193 réponses à ce sujet

[SirSwordBlaster]

I would not blame the writter, specially if was the same that it was on DAO. Every aspect on the game i have seen seems to be turn to simplistic.
I remember spending 40 minutes or so on DAO talking with companions on camp. I really liked it. Felt them like real companions.
¿It's the age of the twitterization of video games? ¿Say what you have to say on 100 characters or leave?
For me DAO was like reading a book, with casual combat. For me DAO2 is like Mortal Kombat with casual reading.

[DJBare]

Rojahar wrote...

I dunno what the OP is talking about. The game is the story of how mage uprising began and how the Champion tied into the various factors that created the "perfect storm" catalyst.

The story is of a person being swept along by the tide, the person can make choices within defined perimeteres, but they can never change the outcome, Hawke is not the catalyst, he/she is just another bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time, in fact if you've watched the ending discussion between Varric and Casandra, Varric himself explains that there are different reasons for the resulting outcome, but non defined.

[F-C]

DJBare wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

I dunno what the OP is talking about. The game is the story of how mage uprising began and how the Champion tied into the various factors that created the "perfect storm" catalyst.

The story is of a person being swept along by the tide, the person can make choices within defined perimeteres, but they can never change the outcome, Hawke is not the catalyst, he/she is just another bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time, in fact if you've watched the ending discussion between Varric and Casandra, Varric himself explains that there are different reasons for the resulting outcome, but non defined.

then run the opening sequence and listen to Flemeth.

"thrown into the chaos and you shall fight, and the world will shape before you"

derp derp

[DJBare]

Rojahar wrote...

They literally say at the end that none of it would have happened without the Champion, and it's true. The game is deciding how the end results actually happened through your choices throughout the game.

That's what Casandra said, go back a listen to Varrics response.

[Crash_7]

SupR G wrote...

Evolution33 wrote...

Where is it a rule that every story in a series has to be self contained?

An unwritten rule for any good writer. It's also considered to be a standard.

There are no standards in art.  You come across to me as repeating the lessons you learnt in a college writing class.  No offence intended there by the way.  But when you make statements about rules in art you instantly loose any traction in your argument.

[TheMadCat]

Crash_7 wrote...

SupR G wrote...

Evolution33 wrote...

Where is it a rule that every story in a series has to be self contained?

An unwritten rule for any good writer. It's also considered to be a standard.

There are no standards in art.  You come across to me as repeating the lessons you learnt in a college writing class.  No offence intended there by the way.  But when you make statements about rules in art you instantly loose any traction in your argument.

There certainly are standards in art. Tastes vary and the ultimate determinant of quality is subjective but there are universal standards pieces in their respected medium are held to.

[CakesOnAPlane]

I think with DA2 Bioware were trying to develop their style of choices. Most of the DA:O choices felt very detatched - you came along, fought some dudes, made a choice about the king/keeper/whatever, left, got some text about it in the epilouge.

In DA2 I felt that the choices (and indeed the whole story) was intended to be much more personal. The end was not: choose a ruler for the country, templars or mages. But rather: choose a side for yourself and allies.

The most intense moments in both games are the parts that affect you and your companions personally - Landsmeet/Dark Ritual/Mother/Anders - because they use your emotions to combat your moral judgement - I know that the Dark Ritual is dangerous, and had the choice been to decide whether GenericNPC165 should do it I would have said no. But it uses your emotional attatchments to make you question yourself and that is what makes it a tough choice - I think this is what they were aiming for with DA2's approach to choices, whether they succeded or not is down to opinion.

TL;DR: DA2 tries to make choices more personal, which I think is a better idea than the many detatched choices in DA:O.

[Mousers]

Well, I get what the OP is saying, shame most of the posters don't. And I say that because of the responses. It would be nice to discuss the OP with other writers that get what is being said. And, I agree with the OP completely.

[SirSwordBlaster]

Rojahar wrote...

It seems like people are disappointed that DA2 didn't follow the same rehashed plot. "THE WORLD IS THREATENED! THE LEGENDARY ORDER MUST TRAVEL THE LAND AND SLAY THE ANCIENT EVIL!" I'm glad they didn't make Transformers Age 2 or K-Mart's version of Lord of the Rings. As the poster above me said, DA2 is a much more personal plot with decisions have a less artificial and ultimately more impactful effect. In DAO, you could have removed the Warden from the story completely... and it would have made no difference.

¿Are you serious? ¿Do you think that the second part of an epic videogame should be based on raising your fishing skills cause the world is safe?

[Haexpane]

The only people who follow "writing rules" are fan fic losers. Their writing is usually worse than an 8th grader.

[silentassassin264]

The writing in DA2 was superb. I can understand the gameplay rants but you are really grasping at straws to try and bash the writing.

[Hatchetman77]

The game had some astoundly good writing in it, particularily everything involving the Qunari.  The story really just needed a few more passes over it and rewrites to give it some focus. For that I blame the shortened development cycle.  The lazy ending was a particular disapointment though. I don't think anyone could defend the plot device of magical mcguffins making people go co-co for cocopuffs a decent ending.  It boarders on a Deus Ex Machina ending.

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 24 mars 2011 - 11:04 .

[AtreiyaN7]

These "rules" are pretty arbitrary as far as I'm concerned. I've had to work on plenty of books that follow the supposed rules of good writing. Unfortunately, many of them have been utter crap despite adhering to those rules to the letter. Why does leaving the world at the brink of war not qualify as an ending? Because you have to know what happens to everyone to be happy with it? Because you demand that there be more than one ending? 

As far as DA2 goes, Cassandra's investigation is about the "Incident" - something that at the time of her interrogation of Varric is a historical fact. In this case at least, it seems appropriate to have the "incident" be an immutable event with the focus on the part Hawke played and his/her culpability in the matter. There are still variables like who lives and who dies, in addition to who stays/leaves/returns (not counting the forced sibling death). You say there are holes - probably about things like the lyrium idol I'm guessing - but while on my second run I started noticing more connections from Act 1 on - including the interrogation scenes that made me notice more references related to the idol.

That the story is told differently from your average narrative doesn't make it bad, and I don't think the writers have anything to be ashamed of on the whole. I've seen Harlan Ellison called both a hack and a brilliant writer. Who's right about that? I did find this passage from Ray Bradbury's Afterword in Fahrenheit 451  amusing; although it ws related to censorship and the sanitizing of literary works, it's appropriate in terms of the author's right to do whatever they feel like doing without intereference:

All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you.

[EternalPink]

SupR G wrote...

Evolution33 wrote...

Where is it a rule that every story in a series has to be self contained?

An unwritten rule for any good writer. It's also considered to be a standard.

You'd best go tell David & Leigh Eddings that since the 5 book belgariad series wasn't self contained ( also stated as the best fantasy since lord of the rings ) neither was the 5 book The mallorean, the trilogy elenium or the trilogy The Tamuli series all of which where best sellers

Oh and Robin Hobb,Maggie Fury, Terry Goodkind, Katherine Kerr.... actually wait perhaps it would be easier for you to provide a list of authors that believe your "unwritten rule"

Modifié par EternalPink, 24 mars 2011 - 11:26 .

[Irish Chick]

agreed the writing doesnt have the humour and flair prevalent in DAO, its also such a shame that the characters are written to at best be forgettable and at worst (and is more often the case) plain infuriating.

[Dark Specie]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

I think with DA2 Bioware were trying to develop their style of choices. Most of the DA:O choices felt very detatched - you came along, fought some dudes, made a choice about the king/keeper/whatever, left, got some text about it in the epilouge.

In DA2 I felt that the choices (and indeed the whole story) was intended to be much more personal. The end was not: choose a ruler for the country, templars or mages. But rather: choose a side for yourself and allies.

TL;DR: DA2 tries to make choices more personal, which I think is a better idea than the many detatched choices in DA:O.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't make things better IMO - it may be more personal, but one gets the feeling of "whaqt use are choices if they never actually change anything". That's just plain dull and boring. One of my main reasons for buying % playing Bioware's RPG's is  to get a chance to affect events, the total outcome of the story, etc. If we always arrive at the same end no matter what, then having "choices" at all is meaningless IMO. Look at it this way: In the end, what has Hawke truly accomplished? He may have gotten the fancy title of Champion, but he was unable to prevent the disasters and calamities that came into his way...

Rojahar wrote...
It seems like people are disappointed that DA2 didn't follow the same rehashed plot. "THE WORLD IS THREATENED! THE LEGENDARY ORDER MUST TRAVEL THE LAND AND SLAY THE ANCIENT EVIL!"

NO.

That is not my disappointment with DA2. I don't need a world--saving plot for it to be a good game. But we DO need an overall goal in the game, a red thread through the game, otherwise one just ends up confused about what exactly is you're supposed to work towards int he game. I can think of two games that had a plot that didn't involve saing the world but nonetheless had a red thread going through them:

Baldur's Gate 2 - You have to save your sister from Irenicus. Granted, it may be a goal some people felt deattached about since Imoen didn't hit off with everyone, but then again, going after her also meant going after Irenicus, whom the palyer may at elast want revenge against for torturing, imprisoning and experimenting on him/her (and, in the case mof females, possibly raped). It then becomes more personal as Irenicus steals your soul, meaning that the PC will die unless Irenicus found (again) and killed.

The Witcher .- You're supposed to take back the secrets that was stolen from your order and work towards that goal through the game.  Killing the Big Bad is just a bonus/side-effect of fulfilling this at best.

So what's the goal/red thread of DA2? "Hawke creates himelf a new life in Kirkwall"? That's the goal that was mostly fulfiled in Act 1, though Act 2 had traces of it as well, but after that...

And, of course, there's the lack of a feeling of triumph/accomplishment at the end.

Modifié par Dark Specie, 24 mars 2011 - 11:44 .

[Azzlee]

SupR G wrote...
A major rule of writing a series is that each story must be self-contained and self-sustained. In effect that means NO cliffhanger endings and NO relying on sequels (or expansions) to complete the story of the respective episode (or game, in this case). Instead what Mr. Gaider did here was slap a story together, loosely connect it with small cameos and references to Origins, add subtext to a "greater threat" somewhere out in the world, use the word "Destiny" and call it a day. Constantly something was referenced and would remain unexplored and unexplained. This was done so often that it went beyond simple foreshadowing, and instead perpetually teased the audience and then didn't deliver it.

Whilst I agree with virtually everything you said. The first and second sentences of this quoted paragraph I do not.

Whilst I am of the opinion that it is as if a totally different team wrote DA2, there are many films/games/tv shows out there that superbly intertwine cliffhangers and sequels in the story telling. Halo 2, Lost, Lord of the Rings to name but three.
Having said that, in games it is very dangerous to do so. If a game is overall poor (IMO DA:2 is this) or sells badly, then cliffhanging is not a good idea. Nor is obviously relying on a sequel.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I don't own a copy of the game so I haven't played it all the way through and doubt I shall but the story doesn't seem so bad from the parts I saw. I don't think the writers should feel ashamed. Now the writers for NWN 1 should feel ashamed, that story was really painful, especially after the BG series. Everything else feels like gold after the NWN 1 official campaign, haha.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

The game had some astoundly good writing in it, particularily everything involving the Qunari.  The story really just needed a few more passes over it and rewrites to give it some focus. For that I blame the shortened development cycle.  The lazy ending was a particular disapointment though. I don't think anyone could defend the plot device of magical mcguffins making people go co-co for cocopuffs a decent ending.  It boarders on a Deus Ex Machina ending.

Agreed.  Also, from a story point of view, I understand why that particular article popped up again and influenced the narrative; it made the whole situation much more Hawke's fault.  I still didn't particularly enjoy it for reasons I cannot delve into in this forum.

[Johnny20]

David Gaider is the only one who has come out of this mess with some integrity. While not amazing, the story is one of the only redeeming factors of Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Johnny20, 24 mars 2011 - 11:49 .

[Delixe]

IMO there was nothing wrong with the story, it was the utter lack of choice and ability to shape that story that was the problem. That's nothing really to do with the writing team that's the actual design of the game.

Modifié par Delixe, 24 mars 2011 - 11:49 .