100 réponses à ce sujet

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

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.

Okay, we're arguing in circles so I'm going to assume you're missing something. LECTURE DINNER TIME. *nomns on gyros*

Culture + personal history + qualities one is able to relate to = Compelling characters / Character development.

Art = The act of expressing an idea through various mediums. It makes those things "art". However, art that is not abstract follows a format known as artistic elements. The elements differ based on medium. For example, a videogame will have different elements than a painting. 

Examples of elements of cinema/videogames: 
Lighting, symbolism, atmosphere, sound, conflict, plot, characters. etc.

How to use elements:
As a director you want to focus on one "MAIN" element to tell a story, while using the other elements to compliment the main element. By doing so you achieve a comprehensive narrative to express your idea. 

Why Dragon Age's main artistic element is "character":
The city, the story and everything in it does not change on its own. It changes based on decisions of the main character (or rather, lack of changes). However, without supporting characters to influence or react to the main character's actions, the story will fall flat because there is no outside opinion to challenge the main character. There would be no conflict. There would be no antagonist. 

If those characters do not have depth, culture, or some way to relate to them, then their opinion is moot, and the struggle is lost. 

I use Fenris as an example because he is the most two dimensional character in Dragon Age 2. His support or arguments become meaningless because his character has no depth or meaning unless the player reads WAYYY too far into what little history we have of him. Interesting things are happening with the plot, so maybe the main element IS plot. If that's the case, it only further proves my point that the game alienates the player from the decisions that they make. I'm starting to believe this now. 

If you think that ignoring artistic elements does not ruin a game, a film, or a piece of art, I'm going to assume that you watch movies like Transformers. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 03:31 .

[GunMoth]

Dark Specie wrote...

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.

Killing the archdemon offered a sense of closure. It drove back the blight. It was an evil that would end the world.
DA2's ending has two VERY different points of view based on morality. Yet no matter what side you choose, it turns out the same. 

[GunMoth]

ShakeyMac wrote...

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.

I get those points. But those aren't my problems. I don't have story based issues. I have issues with the depth and delevopment of characters which is the main artistic element driving the game. Without Anders the chantry wouldn't have been blown up. Without the Champion none of Kirkwall would be in the state it is in. There was depth to SOME character, but a lot of important ones lacked the depth they required to REALLY deliver an emotional experience that would have been farrr more compelling than what they released. 

[Silveryne]

First of all, I really appreciate that you've stated your views, made it clear that you'll tolerate dissent, et cetera. Although I think calling people who liked the game fanboys and fangirls is a little incorrect; I liked the game and, quite frankly, I have historically disliked Bioware games. I'm not a Bioware Fangirl by any stretch of the imagination. There's often a certain scorn or fanaticism associated with being a fanboy or a fangirl. So. Take that as you will.

And...please don't say that you're speaking for everyone who found something lacking with the game. That's asking for trouble with some of the people on the board. Let's be frank: there's nice people on both sides of the debate, and then there are the people who are abusive tend to drown everyone else out. There are people who liked the game but found it flawed. There are people who couldn't stand it. Vast spectrums of people. Neither you nor I speak for anyone but ourselves at the end of the day.

Now. I agree with you on some points and I disagree with you on some points. I thought character development was good, but I thought there could be some saving graces. Dialogue triggering after quests or at points in a rivalry or friendship was great. But there was so little of it that it didn't matter. If it was after every other main quest, and every 25 points, they probably could have gotten away with it. As it stands, the companion conversation system probably could have been vastly improved by having some set conversation topics that you could discuss throughout the game. God knows I listened to Leliana tell her stories enough times. It's a little more character writing and voice acting than they might be comfortable with, though.

The female romance options were quite annoying. I agree with you here. In the end I romanced Fenris because he actually had a side to him beyond "MAGISTERS SUCK". It took until later in the game to actually reveal that facet of his personality, admittedly. I don't mind that slavery and oppression have dominated Fenris' life and embittered him to parts of the world. But frankly, I just started to romance Isabela after my first play through, because Fenris and Anders were too much of a headache. So, yes. I agree with you on this point.

I didn't mind the templar/mage theme because it crescendo'd from less than a dull roar in Act 1, to engulfing chaos in Act 3. The Qunari plotline and the Arishok lamenting the chaos in Kirkwall actually emphasized how the city is in a state of nature/state of war with itself. The action in Act 3 just serves his point. I thought this plot was good, although possibly too subtle to be enjoyable if you're not critically thinking about the plot at every step of the way.

Finally, if you asked me what people had the biggest problem with, I will agree with you: It's an epilogue, son. Since the days of Fallout, we've had a slideshow or cutscene telling us how our actions have impacted the world for years to come. That is absent here and instead you have that through dialogue and quests -- helped Merrill? Good job, you get to kill her clan now. Or the clan is without a leader. Helped Anders? You're an accessory to mass murder. The lines are not clearly drawn, the resolutions are not orated to us. Instead we are told that the Champion sticks around and is begged to rule, or hides in the hills until things blow over.
As it stands in the game, a lot of the divergences are visible in the game itself, not in a cutscene or a slideshow.
I genuinely think that if there had been a scene at the end telling us what had happened, a lot less people would be complaining.

I want to add a final though that you might feel is unrelated.

I've seen people bash this game while at the same time praising Planescape: Torment (which is, I must say, one of my favorite RPGs -- I praise it, too. To high heaven.). Planescape: Torment playthroughs all ended up with the same ending! There were many solutions to the final battle, but no matter what you did, the Nameless One always got the same cutscene at the end! By the standards of the people on this board, is that not an RPG because there is no choice?
No, it's an RPG because your choices that you make do matter. You can go through that game with virtually no fighting under your belt. You can choose several solutions to get that ending cutscene. KOTOR2 is often praised for a good story (although poor execution) but you will always end up facing down Kreia at the end. The woman says it herself at one point: It's not the ending, but the journey.

All we seem to be able to focus on, though, is the ending.

[Tainan7509]

The only problem i have for DA2 is "Same Area" they reuse a lot of them and i got tired seeing the same thing again and again with different quest and stuff to loot. I have said some thing similar in other post and i will say it again. If they really want to use same map for all the quests and acts, i hope they really change the environment and since it take 2 or 3 years between each act, it seems to be very reasonable for players to expect the differences in each area in the game.
Other stuff like story and characters development are great. I felt like more emotional feeling closer to my personal Hawke's story than Warden TBH. I really want to know about Hawke's next move and his story more. The Story was great, but i strongly suggest to some new players to play DAO before DA2. Otherwise, they might have no idea about what is going on in DA2.
Ending was clearly leaving a huge space for the next game. Some people are not happy with it, but for me, i don't really care. Because since i felt that they kinda rush the product out of the market, i would rather see them put more time in the next game and hope they read their audiences' opinion and improve it. Bioware can do it. i trust them.

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...
Okay, we're arguing in circles so I'm going to assume you're missing something. LECTURE DINNER TIME. *nomns on gyros*

Culture + personal history + qualities one is able to relate to = Compelling characters / Character development.

I still don't get why you have culture in that equation. What exactly do you mean by culture? How is that expressed in a character?

Art = The act of expressing an idea through various mediums. It makes those things "art". However, art that is not abstract follows a format known as artistic elements. The elements differ based on medium. For example, a videogame will have different elements than a painting.

Would a theme (redemption, revenge, love, good vs. evil, etc.) be considered an "artistic element" using this definition?

Why Dragon Age's main artistic element is "character":
The city, the story and everything in it does not change on its own. It changes based on decisions of the main character (or rather, lack of changes). However, without supporting characters to influence or react to the main character's actions, the story will fall flat because there is no outside opinion to challenge the main character. There would be no conflict. There would be no antagonist.

If those characters do not have depth, culture, or some way to relate to them, then their opinion is moot, and the struggle is lost.

I use Fenris as an example because he is the most two dimensional character in Dragon Age 2. His support or arguments become meaningless because his character has no depth or meaning unless the player reads WAYYY too far into what little history we have of him. Interesting things are happening with the plot, so maybe the main element IS plot. If that's the case, it only further proves my point that the game alienates the player from the decisions that they make. I'm starting to believe this now.

I don't know quite how to start addressing this section because of so many presuppositions. So I'm just going to try to present my view of DA2 in contrast to yours and hopefully you'll be able to see my points more clearly.

Quite simply, I do not think you can say the story is only about Hawke. Nor can you say its simply about his companions. DA2's story is about Hawke, his family and friends, and the collapse of a culture around him. Kirkwall is clearly a decaying civilization. Poverty is rampant; morality is a forgotten notion. Virtually every mage experiments with demonic magic, and those that don't are unfortunate enough to be associated with those people. The order meant to protect mages, the Templars, are their oppressors. Many of them support widespread genocide of mages for the actions of the renegade ones. The city brothel is teeming with customers, including your pathetic uncle who, by the way, wasted all the money your grandfather left you on booze and hookers. Racism is just as problematic as elsewhere in the world, with elves being treated as second-class citizens. Organized crime is everywhere. The viscount is slow to act in any situation. And the religious leaders? They are either corrupt or paralyzed by the weight of the city's wickedness. This game paints an absolutely unforgiving, unrelenting picture of the dark foundation of a crumbling society and places your character right in the middle of it. Your rise in influence is contrasted with the slow decay of the city around you. Arguably the most empathetic faction in the entire game is the Qunari, who are undoubtedly flawed in many ways. However, they are moved by the desolate state of Kirkwall and feel compelled to do something about it. Not merely on a pragmatic level either, but on a more basic, meaningful level. They see a people without meaning or purpose, a herd of sheep without a shepherd, and feel obligated to help them.

So, when you step back and analyze all of this, you begin to realize the intelligence behind the writing. Perhaps it is an insightful commentary on Western civilization, or perhaps it is merely an unintentional commentary on all collapsing civilizations. But it doesn't just stop there. Your companions, each with their own agendas and loyalties, all have their own crushingly sad tales that reinforce pre-existing themes.

Aveline? Her husband got killed and she's now having to work for a corrupt city guard.

Anders? He's possessed by a demon and doesn't know how to get rid of it. And even worse, he's not sure if he wants to.

Merril? She's expelled from her people for her willingness to play with demons to gain the power to revive her dead friend.

Fenris? He was a slave that was constantly abused at the hands of an evil mage. Oh, and now he hates every mage because of his experiences.

Sebastian? Oh, his family was killed and now he's torn between his allegiances to his family, his country, and his god.

I love the characters in this game simply because they reinforce the dark, tormented themes that the game consistently submerges you in. The questions the game asks are hard ones. They're instantly relatable to our everyday lives. And no matter what choices you make, Kirkwall inevitably collapses under its own bloated weight.

The amount of depth in such a relatively small-scale story is stunning. While you may not be saving the world, the “significance” is there in the way you relate to other characters, and the way the story brings your own beliefs and thoughts to the surface.

And yet, at the same time, you are always aware of the ordinary nature of your tale. You realize there are all sorts of things occurring in this fantasy world, but you're too busy trying to avoid a diplomatic incident or scrape up some coin. After playing Bioware games that are so large-scale when compared to the relatively small-scale Dragon Age II -- games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins -- the game seems to be lacking that sense of grandeur. Your story is not an epic, it is just one of many stories occurring in the world over a few years. Dragon Age II feels cut off from the world they already established in Origins, despite the multiple references they throw in to appease fans. It isn't until the very end, when the tease of a far larger, grander coming event comes, that you begin to realize the “significance” of your tale in a much broader sense.

It's this dichotomy, small but deep, that makes Dragon Age II so unique. The game's small scale allows the story to fully explore the relationships between people and study a culture and society.

So, uh, I disagree.

[GunMoth]

Wow. More and more misunderstandings. You keep saying "THE STORY IS ABOUT HAWKE. NO IT IS NOT." Plot is an artistic element. Having an element support the narrative is NOT the same thing as a story.

[MrStorm2K]

GunMoth wrote...

Wow. More and more misunderstandings. You keep saying "THE STORY IS ABOUT HAWKE. NO IT IS NOT." Plot is an artistic element. Having an element support the narrative is NOT the same thing as a story.

...So you're saying a narrative is not a story?

EDIT: Wait, no. You're saying the plot is bad, but well-supported?

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 04:14 .

[GunMoth]

Silveryne wrote...

First of all, I really appreciate that you've stated your views, made it clear that you'll tolerate dissent, et cetera. Although I think calling people who liked the game fanboys and fangirls is a little incorrect; I liked the game and, quite frankly, I have historically disliked Bioware games. I'm not a Bioware Fangirl by any stretch of the imagination. There's often a certain scorn or fanaticism associated with being a fanboy or a fangirl. So. Take that as you will.
.

Thanks for writing this out. This is actually the kind of thing that inspired my post. I was posting a lot of relevent information in a thread that was dedicated to belittling females, homosexuals, and other aspects of the game that were misinterpreted because they were simply misinformed on the structure of narrative. I am trying to use a model that is commonly used to review film and games in an objective light. Technically. 

Don't get me wrong, I had fun playing the game, and like I've said before I have respect for the writers and everyone involved. At the end, I wasn't reserving the term "fanboys and fangirls" for people who enjoyed the game. I was reserving it for people who blindly accept that the game needs no improvement what so ever. No game can truly be perfect, but there are a lot of technical flaws and basic principles that you learn in basic art or creative writing courses in highschool. I just feel (and this is my opinion) that Bioware neglected these basic elements because they were attempting to appeal to a massive audience. I don't think any particular audience ruined the game. And I don't think its impossible for a game to ever achieve the balance between innovation and hardcore appeal. I just think Bioware got sick, and threw up. They could be rushed. There could be budget issues. There are probably concerns with how the fanbase will react towards certain characters. Either way, you can see it in their work. 

[Foolsfolly]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Wow. More and more misunderstandings. You keep saying "THE STORY IS ABOUT HAWKE. NO IT IS NOT." Plot is an artistic element. Having an element support the narrative is NOT the same thing as a story.

...So you're saying a narrative is not a story?

EDIT: Wait, no. You're saying the plot is bad, but well-supported?

My brain asplode'd.

[MrStorm2K]

Foolsfolly wrote...

My brain asplode'd.

I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Wow. More and more misunderstandings. You keep saying "THE STORY IS ABOUT HAWKE. NO IT IS NOT." Plot is an artistic element. Having an element support the narrative is NOT the same thing as a story.

...So you're saying a narrative is not a story?

EDIT: Wait, no. You're saying the plot is bad, but well-supported?

A narrative is the way a story is told or progresses. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying the plot was good, but terribly supported by the "ELEMENT OF ART" that was moving the plot along. THE CHARACTERS. THE CHARACTERS MOVE THE PLOT. 

Characters are the narrative. They are the driving force, the opposing force, the people who make up the entire story. Setting or environment (places like Kirkwall) is only important because of the things CHARACTERS have done there. If it weren't for the CHARACTERS. The plot would not move. 

(I dont mean for the caps to be me yelling hahaha. I'm just trying to illustrate this because it is difficult to understand if you have never taken an art course) 

Because some of the CHARACTERS did not have the depth I have been refering to (the kind of emotional bond that immerses you into the story) the tools or ELEMENTS OF ART are not relatable. If they were relatable, the storyline could be complimented. 

Dragon Age 2 is like a picture book: There are a lot of outlines. Character cliches. Character archetypes. Stereotypical characters that are pulled from real life. The "dark and mysterious guy" or the "virginile girl" or the "femme fatal". However, when you're looking through the picture book, you realize there is no color. There may be basic outlines for these characters, but they're missing that personal depth that makes them believable. That extra little push that makes the audience want to cry when they die. 

We just have a plot. A good one. But one that sits as dead as roadkill. 

[GunMoth]

Examples of movies and games that do NOT rely on character development or dialog to move the plot forward:

ICO - Relies on symbolism expressed through lighting
RASHOMON (by Akira Kurosawa) - Relies on Symbolism expressed through the environment.
(Actually.. any of Akira Kurosawa's films usually use the environment to express an idea. The idea is usually socio-political)

Any of Fredrico Fellini's films. They use HEAVY symbolism. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 04:28 .

[GunMoth]

Foolsfolly wrote...

MrStorm2K wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Wow. More and more misunderstandings. You keep saying "THE STORY IS ABOUT HAWKE. NO IT IS NOT." Plot is an artistic element. Having an element support the narrative is NOT the same thing as a story.

...So you're saying a narrative is not a story?

EDIT: Wait, no. You're saying the plot is bad, but well-supported?

My brain asplode'd.

ffffffffffffffff 

[GunMoth]

I think I need to revise my original post. It leaves room for too much miscommunication.

[MrStorm2K]

So, for the purpose of clarification, you're saying we have bad characters telling (don't know if that's the right word) a good plot, correct?

Modifié par MrStorm2K, 23 mars 2011 - 04:29 .

[Foolsfolly]

So, for the purpose of clarification, you're saying we have bad characters telling (don't know if that's the right word) a good plot, correct?

I can't speak for him, but I'll say we have good characters involved in a meh-plot.

[GunMoth]

MrStorm2K wrote...

So, for the purpose of clarification, you're saying we have bad characters telling (don't know if that's the right word) a good plot, correct?

Yeah, "telling" wouldn't nessisarily be the correct word. But I think you get it.

That's my problem with a lot of videogames or movies I watch. I see them and think "Oh man, that idea was so cool. But why did the movie suck so badly?" Its because of the narrative. Either the director could not focus on one and it ruined the "flow" of the movie. (Imagine if everyone in Dragon Age stopped speaking half way through and they all did interpretive dance. Or started using EXTREMELY contrasting lighting for the visuals.) 

[Morroian]

GunMoth wrote...

A narrative is the way a story is told or progresses. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying the plot was good, but terribly supported by the "ELEMENT OF ART" that was moving the plot along. THE CHARACTERS. THE CHARACTERS MOVE THE PLOT. 

Characters are the narrative. They are the driving force, the opposing force, the people who make up the entire story. Setting or environment (places like Kirkwall) is only important because of the things CHARACTERS have done there. If it weren't for the CHARACTERS. The plot would not move. 

I tihnk the characterisaiton is pretty good myself. You seem to be saying that because the characters don't talk about their background like they did in DAO that they lack characterisation, but that isn't so, the characterisation comes through other dialogue through how they interact with Hawke.

[GunMoth]

Foolsfolly wrote...

So, for the purpose of clarification, you're saying we have bad characters telling (don't know if that's the right word) a good plot, correct?

I can't speak for him, but I'll say we have good characters involved in a meh-plot.

I'm a girl (don't worry, there is no way you could have known hahaha.) 
Its bad characters trying to express a OMG EDIT EDIT GOOD plot. (Like I said in the post above)

The overall IDEA of the characters is good, but because they're missing HUGE aspects of depth, the plot can only go so far because of them. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 04:39 .

[GunMoth]

Morroian wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

A narrative is the way a story is told or progresses. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying the plot was good, but terribly supported by the "ELEMENT OF ART" that was moving the plot along. THE CHARACTERS. THE CHARACTERS MOVE THE PLOT. 

Characters are the narrative. They are the driving force, the opposing force, the people who make up the entire story. Setting or environment (places like Kirkwall) is only important because of the things CHARACTERS have done there. If it weren't for the CHARACTERS. The plot would not move. 

I tihnk the characterisaiton is pretty good myself. You seem to be saying that because the characters don't talk about their background like they did in DAO that they lack characterisation, but that isn't so, the characterisation comes through other dialogue through how they interact with Hawke.

Elaborate a little more or use examples. I want to understand but I can't get past how terrible the characterization is. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 23 mars 2011 - 04:38 .

[MrStorm2K]

Ok then, I'm going back to the good ol' "I disagree" response.

Can you get into the specifics on some of the characters you didn't like and why?

[Morroian]

Foolsfolly wrote...

So, for the purpose of clarification, you're saying we have bad characters telling (don't know if that's the right word) a good plot, correct?

I can't speak for him, but I'll say we have good characters involved in a meh-plot.

I'd probably agree with that but saying the plot is slight is not a criticism. A story can have no or little plot but be told via other means like the characters eg. David Lynch's films. In fact the absense of a strong traditional narrative is probably one reason for the reception of the game.

[ZombiePowered]

GunMoth wrote...

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.

This works because we were mostly done with Ferelden. The events/consequences of the Warden's actions are known and can be stated as canon. The consequences of Hawke's actions haven't even begun to show their full force yet. The reason that there is no closure in the ending for DA2 is because things aren't over. Things have barely begun. All we've seen in DA2 are the pieces being set up. Of course there is no conclusion on what happened to the mages; that is story to be shown, not expositioned at us. And the Arishok very clearly let us know that they would be back. And let's not even get started on why the Grey Wardens want to find the primevil thaig: did anyone find the whole idea of the idol "singing" far to familiar to the song the Awakening's Mother and her ilk missed so dearly? To end DA2, which is far more about Hawke and his rise to power, with a wall of text simply wouldn't have done him justice.

In short, the game was executed correctly. Perhaps not what some people wanted (i.e., it wasn't Origins with a new face and better graphics), but it the story was shown exactly how it should have been, and any lack of closure at the end is because things aren't over. It was the ending of the beginning of Hawke's legend. Varric ends it by saying "A legend was born." Everything after that is teaser, a taste of things to come. And it worked. It made me really thirsty.

[Morroian]

GunMoth wrote...
Elaborate a little more or use examples. I want to understand but I can't get past how terrible the characterization is. 

I think Storm2K has done a pretty good job of detailing why the characters are interesting.