193 réponses à ce sujet

[Azazel005]

Apple Sauce wrote...

There's no problem with you disagreeing with an opinion, but don't dare say that this story didn't end on a cliffhanger. Just about everyone can agree that it did. Whether or not it's a bad thing is up for debate. At the risk of spoilers, we can't get into specifics but the entire third act was unresolved at the end. Making a choice, having a final battle, walking off screen and having the equivalent of a "to be continued..." play out in a short cutscene is the absolute definition of a cliffhanger ending. That's what happened.

So here's the opinion part: This isn't a book. This isn't fan fiction. This isn't Dragon Age 2 Part 1. It's bad writing, plain and simple.

Not to sound rude, but it's not an really an opinion to say 'It ended on a cliffhanger', one might debate the elements which define a cliffhanger and agree or disagree on those points but based on any definition I have seen this simply doesn't fit.

A cliffhanger would mean that the story is un-resolved,the 'cute-scene' in question is a reactionary event to the conclusion of the story. It may lead to more questions but it's not a part of the narrative we just expierenced. Many, many stories end with a final battle and the key players 'riding off into the sunset' so to speak. Obviously we can't discuss it a great deal without spoilers, but I can't see any of the elements of the story involving the champions rise to power in kirkwall that have been un-resolved.

Popular opinion may define it as a 'cliff-hanger' but that doesn't make it correct, a cliffhanger refers to a story ending 'With someone dangling of a cliff' be it figuratively or in some form of metaphor it refers to the idea of hanging the story when major characters are in great danger/facing a great revelation/facing a direct conflict and that is intended to drag the viewer/reader/player into suspense. It's not the only method used to drag someone into suspense, 'the hook' does at the end of this game does the same, but that is a new unexplored reactionary story, it's not a cliffhanger.

[srieser]

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

This isn't history, or a story based or inspired by true events, this is fantasy fiction. Sorry.

Because fantasy fiction doesn't have it's own major events or get it's inspiration from true events? Sorry, your reasoning fails.

[88mphSlayer]

this game's biggest issue story-wise is that there's no act 4

[Apple Sauce]

Azazel005 wrote...

a cliffhanger refers to a story ending 'With someone dangling of a cliff' be it figuratively or in some form of metaphor it refers to the idea of hanging the story when major characters are in great danger/facing a great revelation/facing a direct conflict and that is intended to drag the viewer/reader/player into suspense.

Well you just defined a cliffhanger to be exactly what happens at the end of Dragon Age 2. Except it's not just suspense we're being dragged into, it's spending $60 on another game. Please think long and hard about the ending before you reply and say "Nuh uh! You're so wrong!" by the way.

[Apple Sauce]

srieser wrote...

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

This isn't history, or a story based or inspired by true events, this is fantasy fiction. Sorry.

Because fantasy fiction doesn't have it's own major events or get it's inspiration from true events? Sorry, your reasoning fails.

This is fantasy fiction, not historical fiction. If you don't know the difference, then sorry but you have no reasoning to begin with.

[Azazel005]

I don't need to think any longer on it. What is Hawke's immediate peril?

It's simple case Apple Sauce, that story ended their. Perfectly fine, remove that cutscene in question is it a cliffhanger?

I didn't pop in and say 'nuh uh', I provided a definition, which the finale of DA 2 doesn't comply too. As far as I know, Hawke may well be off drinking martini's off the coast of Antiva.

[Azazel005]

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

This isn't history, or a story based or inspired by true events, this is fantasy fiction. Sorry.

Because fantasy fiction doesn't have it's own major events or get it's inspiration from true events? Sorry, your reasoning fails.

This is fantasy fiction, not historical fiction. If you don't know the difference, then sorry but you have no reasoning to begin with.

Your starting to make less and less sense in a fervent effort to prove your point. Fantasy fiction OFTEN uses allegory and mirrors real world issues, the internal struggles of a fantastic setting are every bit as likely to include events that can be compared to historical ones.

I know the difference, what I don't presume is that every story thread that exists in Thedas that is expanded on in DA 2 can be expected to reach a final revolution. We could play a game fighting Qunari during exatled marches and have it end with the Llomeryn accord, that doesn't mean those issues are resolved. That story could still be told to completion, though.

Modifié par Azazel005, 25 mars 2011 - 06:18 .

[Apple Sauce]

Azazel005 wrote...

I don't need to think any longer on it. What is Hawke's immediate peril?

It's simple case Apple Sauce, that story ended their. Perfectly fine, remove that cutscene in question is it a cliffhanger?

I didn't pop in and say 'nuh uh', I provided a definition, which the finale of DA 2 doesn't comply too. As far as I know, Hawke may well be off drinking martini's off the coast of Antiva.

Maybe you skipped over half the game and didn't pay attention, I don't know. The third act had no resolution. Whatever choice you made only served as a footnote in Varric's final dialogue with the Seeker. What ultimately happens as a result of your actions is open to interpretation and is set to be explained in the next installment, whether that be an expansion or Dragon Age 3. Not only that, important parts of the plot that remained unexplored yet remained unresolved and left for another game. This is not how you write a contained story. It's a story completely dependant on another story to finish telling it.

[Azazel005]

Obviously we can't discuss this in the open, I don't see that I am missing anything and due to the spoiler limitations we can only speak in vague approximations. I'd be happy to continue discussing it but it would have to be through PM.

[Apple Sauce]

Azazel005 wrote...

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

Apple Sauce wrote...

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

This isn't history, or a story based or inspired by true events, this is fantasy fiction. Sorry.

Because fantasy fiction doesn't have it's own major events or get it's inspiration from true events? Sorry, your reasoning fails.

This is fantasy fiction, not historical fiction. If you don't know the difference, then sorry but you have no reasoning to begin with.

Your starting to make less and less sense in a fervent effort to prove your point. Fantasy fiction OFTEN uses allegory and mirrors real world issues, the internal struggles of a fantastic setting are every bit as likely to include events that can be compared to historical ones.

I know the difference, what I don't presume is that every story thread that exists in Thedas that is expanded on in DA 2 can be expected to reach a final revolution. We could play a game fighting Qunari during exatled marches and have it end with the Llomeryn accord, that doesn't mean those issues are resolved. That story could still be told to completion, though.

Using allegories doesn't turn fantasy into historical fiction. Historical fiction is like the film Apollo 13. An allegory is a common writing device used to relate the audience to the story by having it reflect real life issues. That doesn't mean that a story about the Exalted Marches is a fictional re-telling of the Crusades into Jerusalem. By the way, I don't know what your point is, since you're not proving me wrong about anything.

Saying that the telling of a true, historical event is the same as a made-up, fictional event in fantasy that may have historical undertones is just wrong.

Modifié par Apple Sauce, 25 mars 2011 - 06:39 .

[koshiee]

can we please stop perpetuating the myth that DAO was a good story? it was a by the numbers fantasy tale that was interminably generic.
And how was DA2 not self contained? It told the story of how ______ happened and how Hawke played a role in that happening. Just because at the end you don't know where hawke is doesn't mean the story wasn't complete. I really just don't get it. The ending may have been messy in tying everything together but it wasn't incomplete in any way. 

Modifié par koshiee, 25 mars 2011 - 06:38 .

[Apple Sauce]

Edit: Dbl post. My bad.

Modifié par Apple Sauce, 25 mars 2011 - 06:38 .

[Azazel005]

What was said:

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

He made a comparison to a historical event that he felt had parallels to the the events of DA2. This is perfectly common practice, I wasn't suggesting that it was specifically an allegoric statement nor that it was meant to reflect it in any way actually. How is he wrong for making those comparisons as an example of why he felt comfortable with the conclusion?

In fact no one even brought up the topic of historical fantasy except you.

[Apple Sauce]

Azazel005 wrote...

What was said:

srieser wrote...

DA:2 doesn't have to lead into another game. The story stands on it's own. This story is like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or The Boston Tea Party. It's a singular event that kicked off a historical buzz saw.

He made a comparison to a historical event that he felt had parallels to the the events of DA2. This is perfectly common practice, I wasn't suggesting that it was specifically an allegoric statement nor that it was meant to reflect it in any way actually. How is he wrong for making those comparisons as an example of why he felt comfortable with the conclusion?

In fact no one even brought up the topic of historical fantasy except you.

Historical Fiction, not Historical Fantasy... typo? And I brought it up to explain the difference. The Boston Tea Party was a historical event, and while it may inspire some events conceived in Dragon Age, it was a real event that became history, and thus became a non-fiction story. Sometimes in the re-telling of those stories, it can become 'historical' fiction, where names and places can be changed or events greatly exaggerated for artistic reasons. One good example of that would be 300. But he can defend himself anyway, he probably doesn't need you to do it for him.

Anyway, the events of Dragon Age 2 were interesting and worth telling... Qunari, Templars, etc. It was how they told it, and how they resolved the events of the third act that was wrong. Stating that Dragon Age 2 doesn't have to lead into another game would be ignoring the ending of the game completely, since that is exactly what it does.

[Myusha]

Origins had two endings.
Die to the Archdemon or live.
And you always had to fight the damn Archdemon too.
You just get some nice slideshow, giving you an aftershow of the characters in the event DA:O didn't sell, and Awakening followed the Epilogue Slides due to it carrying on tradition.


II had two endings
Templar Style Viscount Ending
Mage Style Exile Ending

Also unlike the Epilogue Slides, Varric ended his tale, and we got hints about the sequel, where as we knew nothing in Origins about new events.

Sure you could make a bunch of choices along the way but have many of your choices were really referenced in Awakening, six months later, in the near-by Amaranthine?

Why would those choices matter so much for around seven years in Kirkwall//Free Marches?

The only few that may matter are Orzammar King, which is stuck in Ferelden, the Circle Abominations and if the Rite was used, and maybe Andraste's Ashes.

Since we're going to Orlais, I'd just say; Don't get your hopes up, about huge references other then Morrigan.

[nicethugbert]

I don't see DA2's story being worse than any other game I've played.

In fact, I think it has an advantage that DAO, and other games don't have, namely, the element of surprise. DA2 kept me guessing much more than DAO did. In DAO, half way through the first act I knew the story was all about killing the arch demon and loghain. Nothing surprised me in DAO. It all played out as a I expected. It was all simplistic.

In DA2, I was never really sure until the end who the villian was or why that interrogator was so interested in Varric. There were many potential villians. Almost everybody is dabbling in something dangerous or wrong. Their motivations and methods took time to explore. DA2 keeps the story close to the vest and rolls it out as you go along.

Other games make it all clear at the beginning and the rest of the content is just a series of speed bumps on the way to the final boss fight.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 25 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Zcorck]

nicethugbert wrote...

I don't see DA2's story being worse than any other game I've played.

In fact, I think it has an advantage that DAO, and other games don't have, namely, the element of surprise. DA2 kept me guessing much more than DAO did. In DAO, half way through the first act I knew the story was all about killing the arch demon and loghain. Nothing surprised me in DAO. It all played out as a I expected. It was all simplistic.

In DA2, I was never really sure until the end who the villian was or why that interrogator was so interested in Varric. There were many potential villians. Almost everybody is dabbling in something dangerous or wrong. Their motivations and methods took time to explore. DA2 keeps the story close to the vest and rolls it out as you go along.

Other games make it all clear at the beginning and the rest of the content is just a series of speed bumps on the way to the final boss fight.

It kept you guessing because there was no overarching story. And it's not just the way how it is in games, but books, tv and movies as well. It's all about how things are executed between the beginning and the end.
You begin with setting up the story with where you start and where you want it to end, but choose how it's going to be executed. Don't suppose CSI(for instance) should start investigating a murder at the last 10 minutes?

Each act had its own story, without leading to anything big. You can argue that the End of Act2 does wonders for the Champion, but it's an undermanned i******* which M&O would've stopped not long after.
Aside from GC Elthina and the generic npc, nothing noteworthy comes out of starting act 2&3, not even anything to actually show that years have gone by.
I'll have to admit though, the amount of recycling, lack of overarching story, flat though promising(some of them at least) characters surprised me. Oh yeah, and having to choose between crazy & blood-lusty templars and crazy& blood-lusty mages was a surprising difficult option granted it didn't matter in the end. (not being sarcastic on this one! neither has anything redeeming about them)
You didn't actually have to kill Loghain y'know, can't defend how the Archdemon was handled however.
I'll admit that Varric's narrative was pretty interesting however, and made the game better than it would've been without it.

Sure, the quest leading to another quest in 3 years is interesting but ultimately obsolete when the end result stays the same.
And I don't see how some people can even  compare this to Two Towers. TT continued the story that was set in Fellowship. It didn't start itself up on an entirely new setting, with new main characters, and a story completely unrelated to its predecessor.

[Stockysixxx]

v_ware wrote...

I don't think the writers should be ashamed. The story is different, not the everyday run of the mill, let's save the world-plot. If they would've taken more then 18 months this would have been amazing. Not just good.

I can think of a better story in a week than "man those mages hate those templars...quick do something in 7 years time! Nothing? Oh well your mother just died, now you can, after Ander destroys the Chantry and you chose to kill him" *spoilers* whoops did i need to put that at the beginning? Damn

[Balerion84]

BobSmith101 wrote...

He's saying they have made fundamental errors in story writing. Which is true. But it's probably on purpose for the DLC/expansion etc.

The ending of DA2 is very disapointing because you know how it ends before you even start the game. Most games that use that sort of framed narrative "catch up" before the game ends and events then start to happen in real time.

Killzone 3 does this, the intro tutorial level is something that happens much later in the story. You sort of catch up to it via "flashback".

*cough*Alpha Protocol*cough*

Oh I loved that game so much. When I started DA2, the first thing was: "Oh. My. God. Are they trying to show Obsidian how this kind of narrative should be done?" 
My second thought soon after was "Naaah. Obisidian are still the kings of writing." In DA2, unlike in AP, the story lacked focus, direction and was all over the place. Disappointing.

[AkiKishi]

Balerion84 wrote...
*cough*Alpha Protocol*cough*

Oh I loved that game so much. When I started DA2, the first thing was: "Oh. My. God. Are they trying to show Obsidian how this kind of narrative should be done?" 
My second thought soon after was "Naaah. Obisidian are still the kings of writing." In DA2, unlike in AP, the story lacked focus, direction and was all over the place. Disappointing.

True, there are many things you can be critical about Alpha Protocol but that's not one of them. Everything in AP makes sense as you play the game, how things got to that point and how real time events catch up.

If real time events never catch up and you already know how things are going to end , it all just seems a bit of a waste of time, unless the journey is gripping and in DA2 the journey is sort of meh or heavily forced.

People who like it don't appear to mind being railroaded. That's what I've noticed from reading the story threads anyway.

[Dajiaocookie]

v_ware wrote...

I don't think the writers should be ashamed. The story is different, not the everyday run of the mill, let's save the world-plot. If they would've taken more then 18 months this would have been amazing. Not just good.

I think it's unfair to blast the writers and Bi-o-ware on face value. 

Perhaps it was EA demanding Bioware shovel shovelware for a quick buck and an even tighter deadline? I know some senior leads in the gaming industry and it's not an easy job. When the Big hand of the Publisher touches your organization with an impossible deadline, you either meet it or find another line of work.

Cut them some slack, and i think the pointed stick should be aimed squarely at you know who.

>Edit< Actually, if you'll look closely at the new Bi-O-ware logo, it says "Division Of" that my friends does not bode well. 

A good reference would be Mcdonalds versus Burger. There was a very good article written some years ago on why Burger King, with the superior product would never beat Mcdonalds. Google the article.

Modifié par Dajiaocookie, 25 mars 2011 - 10:29 .

[nicethugbert]

Zcorck wrote...
It kept you guessing because there was no overarching story. And it's not just the way how it is in games, but books, tv and movies as well. It's all about how things are executed between the beginning and the end.
You begin with setting up the story with where you start and where you want it to end, but choose how it's going to be executed. Don't suppose CSI(for instance) should start investigating a murder at the last 10 minutes?

Each act had its own story, without leading to anything big. You can argue that the End of Act2 does wonders for the Champion, but it's an undermanned i******* which M&O would've stopped not long after.
Aside from GC Elthina and the generic npc, nothing noteworthy comes out of starting act 2&3, not even anything to actually show that years have gone by.
I'll have to admit though, the amount of recycling, lack of overarching story, flat though promising(some of them at least) characters surprised me. Oh yeah, and having to choose between crazy & blood-lusty templars and crazy& blood-lusty mages was a surprising difficult option granted it didn't matter in the end. (not being sarcastic on this one! neither has anything redeeming about them)
You didn't actually have to kill Loghain y'know, can't defend how the Archdemon was handled however.
I'll admit that Varric's narrative was pretty interesting however, and made the game better than it would've been without it.

Sure, the quest leading to another quest in 3 years is interesting but ultimately obsolete when the end result stays the same.
And I don't see how some people can even  compare this to Two Towers. TT continued the story that was set in Fellowship. It didn't start itself up on an entirely new setting, with new main characters, and a story completely unrelated to its predecessor.

That is not true.  There is an over arching story.  It just wasn't spelled out for you as it is in DA:O, NWN2, etc., which bores me.  And there is a connection between the events of Act 1 and the end of Act 3.

In DA2 your PC does not start out as the level 1 village hero destined to save the world in a month, as most RPGs would have it.  You start out as a refugee just trying to survive.  After you manage to survive, then you move onto the next step.  And so it goes step after step.  You are not the chosen who's had his eyes on slaying Satan since daddy put a toy sword in his crib.  That does not mean that there is no over arching story.  Not exposing the story does not mean it does not exist.

Also, you can't know all the possible consequences of all your choices without meta-gaming.

The things you are complaining about never stopped great literature from being great.  Real stories are not spelled out for you as computer games have made a habit of doing.  Real stories are full of twists and turns, surprises, false positives, false negatives, and all sorts of obfuscations to keep the reader guessing and engaged.  Not every chapter ends in earth shattering consequences.  Nor do they have multiple dialog options and various consequences.

Computer gamers have become accustomed to having it all laid out for them like a smorgasbord line.  But, I'm not aware of any computer game that has ever been favorably compared to any of the great works of literature.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 25 mars 2011 - 12:09 .

[Puzzlewell]

This whole "lack of overarching story" argument is kind of the reason so many people think gamers or moviegoers need their hands held and everything explained to them. :\\ You had to be able to read between the lines and get a feel for the tensions growing. I honestly preferred the story of DA2 to DAO. While DAO is wonderful in the character department and such, it's the typical Chosen One storyline that we've seen so many times.

The "lack of choices" argument comes up enough as well. I think (for the most part, mind you) that's one thing that makes the story more interesting. You're not specifically the big hero that can fix all the problems. Hawke is just a massive victim of circumstance, even with being thrown into the role of Champion that they might or might not want. The story is basically a Tragedy, and not enough of those get told today.

[aftohsix]

 To OP:

I would like a link to a fantasy story you've written.  I am willing to read it and submit my critique of it.  I would like to see how well it holds up compared to one of Mr. Gaider's books.