMoth]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

I just watched a lot of Epic meal Time, and I began reading this in the guys voice. It was amazing.

And I agree. When I finished my first playthrough, I was like "there's still more game, right?" Nope. I don't think that it had any closure, but that may be due to the fact that DA2 is part 2 in a three part series, similar to Mass Effect.

I understand why they left the game open and I did enjoy the concept of the story and why they ended it the way they did. Like I said before, unlike Mass Effect 2, the game offered little sense of accomplishment after you destroy the final boss. 

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I'm not comparing to to Origins in terms of story, if I had done that, I would say that Dragon Age 2 has a better story simply because of originality and the way they chose to approach Thedas. I liked the topics they wanted to focus on, but they didn't present them in compelling ways.

It lacked depth because they didn't follow basic artistic principles that most people consider when making a film or videogame. You focus on one element in order to explain an idea or story. Dragon Age 2 neglected the character development (their main focus when it came to story telling) and because of that the atmosphere wasn't as strong as it could have been. 

EDIT: OOPS sorry. I referenced Thedas because it stands for "THE DRAGON AGE SETTING" x___x I need to stop doing that. 

They did. Again, the "element" they focused on was Kirkwall/Hawke.  Focusing on a single person or place as the subject of your tale -- instead of something like an event -- is an old idea. Not as traditional, sure. But it's certainly been used.

And personally, I thought the story depth was truly impressive as a result. 

By only focusing on Hawke as a character, it offers no emotional insight or attachment to the setting. If it STRICTLY focused on Hawke and Kirkwall, what were the things keeping him/her in Kirkwall? 

Ferelden had been rebuilt. What made "Kirkwall" Hawke's home? 
Surely Hawke's friends and personal history had something to do with that. If they went in more depth with those relationships and history, the story would have been much more compelling. We would have an even stronger understanding and emotional bond with the characters and setting.  

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 01:07 .

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

By only focusing on Hawke as a character, it offers no emotional insight or attachment to the setting. If it STRICTLY focused on Hawke and Kirkwall, what were the things keeping him/her in Kirkwall?

Ferelden had been rebuilt. What made "Kirkwall" Hawke's home?

Family? The viscount? Your debts? Depends on the act.

As for Lothering, I'm fairly sure the game says it never really gets rebuilt thanks to the blighted lands. I could be wrong though.

Surely Hawke's friends and personal history had something to do with that. If they went in more depth with those relationships and history, the story would have been much more compelling. We would have an even stronger understanding and emotional bond with the characters and setting.  

I don't think they needed to delve any further into personalities than they did. Your only example in the original post was that they didn't talk about their culture, which I think is a moot point. First, they did to a certain extent. Second, they don't need to for a person to be emotionally invested in the character.

[Foolsfolly]

Kirkwall never changed because of Hawke. There were some small changes over the years (on my third playthrough and I've noticed three changes: it gets less sunny over the course of the game, there's some scaffolding that is removed by the Weaponsmith in Lowtown, and there's a cart on the stairs in one of the exits from Lowtown that moves up, not massive changes by any means).

Kirkwall as a setting wasn't properly explored. We have a lot of lore about it, there was a timeline that BioWare put out in the threads and their site months ago about its past, none of that is important or even noticeable outside of the gallows.

This was a Tevinter city, turned freed city-state. There's a long history of blood mages. The Veil is thin here. The Enigma of Kirkwall explains that the layout of the city is a glyph. All these things are interesting but without the story ever touching on these facts they may as well not exist.

And again, Kirkwall never has any meaningful change. If they wanted Kirkwall to be as much of a character as anyone else then it should have changed over the years. The dreadful Fable 2 game allowed for your rather good or evil choices in the beginning of the game to alter the city of Bowerstone. Even after the opening setting prices made things clean or crime ridden slums.

A little attention to the setting and building the story to connect more with the fantastic and interesting backstory they created for the city would have made Kirkwall more enjoyable, riveting, and feel fully alive.

[MrStorm2K]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Kirkwall never changed because of Hawke.

The city? Correct.

Kirkwall as a setting wasn't properly explored. We have a lot of lore about it, there was a timeline that BioWare put out in the threads and their site months ago about its past, none of that is important or even noticeable outside of the gallows.

This was a Tevinter city, turned freed city-state. There's a long history of blood mages. The Veil is thin here. The Enigma of Kirkwall explains that the layout of the city is a glyph. All these things are interesting but without the story ever touching on these facts they may as well not exist.

Fair enough point. I would say that just because it doesn't touch on those points does not mean it doesn't touch others.

And again, Kirkwall never has any meaningful change.

Wait a minute. Before, you said Hawke didn't change Kirkwall. Now you say Kirkwall didn't change. The first point, I agree with, and the second I vehemently disagree with. What's your actual stance?

If they wanted Kirkwall to be as much of a character as anyone else then it should have changed over the years. The dreadful Fable 2 game allowed for your rather good or evil choices in the beginning of the game to alter the city of Bowerstone. Even after the opening setting prices made things clean or crime ridden slums.

The underlying idea I'm sensing is that "I cannot affect it in a dramatic way, therefore it does not have character." Would that be a fair assessment?

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 01:29 .

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

By only focusing on Hawke as a character, it offers no emotional insight or attachment to the setting. If it STRICTLY focused on Hawke and Kirkwall, what were the things keeping him/her in Kirkwall?

Ferelden had been rebuilt. What made "Kirkwall" Hawke's home?

Family? The viscount? Your debts? Depends on the act.

As for Lothering, I'm fairly sure the game says it never really gets rebuilt thanks to the blighted lands. I could be wrong though.

Surely Hawke's friends and personal history had something to do with that. If they went in more depth with those relationships and history, the story would have been much more compelling. We would have an even stronger understanding and emotional bond with the characters and setting.  

I don't think they needed to delve any further into personalities than they did. Your only example in the original post was that they didn't talk about their culture, which I think is a moot point. First, they did to a certain extent. Second, they don't need to for a person to be emotionally invested in the character.

There are several instances in the game in which you aren't tied down. There are also several instances in the game where supporting characters ask you if you plan on returning to Ferelden now that it has been rebuilt.
Becoming the viscount is understandable though. 

Discussing cultures adds to character depth/development as well memories, likes, dislikes etc. Knowing those aspects of a character gives the audience the ability to project themselves onto the characters, thus becoming attached to them. The reason its important for a writer or developer to enable this relationship between audience and fictional character is so that when their favorite character gets killed, or when a culture they enjoy gets massacred, it will impact them the same way it would in real life.

A writers ability to mess with the emotions of an audience through the usage of artistic elements is what makes games like Silent Hill 2 or Ico strong pieces of work. (Even though Ico has nearly NOOOO dialog at all, you find yourself genuinely caring for the characters because of the symbology and situations they're put in.) 

[Foolsfolly]

Wait a minute. Before, you said Hawke didn't change Kirkwall. Now you say Kirkwall didn't change. The first point, I agree with, and the second I vehemently disagree with. What's your actual stance?

Kirkwall never changed because of Hawke or anything else. A statue of a Templar with his foot on the Arishok really isn't a change. The death of the Viscount really didn't change anything since everyone says Meredith's the real power in Kirkwall. In fact, four years pass after the Arishok's attack and the situation isn't worse it's the same as it ever was. It only gets worse when Anders blows up the Chantry.

The whole setting felt too static and disconnected from the events within the different storylines.

[GunMoth]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Kirkwall never changed because of Hawke. There were some small changes over the years (on my third playthrough and I've noticed three changes: it gets less sunny over the course of the game, there's some scaffolding that is removed by the Weaponsmith in Lowtown, and there's a cart on the stairs in one of the exits from Lowtown that moves up, not massive changes by any means).

Kirkwall as a setting wasn't properly explored. We have a lot of lore about it, there was a timeline that BioWare put out in the threads and their site months ago about its past, none of that is important or even noticeable outside of the gallows.

This was a Tevinter city, turned freed city-state. There's a long history of blood mages. The Veil is thin here. The Enigma of Kirkwall explains that the layout of the city is a glyph. All these things are interesting but without the story ever touching on these facts they may as well not exist.

And again, Kirkwall never has any meaningful change. If they wanted Kirkwall to be as much of a character as anyone else then it should have changed over the years. The dreadful Fable 2 game allowed for your rather good or evil choices in the beginning of the game to alter the city of Bowerstone. Even after the opening setting prices made things clean or crime ridden slums.

A little attention to the setting and building the story to connect more with the fantastic and interesting backstory they created for the city would have made Kirkwall more enjoyable, riveting, and feel fully alive.

You should just crawl into my brain and articulate sentences for me. D': I cannot seem to do that tonight for some reason and your points are brilliant. 

I remember in an interview (one of the live streams during the Q&A) someone asked if Kirkwall would evolve over the years and Dan(?) I think that was his name? said you would see it change. I believe he meant the relationships and over all tensions in the city, but it would've been far more interesting if the actual city changed over the course of the game. Once again, adding some sort of consequence or reward system for making the decisions you made. Becoming more involved with the outcome. They really didn't offer much to the player in terms of choices you made other than the tone Hawke carried in various dialog. 

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

There are several instances in the game in which you aren't tied down. There are also several instances in the game where supporting characters ask you if you plan on returning to Ferelden now that it has been rebuilt.
Becoming the viscount is understandable though. 

Most of the time, you are "tied down." The other times you are not. So would you have liked an option to end the game early by opting to return to Ferelden?

Discussing cultures adds to character depth/development as well memories, likes, dislikes etc.

Can you honestly say, having played through the game, you do not know the formative events of each character? Their likes and dislikes? You know all that with their apparently insignificant discussion of culture.

I understand wanting to be attached to characters and why that's good. What I don't understand is what you find so lacking in DA2's characters.

[GunMoth]

It didn't really feel like a "choose your own" adventure book. Even though in Origins they choose to go with a montage of texts to wrap up the ending and all of your choices, they were all written brilliantly and let my imagination wander. (Andraste's ashes were destroyed because I forgot to go back and kill the side boss dragon. OOPS. Still amazing that they considered a consequence for not completing that.)

Everything was all predetermined for the exception of side quests, otherwise, no matter which side you chose the mages revolted. I know its because they desperately want there to be some sort of civil war in Dragon Age 3. (I'm convinced its so that the Qunari can invade while everyone is killing one another) Or possibly to avoid continuity issues or bugs that people are running into in DA2 right now.

I know its all a set up, or a plot device, but back to the original topic, it was poorly executed. (Good direction and concept though. They just fell short with a few things)