100 réponses à ce sujet

[MrStorm2K]

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

There are two different levels of change. On one level it did not change, and on another level it did. On a certain level, things did not change as in "the poor people become rich" and "the viscount becomes more forceful and brash." On the other hand, power becomes decentralized, the city festers and simmers in its continuing and increasing decadence, religious leaders gradually become either more extreme or more paralyzed, the Qunari occupants change from searching for the relic to conquering Kirkwall, and the city itself slowly rots until it implodes at the end of the game.

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

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.

No, I would not like that option. I WOULD like it if they wrote the characters and storyline to be a lot more emotionally involving so I wouldn't even have to ask the question "Why the **** am I still here?" 

Fenris is from Tevinter. A place we have NEVER been to or seen previews of. I have no idea what it looks like, what the fashion is like, what the culture is like. Yes, amnesia is to blame. But he could have told stories about his life there prior to loosing his memory later in the game. I did not feel sorry for his character because he didn't illustrate his oppression in a way that made the player feel truly sympathetic. They didn't explore his family life in enough depth to make me understand why things happened the way they did. 

A lot of the characters were broody and have strong convictions based on their past. Often times when you come across a character that's easy to disagree with, the writer will offer some insight on why they are the way they are coupled with some relatable traits. (Sten hating your homeland, but loving cookies and being indoctrinated by a philosophy since birth) 

It upsets me because I see the potential, but they don't take advantage of it. 

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

There are two different levels of change. On one level it did not change, and on another level it did. On a certain level, things did not change as in "the poor people become rich" and "the viscount becomes more forceful and brash." On the other hand, power becomes decentralized, the city festers and simmers in its continuing and increasing decadence, religious leaders gradually become either more extreme or more paralyzed, the Qunari occupants change from searching for the relic to conquering Kirkwall, and the city itself slowly rots until it implodes at the end of the game.

I think the issue is that Kirkwall changes no matter what decisions you make, its all predetermined. They're interesting changes that push the plot forward, but they are not changes made by the character. Like I said in a previous post, its understandable because they're setting up for Dragon Age 3, but its something that could have been addressed better to make the player at least FEEL they had more control over everything. 

Edit: There are small changes, but they have nothing to do with the outcome of the game or how many enemies you face or what people say. Even if I did spare the apostate, Grace, she would still kidnap my sister and try to kill me even though I saved her life. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 02:07 .

[ShakeyMac]

GunMoth wrote...

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. 

I think that's a personal thing.  The motivations of my Hawke changed the moment the life of my sister was placed in harm's way.  He went from being a diplomatic/sarcastic guy to someone who was willing to do whatever it took to save her.  This meant siding with the mages and laying low all threats to Bethany.  She's the last family I have, and I'm not letting some crazy templar or hypocrite enchanter take her from me.  So for me anyway, it felt like there was a big personal victory there.  I had gotten my sister back, and civil war throughout the world be damned.  I hated what Anders did, but I spared his life because it would help me get my sister back.  The motivations of my Hawke was merely to protect what was important to him, and the most important thing to him was his sister.

So really, I felt some good closure at the end.  Sure, plenty of stuff is up in the air, but I didn't go into DA2 expecting much aside from the knowledge that I was to be the Champion of Kirkwall.  And that's what DA2 is; the story of the rise of the Champion, and the effect his or her events had on the world.

I can understand the desire for more closure, but I personally feel like that wasn't the goal here.  Yes, it sets up for a sequel, but I think it's too much to expect an ending like with DAO, or even ME2.  Both of those games have clearly defined foes that you are set against, with a final end goal in mind.  DA2 is a more open-ended story, and I think trying to add closing elements to it would have ruined the entire point.

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

It didn't really feel like a "choose your own" adventure book.

I would point out that does not make a game bad. I just feel the need to restate that on these boards because some people don't get that.

Everything was all predetermined for the exception of side quests, otherwise, no matter which side you chose the mages revolted.

Which is the more meaningful scenario?

A: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack. Soldier Y dies to save him.
B: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack, until he finds a hidden stash of grenades. He survives and walks off into the sunset with Soldier Y.

Sometimes, large events being predetermined in a story are not bad, even if they're sad and you can't do anything about it. No matter what you did in Origins, the Archdemon was always defeated. Did that make the entire game meaningless -- or less meaningful -- as a result? History cannot always be controlled by the choices of one person, for better or for worse.

The "choice and consequence" elements are felt in the small things. Does the Arishok respect you? Do your companions live? Does Feynriel leave for Tevinter? Does your sibling love you or despise you? To me, those are just as interesting.

[GunMoth]

ShakeyMac wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

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. 

I think that's a personal thing.  The motivations of my Hawke changed the moment the life of my sister was placed in harm's way.  He went from being a diplomatic/sarcastic guy to someone who was willing to do whatever it took to save her.  This meant siding with the mages and laying low all threats to Bethany.  She's the last family I have, and I'm not letting some crazy templar or hypocrite enchanter take her from me.  So for me anyway, it felt like there was a big personal victory there.  I had gotten my sister back, and civil war throughout the world be damned.  I hated what Anders did, but I spared his life because it would help me get my sister back.  The motivations of my Hawke was merely to protect what was important to him, and the most important thing to him was his sister.

So really, I felt some good closure at the end.  Sure, plenty of stuff is up in the air, but I didn't go into DA2 expecting much aside from the knowledge that I was to be the Champion of Kirkwall.  And that's what DA2 is; the story of the rise of the Champion, and the effect his or her events had on the world.

I can understand the desire for more closure, but I personally feel like that wasn't the goal here.  Yes, it sets up for a sequel, but I think it's too much to expect an ending like with DAO, or even ME2.  Both of those games have clearly defined foes that you are set against, with a final end goal in mind.  DA2 is a more open-ended story, and I think trying to add closing elements to it would have ruined the entire point.

No doubt there are points in the game where I sat there impressed by the direction they took the game, and how it made me feel. On my second playthrough I saved my sister by making her a warden after she came with me into the deep roads. Every encounter and letter she sent me were filled with disappointment and depression. I felt like I let her down, then at the end she was like "you side with the templars? I will join you because you're the best sister ever!" Definitely made me a bit teary eyed. Leandra's death was morbid and a bit disturbing as well.

I am saying that the companions could have played a larger roll in the narrative. Maybe I should take the family into more account. Its just very difficult when your sibling is missing for an entire act or two. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 02:14 .

[arnett001]

I just wanted to THANK YOU for putting this out there, because I too believe that Bioware was focusing too much on gearing their game towards a new audience. The entire game felt rushed to me, not a single aspect of it had the amount of depth and detail I have come to expect from Bioware. Mass Effect 2 is a perfect example of how they were able to successfully switch up a few things and make it a hit for fans and newcomers, and I believe they tried to replicate this strategy, but for some reason it was cut short. It is disappointing to see a game that has so much potential fall just short of its predecessor, while Mass Effect 2 blew the first in the series out of the water.

Again, I love the game, I am just disappointed in it. I mean really, the storyline bugs are proof that they didn't take enough time to finish it. I know they had the right idea, but they need to remember that no masterpiece can be rushed.

[Foolsfolly]

MrStorm2K wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
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.

There are two different levels of change. On one level it did not change, and on another level it did. On a certain level, things did not change as in "the poor people become rich" and "the viscount becomes more forceful and brash." On the other hand, power becomes decentralized, the city festers and simmers in its continuing and increasing decadence, religious leaders gradually become either more extreme or more paralyzed, the Qunari occupants change from searching for the relic to conquering Kirkwall, and the city itself slowly rots until it implodes at the end of the game.

But imagine if those story point had some visual changes in the city.

Like after Aveline takes over the guard you see more guards on patrol, especially at night. Or if the anti-Qunari zealots start spreading around the street with criers saying things againts them. These are small tiny changes that would have given the setting more life.

Imagine that after the Qunari attack there were still scars on the city. It's only four years later, look at New Orleans some what 7-8 years after Katrina and the city still hasn't fully recovered.

Nothing changes. There's not even new buildings going up or being torn down. There's no sign of life.

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

It didn't really feel like a "choose your own" adventure book.

I would point out that does not make a game bad. I just feel the need to restate that on these boards because some people don't get that.

Everything was all predetermined for the exception of side quests, otherwise, no matter which side you chose the mages revolted.

Which is the more meaningful scenario?

A: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack. Soldier Y dies to save him.
B: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack, until he finds a hidden stash of grenades. He survives and walks off into the sunset with Soldier Y.

Sometimes, large events being predetermined in a story are not bad, even if they're sad and you can't do anything about it. No matter what you did in Origins, the Archdemon was always defeated. Did that make the entire game meaningless -- or less meaningful -- as a result? History cannot always be controlled by the choices of one person, for better or for worse.

The "choice and consequence" elements are felt in the small things. Does the Arishok respect you? Do your companions live? Does Feynriel leave for Tevinter? Does your sibling love you or despise you? To me, those are just as interesting.

I got into the same discussion with my boyfriend.
He refused to play the game because of the graphics, and I responded with "just because the graphics are not on par with Crysis, does not make it a game bad." To which he replied "It is when that's one of their selling points."

I still disagree with him (I love the art direction they went with in this installment. A lot. ) But he brought up a good point. If you go on the DA2 website it says:
"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

I understand what you're saying. If Dragon Age 2 developers came out and said "this game is going to be lacking in changes, however it sets the plot up for our third installment which will make you **** your pants" then I would be excited. Obviously not in those exact words because that is terrible marketing, but something along those lines. The game has good direction and honestly, it makes me REALLY excited for Dragon Age 3. It definitely did its job.

However, if you're making a 65$ game with a large audience and high expectations, you shouldn't make the game itself a plot device. That's what comic books, DLC, and opening cinematics are for. They could have done a LITTLE bit more with emotions, and it would have been a much more "potent" game. 

[MrStorm2K]

Foolsfolly wrote...

But imagine if those story point had some visual changes in the city.

Like after Aveline takes over the guard you see more guards on patrol, especially at night. Or if the anti-Qunari zealots start spreading around the street with criers saying things againts them. These are small tiny changes that would have given the setting more life.

Imagine that after the Qunari attack there were still scars on the city. It's only four years later, look at New Orleans some what 7-8 years after Katrina and the city still hasn't fully recovered.

Nothing changes. There's not even new buildings going up or being torn down. There's no sign of life.

Those things you mentioned would have been nice touches, to be sure. But I don't think the lack of them makes the game bad.

[GunMoth]

arnett001 wrote...

I just wanted to THANK YOU for putting this out there, because I too believe that Bioware was focusing too much on gearing their game towards a new audience. The entire game felt rushed to me, not a single aspect of it had the amount of depth and detail I have come to expect from Bioware. Mass Effect 2 is a perfect example of how they were able to successfully switch up a few things and make it a hit for fans and newcomers, and I believe they tried to replicate this strategy, but for some reason it was cut short. It is disappointing to see a game that has so much potential fall just short of its predecessor, while Mass Effect 2 blew the first in the series out of the water.

Again, I love the game, I am just disappointed in it. I mean really, the storyline bugs are proof that they didn't take enough time to finish it. I know they had the right idea, but they need to remember that no masterpiece can be rushed.

You could say that about most games except Mass Effect. DA origins was buggy as hell and so was the DLC (import bugs most likely). Mass Effect obviously has a larger budget, but Dragon Age has an advantage:

You play as a different character surrounded by different companions that allow you to explore different aspects of the world around you. Its a constantly changing world. You can make a truly evil Warden complimented by a heroic Champion. Its about different people standing up and making changes in the world, not some Godly commander who headbutts Krogans. (I love Shepard, but its definitely unrealistic) I think thats why I'm disappointed is because of the lost potential. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 02:35 .

[GunMoth]

Need to go cook dinner then shower. I'll be back on in a bit.

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

I got into the same discussion with my boyfriend.
He refused to play the game because of the graphics, and I responded with "just because the graphics are not on par with Crysis, does not make it a game bad." To which he replied "It is when that's one of their selling points."

I still disagree with him (I love the art direction they went with in this installment. A lot. ) But he brought up a good point. If you go on the DA2 website it says:
"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

I would say that's bad marketing. Not a bad game. Remember Origins' ad campaign that portrayed it as a hack 'n' slash blood and sex fest? That was misleading, but it didn't make Origins a bad game.

I understand what you're saying. If Dragon Age 2 developers came out and said "this game is going to be lacking in changes, however it sets the plot up for our third installment which will make you **** your pants" then I would be excited. Obviously not in those exact words because that is terrible marketing, but something along those lines. The game has good direction and honestly, it makes me REALLY excited for Dragon Age 3. It definitely did its job.

However, if you're making a 65$ game with a large audience and high expectations, you shouldn't make the game itself a plot device. That's what comic books, DLC, and opening cinematics are for. They could have done a LITTLE bit more with emotions, and it would have been a much more "potent" game. 

So the only level you appreciated Dragon Age 2 on was that it was a good setup for Dragon Age 3?

To me, the relatively linear story was still powerful by itself. The Dragon Age 3 tease almost seemed unnecessary.

[Foolsfolly]

I think it hobbles the game that it's not there.

It's a game where every location is the exact same. You reuse every map and the big hub areas are used for day and night. You spend all this time in the exact same place over and over and over and over again.

And without any variety or change. This is a design flaw. There are other games that take place in one area but these places are either vibrant and varied (the Assassin Creed games, Rockstar games, the Bethseda games) or they evolve and change (the Lionshead games).

This was forgivable in Dragon Age: Origins because it took place in a little more a little less than a year. However over 7 years Kirkwall doesn't change in any meaningful way, ever.

It's just baffling to me. GTA4 had bombed buildings that changed the landscape. Assassin's Creed 2 has the villa which changes from a broken down crap hole where the people live in hovels to a magnificent walled city full of life and color.

Here's a clear example between two similar environments: Morrowind: Blood Moon's Ravenrock and Dragon Age 2's Bone Pit.

Both are mining towns that the player gets control over. In Blood Moon it starts off as a bunch of wilderness. Through an optional side-quest tree in the game you found, build, design, and populate the mining town of Ravenrock. It's nothing but wilderness and then it becomes the Imperial foothold on the island because of you. And there's choices! And there's two NPC's that you can side with! And in the end you get a mansion built in one of three locations of your choosing and it's the nicest town in the game. And you get paid in stock and gold, the stock rises or falls according to your choices, however it never rises or falls once the quest-tree is complete. So cash in when there's no more quests.

Bone Pit is a mine you become co-partner with and has its own side quest tree, just like Ravenrock. Unlike Ravenrock it's only about 4-5 quests. You never get paid for co-owning. There's no choice other than not doing the quests. The area never changes. Nothing is built. And then it's totally randomly attacked by a High Dragon and that's the end of it.

What a terribly missed opportunity. And Blood Moon? That was like 2001? 2002? Ten years ago and a brand new game cannot match it. And again, that was a side quest in Blood Moon.

Kirkwall is stale. BioWare's never done a game that sat in one location (to my knowledge) before so maybe I shouldn't be too hard on them. But the area has to either have tons of variety to it, so it's interesting, or it has to change to grab at the player.

[ShakeyMac]

GunMoth wrote...

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

It didn't really feel like a "choose your own" adventure book.

I would point out that does not make a game bad. I just feel the need to restate that on these boards because some people don't get that.

Everything was all predetermined for the exception of side quests, otherwise, no matter which side you chose the mages revolted.

Which is the more meaningful scenario?

A: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack. Soldier Y dies to save him.
B: Soldier X cannot escape an enemy attack, until he finds a hidden stash of grenades. He survives and walks off into the sunset with Soldier Y.

Sometimes, large events being predetermined in a story are not bad, even if they're sad and you can't do anything about it. No matter what you did in Origins, the Archdemon was always defeated. Did that make the entire game meaningless -- or less meaningful -- as a result? History cannot always be controlled by the choices of one person, for better or for worse.

The "choice and consequence" elements are felt in the small things. Does the Arishok respect you? Do your companions live? Does Feynriel leave for Tevinter? Does your sibling love you or despise you? To me, those are just as interesting.

I got into the same discussion with my boyfriend.
He refused to play the game because of the graphics, and I responded with "just because the graphics are not on par with Crysis, does not make it a game bad." To which he replied "It is when that's one of their selling points."

I still disagree with him (I love the art direction they went with in this installment. A lot. ) But he brought up a good point. If you go on the DA2 website it says:
"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

I understand what you're saying. If Dragon Age 2 developers came out and said "this game is going to be lacking in changes, however it sets the plot up for our third installment which will make you **** your pants" then I would be excited. Obviously not in those exact words because that is terrible marketing, but something along those lines. The game has good direction and honestly, it makes me REALLY excited for Dragon Age 3. It definitely did its job.

However, if you're making a 65$ game with a large audience and high expectations, you shouldn't make the game itself a plot device. That's what comic books, DLC, and opening cinematics are for. They could have done a LITTLE bit more with emotions, and it would have been a much more "potent" game. 

I see what you're saying there, but at the same time I think it's important to note that the journey can be just as meaningful as the destination.  Yes, it's a cliche that's been used to death throughout all human existence nearly, but it's true.  My sister went to the Circle, I sided with the mages, dueled the Arishok, got my sister back in the end, and Isabela stayed with me.  All of this was done (except for the parts directly involving harm to my sister) with a more diplomatic tone, mixing a bit of sarcasm or humor in from time to time.  Someone else could have their Hawke accomplish the exact same things, but the repurcussions of their actions in terms of how their companions view them, the story that Varric tells, and the subsequent legend presented regarding the Champion could be completely different.

I don't have the heart to play an a**hole/aggressive Hawke for the whole game, so I don't know what it would be like if Varric were my rival and how that would change his story.  Maybe Cassandra doesn't connect the dots in the same way, and instead of seeing a person who happened to be in the right place at the right time, she sees a man of calculation doing what he can to take power for himself and use it to subvert the established religion of the time.

Which, the more I think of it, might be where this disconnect comes from.  DA2 very obviously doesn't have some kind of Big Bad that you fight against.  There are bosses, sure, but none of them are "must kill before they destroy the world" caliber.  And let's be honest, the vast majority of RPG's are basically you and your merry band of misfits setting out to stop some world (or universe) threatening evil.  DA2 is the story of one person and their struggle to survive and thrive in a new city.  It's an RPG for sure, but something very different from what most people have come to expect.  If anything, I'd say a lot of the story-based criticism comes from this dissonance of expectation.  A lot of people went into DA2 expecting it to be something that it wasn't, and they were disappointed as a result.

Again, not to say wanting closure is necessarily a bad thing, I just think it's important to understand that the goal of DA2 wasn't to pit the player against some kind of world-threatening evil with a definitive end.  You don't have a greater goal to accomplish.  You're just surviving, and a combination of your actions and chance have placed you in a unique position to affect the progress of events.  You know the ending of the story; you're the Champion and you're still alive.  How you get to that point is up to you, but you *will* get there.

Modifié par ShakeyMac, 23 mars 2011 - 02:49 .

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

I got into the same discussion with my boyfriend.
He refused to play the game because of the graphics, and I responded with "just because the graphics are not on par with Crysis, does not make it a game bad." To which he replied "It is when that's one of their selling points."

I still disagree with him (I love the art direction they went with in this installment. A lot. ) But he brought up a good point. If you go on the DA2 website it says:
"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

I would say that's bad marketing. Not a bad game. Remember Origins' ad campaign that portrayed it as a hack 'n' slash blood and sex fest? That was misleading, but it didn't make Origins a bad game.

I understand what you're saying. If Dragon Age 2 developers came out and said "this game is going to be lacking in changes, however it sets the plot up for our third installment which will make you **** your pants" then I would be excited. Obviously not in those exact words because that is terrible marketing, but something along those lines. The game has good direction and honestly, it makes me REALLY excited for Dragon Age 3. It definitely did its job.

However, if you're making a 65$ game with a large audience and high expectations, you shouldn't make the game itself a plot device. That's what comic books, DLC, and opening cinematics are for. They could have done a LITTLE bit more with emotions, and it would have been a much more "potent" game. 

So the only level you appreciated Dragon Age 2 on was that it was a good setup for Dragon Age 3?

To me, the relatively linear story was still powerful by itself. The Dragon Age 3 tease almost seemed unnecessary.

I worked for the devil (coughcoughcoughdgamestopfhjsadfh) when Dragon Age Origins came out. They advertised that it was gory and "dark" fantasy, which it was in comparison to games like Fable. But they also advertised that it was a spiritual successor for a specific RPG that we all know and love. Both points were true. There is also sex in the game. We keep getting derailed and you keep missing the point. Here is where I stand:

Bioware made advertisements and statements prior to release and failed to keep their word. They ignored basic artistic elements that need to be considered when creating a narrative. Mankind did not endure 100 years or so of experimental garbage and artistically defining pieces for those elements to be ignored in cinema. Even MORE so with literature. 

The reason these elements are NEEDED is because it makes the experience comprehensive and thought provoking. It also allows us to draw emotional connections and fully realize a character in order to immerse yourself inside the story. Without those elements, it makes the story less enoyable than it could be.

Does that make it a bad game? In a way. The story telling aspect of the game was disjointed. The gameplay isn't for me to analyze since I haven't yet beat it on nightmare. 

[GunMoth]

>_> Cooking dinner while typing responses. This wont end well. BBL guys.

[MrStorm2K]

@ FoolsFolly

More valid points. Environmental design is probably the weakest point of the game. It reeks of a rush job.

I still don't think that makes the entire game bad though. And it has a rather tenuous connection with the narrative.

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 02:48 .

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...
 We keep getting derailed and you keep missing the point. Here is where I stand:

Heh, if you say so.

Bioware made advertisements and statements prior to release and failed to keep their word.

True enough. Again, that's false advertising, and does not necessarily make it a bad game.

They ignored basic artistic elements that need to be considered when creating a narrative.

And those elements are characters that don't discuss their culture, and therefore aren't able to emotionally connect with the player?

The reason these elements are NEEDED is because it makes the experience comprehensive and thought provoking. It also allows us to draw emotional connections and fully realize a character in order to immerse yourself inside the story. Without those elements, it makes the story less enoyable than it could be.

I agree completely with this premise. I disagree with the premise that DA2 was lacking in these areas.

[Foolsfolly]

MrStorm2K wrote...

@ FoolsFolly

More valid points. Environmental design is probably the weakest point of the game. It reeks of a rush job.

I still don't think that makes the entire game bad though. And it has a rather tenuous connection with the narrative.

I'm not saying it made the game bad either, it's just a weakness of the game. And I disagree about it having a tenuous connection to the narrative.

Many times in recent interviews the BioWare guys have said the series is more about Thedas and the universe than it is about a central character, unlike Mass Effect which is all about Commander Shepard stopping the Reapers.

Since Kirkwall has a historically high number of blood mages due to the weakened Veil and the Viscount/Qunari storyline is all there the location is as much a part of the storyline as anything else. So how they presented the location and how the location was designed has a lot to do with this particular story.

Like Lowtown and Darktown is supposed to be filled with refugees which would have created massive poverty, famine, crime, and turned the areas into slums. Darktown looks nothing like an underground slum full of refugees, mages in hiding, and the like. Lowtown isn't that slummy either.

Location reflects visually the story. It reinforces central ideas and concepts. GTA4 had Broker have cracked concret, trash in the alleyways, graffitti, and the like. The Alienage looked as nice as Hightown and had a colorful big tree in the middle.

[Dark Specie]

MrStorm2K wrote...
No matter what you did in Origins, the Archdemon was always defeated. Did that make the entire game meaningless -- or less meaningful -- as a result? History cannot always be controlled by the choices of one person, for better or for worse.

Choosing the Archdemon as your example is a bit of a poor example though IMO - because the whole damn goal of the game was to defeat the archdemon, so that things would end that way was by far expected.

[Foolsfolly]

However, if you're making a 65$ game with a large audience and high expectations, you shouldn't make the game itself a plot device. That's what comic books, DLC, and opening cinematics are for. They could have done a LITTLE bit more with emotions, and it would have been a much more "potent" game.

Here's the worst story element that had no emotion in the entire game.

The death of your second sibling in the Deep Roads. I purposely wanted to kill my current Hawke's family off. She would date Anders and kill him for his crime. In the end she would run off alone as the City of Chains robbed her of family and friends and broke her.

That was the Hawke story I wanted to play this time around. I brought Bethany down to the Deep Roads to kill her.

Wow, that lacked emotion. First off the scene fades to black twice which disrupts the tone and pacing of the moment. Second there's no nice final words, there's no Hawke trying to delay the killing blow, it all happens off camera.

And it's over. Referenced only by Varric three times in the game.

No emotion. Almost like BioWare just assumed no one would want to purposely kill off their sibling for storytelling reasons. But the biggest flaw was the two fades of black which take all emotion and power out of the scene. That was Hawke killing their last surviving sibling. It deserved better.

[MrStorm2K]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I'm not saying it made the game bad either, it's just a weakness of the game. And I disagree about it having a tenuous connection to the narrative.

Many times in recent interviews the BioWare guys have said the series is more about Thedas and the universe than it is about a central character, unlike Mass Effect which is all about Commander Shepard stopping the Reapers.

Since Kirkwall has a historically high number of blood mages due to the weakened Veil and the Viscount/Qunari storyline is all there the location is as much a part of the storyline as anything else. So how they presented the location and how the location was designed has a lot to do with this particular story.

Like Lowtown and Darktown is supposed to be filled with refugees which would have created massive poverty, famine, crime, and turned the areas into slums. Darktown looks nothing like an underground slum full of refugees, mages in hiding, and the like. Lowtown isn't that slummy either.

Location reflects visually the story. It reinforces central ideas and concepts. GTA4 had Broker have cracked concret, trash in the alleyways, graffitti, and the like. The Alienage looked as nice as Hightown and had a colorful big tree in the middle.

I understand the idea that the locations, art, and design should reflect the narrative. I even agree with it.

Perhaps where I differ from you is how important the connection is and what effect it has. Without a doubt, the "environmental storytelling" failed most of the time. However, it did, in my opinion, get across central ideas (Hightown is where the clean, rich people live, Lowtown is where the commoners people live, Darktown is where the lowest of the low is.) And as an aside, I completely disagree with you about the Alienage being comparable to Hightown.

But even then, does the explicit storytelling, if you will, suffer to such an extent that its impact and meaningfulness is decreased? In my opinion, no, it does not. The things I've mentioned in earlier posts are still clearly communicated to the player and stays with you after completion. That's not something I can say for many games on the market today.

I'm assuming you would disagree. Am I wrong?

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 03:29 .

[MrStorm2K]

Dark Specie wrote...

Choosing the Archdemon as your example is a bit of a poor example though IMO - because the whole damn goal of the game was to defeat the archdemon, so that things would end that way was by far expected.

So... you expected to be able to talk to the mages and templars and convince them not to have a final confrontation? Or that the Arishok would leave without causing much of a fuss?

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Foolsfolly]

I'm assuming you would disagree. Am I wrong?

I don't disagree all that much. The thing is actual story is so small and relies almost entirely on side quests that allude to it that if the storytelling through location had been done it would be easier to swallow. The main story, in my mind, is the Mage/Templar conflict which is contained almost exclusively to the final act.

The storyline is told in an almost second-hand nature. You don't meet the big players until the end, you don't become a templar or Circle mage. You don't join the rebellion until the last mission, or you don't quell the rebellion until the final mission.

That and the sense of meandering around the city doing unrelated quests are the biggest things that undermine the story.

The location is just another weakness.