245 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

I heard of them, yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the key concept, just as I don't agree with your opinion on framed narratives, nor with the (horribly wrong, and responsible for ruining so many perfectly good works of fiction) assumption that the key frame of every piece of fiction is some core message to get across. In fact, making the "getting the message across" the key element of a narrative is an almost certain way to fail. (My opinion, yet one I can back up with enough examples).

But, for the sake of argument, let's go along with your definition of the key elements - for a first step, let me ask two simple questions.

Would you agree, that it does *not* further suspense, when I can predict the outcome of the narrative, before I spent even a second in gameplay, while it *does* further suspense, if I do not see plot twists coming until they happen, only to retroactively realize all the foreshadowing, once they happened?

Secondly, would you agree, that giving a character a motivation, and letting that character stick to it through various hardships, makes a character more coherent, then giving him a varying degree of incentive to go in the first place, then half an hour in abandoning said incentive completely, without any replacement other then pure heroism in sight?

Modifié par Lithuasil, 26 mars 2011 - 07:41 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Lianaar wrote...

Suron wrote... Yet it costs more.

It is not exactly relevant, but being from Hungary I actually paid less for DA2 then DA:O. I don't know why, but it was cheaper, considerably cheaper.

I'm fromn Australia and I'm quite sure I paid less from Dragon Age 2. Not by much, but seeing as how I only had to pre-order the special edition of the second one instead of paying extra for it I saved some money that way.

[Vicious]

Beat the game and immediately began hating it.

It was good till act 3. Then went on a downward slope until finally... yech.. that ending.

[Aloradus]

Lithuasil wrote...

I heard of them, yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the key concept, just as I don't agree with your opinion on framed narratives, nor with the (horribly wrong, and responsible for ruining so many perfectly good works of fiction) assumption that the key frame of every piece of fiction is some core message to get across. In fact, making the "getting the message across" the key element of a narrative is an almost certain way to fail. (My opinion, yet one I can back up with enough examples).

But, for the sake of argument, let's go along with your definition of the key elements - for a first step, let me ask two simple questions.

Would you agree, that it does *not* further suspense, when I can predict the outcome of the narrative, before I spent even a second in gameplay, while it *does* further suspense, if I do not see plot twists coming until they happen, only to retroactively realize all the foreshadowing, once they happened?

Secondly, would you agree, that giving a character a motivation, and letting that character stick to it through various hardships, makes a character more coherent, then giving him a varying degree of incentive to go in the first place, then half an hour in abandoning said incentive completely, without any replacement other then pure heroism in sight?

Sorry but you cannot provide any examples.  You aren’t getting what I said. I am simply stating what causes people to relate to varying degrees.  The stories I broke out are not debatable... if you don’t believe me talk to an English professor at your local community college.  Or go to a publishing house- they wont be as nice.  It always surprises me how people think it’s easy to be an expert in the disciplines of art and lit. I never said to beat people over the head with a message.  Don't tell - show is far more important.

A story doesn’t have to be deep to be enjoyable; it can be as simple as a character wanting peanut butter- which causes them to embark on a wacky adventure. What exactly are you upset over?  DA:2 is flawless, is that your point?  Apparently you haven’t read half the posts on this forum from disappointed fans.  There is a reason so many people come away empty. 

What are you getting at in your ‘secondly part,’ everything depends on the work.  You speak of incentives as if I said they were dog treats, haha- of course realistic predispositions and psychology must play a role in any character.  However, it’s also possible to do a story that violates this.

Modifié par Aloradus, 27 mars 2011 - 04:11 .

[Anariel Theirin]

Noatz wrote...
Don't quote my facetious indulgence as if was my entire post now.

There really isn't much to Origins beyond "here is a nasty group of monsters which will end up wrecking your country, deal with them." It worked for what its worth, but it wasn't inherently interesting because you can predict more or less what happens from the start. The individual plots of the four areas are largely irrelevant to the plot as a whole beyond what fodder you managed to recruit for the last battle, what DA2 does better is to tie the sub plots into the main game and making it a bit more of a tapestry of events. Am I claiming the plot of DA2 is perfect? No, it has its issues, but the point I'm trying to make is because people don't really appreciate a more political and less in your face kill the dragon plot, they rubbish it while comparing it to Origins. And I would rather people learned to appreciate a more interesting story than Bioware putting the princess of Orlais in a remote tower guarded by five dragons and having the hero have to recruit allies and gather magic crystals before storming the dark evil castle, rescuing her and then striking down some absurd cackling pantomime villain/mindless beast because the audience can't deal with anything less obvious.

Really?  Because in Origins, while you might know you are going to eventually fight the archdemon, there are plenty of plot twists along the way.  Even if you know you're going to fight the archdemon, who could have predicted that it will take the life of the Warden killing it?  That's not to mention the fact that nobody could say who would be the hero in the end...because the player chooses that.  You might be the one to make the killing blow, or maybe Alistair, or even Loghain, and without the dark ritual (another thing I definitely didn't see coming), any of those characters will die.  I'm sorry you didn't find the plot interesting.  I loved it, and so did many others.  Our opinions are valid.  

For me, the tapestry effect didn't work.  Some of the quests were interesting, but they all ended the same way:  mages are eeeeeeevil.  It got boring.  At least the side plots in Origins stood on their own as interesting stories *not* connected to the main plot and so it didn't have the effect of making you feel like the same point was being driven at you over and over.  (Maybe that's not how you felt, but it's definitely how I felt.)  The only time in DA2 we got a brief break from this was during Act II with the Quunari.  I could be wrong, but it seems like almost everyone who played the game agrees that *that* part of the game was excellently written and very engaging.  I loved it, myself, and almost wish the game would have ended at the end of Act II.

You're assuming that people's problem with the plot is that it's political in nature rather than having a hero fight The Big Bad.  That's not the case.  As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't mind if they want to do something new and interesting to the genre, but I want it done well.  I don't feel the mages/templars plot was done well, and it wasn't because I wanted to fight an archdemon.  It's because it was executed poorly.  Saying the audience "can't deal with anything less obvious" is just making you look like exactly the thing you complained about earlier:  someone with an unbalanced view.  Hypocrisy at its best!

[3SG Sage]

Actually Bioware might not be the culprit for those dissappointed with DA 2 (As I was in many ways). In the past I have known two people that worked for game companies bought by EA and both had nothing but complaints about EA forges ahead with fixed deadlines regardless of quality or hours worked.

Sure, it's just two people. I suppose a lot of people that work for EA like it just fine. But it strikes me as odd that the same outfit that bothered with different outposts for every planet I set foot on in ME 2 felt they needed to reuse maps so sloppily in DA 2. Maybe deadline issues forced them to choose which things they could concentrate on and which things had to be short cut.

[Noatz]

Anariel Theirin wrote...

Really?  Because in Origins, while you might know you are going to eventually fight the archdemon, there are plenty of plot twists along the way.  Even if you know you're going to fight the archdemon, who could have predicted that it will take the life of the Warden killing it?  That's not to mention the fact that nobody could say who would be the hero in the end...because the player chooses that.  You might be the one to make the killing blow, or maybe Alistair, or even Loghain, and without the dark ritual (another thing I definitely didn't see coming), any of those characters will die.  I'm sorry you didn't find the plot interesting.  I loved it, and so did many others.  Our opinions are valid. 

You call those plot twists? All of them occur at the end of the game and mostly for the sake of having divergant endings. And while divergant endings are great in a lot of ways surely you must concede that if they are trying to write a developing storyline for the Dragon Age world using endings like that at the end of every game just isn't feasible.

For me, the tapestry effect didn't work.  Some of the quests were interesting, but they all ended the same way:  mages are eeeeeeevil.  It got boring.  At least the side plots in Origins stood on their own as interesting stories *not* connected to the main plot and so it didn't have the effect of making you feel like the same point was being driven at you over and over.  (Maybe that's not how you felt, but it's definitely how I felt.)  The only time in DA2 we got a brief break from this was during Act II with the Quunari.  I could be wrong, but it seems like almost everyone who played the game agrees that *that* part of the game was excellently written and very engaging.  I loved it, myself, and almost wish the game would have ended at the end of Act II.

You're assuming that people's problem with the plot is that it's political in nature rather than having a hero fight The Big Bad.  That's not the case.  As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't mind if they want to do something new and interesting to the genre, but I want it done well.  I don't feel the mages/templars plot was done well, and it wasn't because I wanted to fight an archdemon.  It's because it was executed poorly.  Saying the audience "can't deal with anything less obvious" is just making you look like exactly the thing you complained about earlier:  someone with an unbalanced view.  Hypocrisy at its best!

Yes well, your entire argument is just subjective. "I didn't like the mage templar plot therefore it sucks". I liked it, both of the friends who played the game at the same time as I did liked it. It's hardly representative but subjectivity goes both ways.

Liking it is also not tantamount to putting it on a pedestal. Its not perfect. I feel the individual quests lack depth (for example I wished for a quest as deep as the one to Orzammar/Deep Roads), but it wasn't to be. Probably another symptom of the game feeling a bit rushed. I felt while they did a good job of giving us a morally grey situation where both sides had a point and yet were both wrong in some ways they also cheapened it somewhat by having both of the mage and templar faction leaders drink several bottles of crazy juice. This is why I claim to hold a balanced view; I'm not blind to all its flaws but on the whole I applaud Bioware for writing a new style of story. A style that they will get better at telling given the experience of writing this game. Their event tapestries will likely improve so if you didn't entirely piece them all together in this game (I didn't either) it will only get easier to do so in DA3 and such. And it is why I will continue to argue against people trying to drag the series back to the plotline of Origins. Leave fighting the arbitrary monstrous evil to John Shepard and stop whining that they are trying to do something different with this series. Who knows, once you've stopped being determined to hate it you may even appreciate it as well.

[Marcy3655]

3SG Sage wrote...

Actually Bioware might not be the culprit for those dissappointed with DA 2 (As I was in many ways). In the past I have known two people that worked for game companies bought by EA and both had nothing but complaints about EA forges ahead with fixed deadlines regardless of quality or hours worked.

Sure, it's just two people. I suppose a lot of people that work for EA like it just fine. But it strikes me as odd that the same outfit that bothered with different outposts for every planet I set foot on in ME 2 felt they needed to reuse maps so sloppily in DA 2. Maybe deadline issues forced them to choose which things they could concentrate on and which things had to be short cut.

I have to agree...   I don't think the 'EA effect' completely took hold until this new version of DA and now we can see the influence of it in all its splendor and glory...   er

Bioware has been producing some incredible work for a long time, and it's interesting (at least to me) what has changed recently and what we're seeing coming out now..        big difference..

M 

Modifié par Marcy3655, 28 mars 2011 - 12:06 .

[Reinveil]

What I learned from this thread:

1.) Arguing with people that are seeing what they want to see with this game is about as pointless an endeavor as trying to convince a Christian there's no god. Seriously, every single one of these threads reads like a console flame war on Gamefaqs.

2.) The attention span of the average gamer is shockingly low.

3.) A lot of people would prefer if Dragon Age were simply a fantasy date sim.

4.) Some folks need to brush up on the definitions of "opinion" and "fact".

Like it or not, Origins was a one-shot, and we're never going to get a game of the same depth and complexity of the old Bioware cRPGs again. Sucks, but it's pretty apparent what direction the developer is headed. Conversely, like it or not, aside from Sonic, this is the poorest rated Bioware RPG ever made. If you don't think some changes will happen, you are deluded.

[Lithuasil]

Reinveil wrote...
Like it or not, Origins was a one-shot, and we're never going to get a game of the same depth and complexity of the old Bioware cRPGs again. Sucks, but it's pretty apparent what direction the developer is headed. Conversely, like it or not, aside from Sonic, this is the poorest rated Bioware RPG ever made. If you don't think some changes will happen, you are deluded.

You know, I'm the last person that's going to be upset, if biowares next title *isn't* rushed out like DA2 was. I'm not sure we can trust that this will happen, but we can all hope.

That being said, if you want to, we can argue all day what 'depth' in a game is, and if the supposedly great depth in the older rpgs had any business being there in the first place.

[Lithuasil]

Aloradus wrote...

Sorry but you cannot provide any examples.  You aren’t getting what I said. I am simply stating what causes people to relate to varying degrees.  The stories I broke out are not debatable... if you don’t believe me talk to an English professor at your local community college.  Or go to a publishing house- they wont be as nice.  It always surprises me how people think it’s easy to be an expert in the disciplines of art and lit. I never said to beat people over the head with a message.  Don't tell - show is far more important.

I'll have to tell my editor at times - she's usually a rather nice woman when we speak. That said, you do realize you're not taking up on what I said, but rather arguing pure relativism, for the sake of being able to disagree?

[Reinveil]

Lithuasil wrote...

Reinveil wrote...
Like it or not, Origins was a one-shot, and we're never going to get a game of the same depth and complexity of the old Bioware cRPGs again. Sucks, but it's pretty apparent what direction the developer is headed. Conversely, like it or not, aside from Sonic, this is the poorest rated Bioware RPG ever made. If you don't think some changes will happen, you are deluded.

You know, I'm the last person that's going to be upset, if biowares next title *isn't* rushed out like DA2 was. I'm not sure we can trust that this will happen, but we can all hope.

That being said, if you want to, we can argue all day what 'depth' in a game is, and if the supposedly great depth in the older rpgs had any business being there in the first place.

You're doing perfectly fine beating a dead horse with everyone else without my help.  I'd seriously rather eat my own face than turn this into an old vs. new debate.  No thanks.

I do agree with your first statement, however.

[Hellrazer3600]

There are things I like and dislike about both games. One thing I hate about Dragon age 2 is the lack of enviroments. By the end of the game I was ready to pull my hair out from seeing the same city, warehouse, forgotten coast enviroments. Dragon Age 2 however has vastly improved combat in my opinion. Yes it may be a little simplified but overall it feels much smoother and overall more satisfying. One final thing is I personally enjoyed playing as a Grey Warden more than Champion of Kirkwall. Overall I liked Dragon Age 1 better, but still enjoyed my time with Dragon Age 2 despite it feeling a little rushed.

[Hellrazer3600]

Reinveil wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Reinveil wrote...
Like it or not, Origins was a one-shot, and we're never going to get a game of the same depth and complexity of the old Bioware cRPGs again. Sucks, but it's pretty apparent what direction the developer is headed. Conversely, like it or not, aside from Sonic, this is the poorest rated Bioware RPG ever made. If you don't think some changes will happen, you are deluded.

You know, I'm the last person that's going to be upset, if biowares next title *isn't* rushed out like DA2 was. I'm not sure we can trust that this will happen, but we can all hope.

That being said, if you want to, we can argue all day what 'depth' in a game is, and if the supposedly great depth in the older rpgs had any business being there in the first place.

You're doing perfectly fine beating a dead horse with everyone else without my help.  I'd seriously rather eat my own face than turn this into an old vs. new debate.  No thanks.

I do agree with your first statement, however.

Your right about the poorest rated part. Take a look at the metascore for both games and theres your answer. I personally hope they return to the Dragon Age 1 feel for the next game, but hey thats just me.

[Anariel Theirin]

Noatz wrote...

Anariel Theirin wrote...

Really?  Because in Origins, while you might know you are going to eventually fight the archdemon, there are plenty of plot twists along the way.  Even if you know you're going to fight the archdemon, who could have predicted that it will take the life of the Warden killing it?  That's not to mention the fact that nobody could say who would be the hero in the end...because the player chooses that.  You might be the one to make the killing blow, or maybe Alistair, or even Loghain, and without the dark ritual (another thing I definitely didn't see coming), any of those characters will die.  I'm sorry you didn't find the plot interesting.  I loved it, and so did many others.  Our opinions are valid. 

You call those plot twists? All of them occur at the end of the game and mostly for the sake of having divergant endings. And while divergant endings are great in a lot of ways surely you must concede that if they are trying to write a developing storyline for the Dragon Age world using endings like that at the end of every game just isn't feasible.

For me, the tapestry effect didn't work.  Some of the quests were interesting, but they all ended the same way:  mages are eeeeeeevil.  It got boring.  At least the side plots in Origins stood on their own as interesting stories *not* connected to the main plot and so it didn't have the effect of making you feel like the same point was being driven at you over and over.  (Maybe that's not how you felt, but it's definitely how I felt.)  The only time in DA2 we got a brief break from this was during Act II with the Quunari.  I could be wrong, but it seems like almost everyone who played the game agrees that *that* part of the game was excellently written and very engaging.  I loved it, myself, and almost wish the game would have ended at the end of Act II.

You're assuming that people's problem with the plot is that it's political in nature rather than having a hero fight The Big Bad.  That's not the case.  As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't mind if they want to do something new and interesting to the genre, but I want it done well.  I don't feel the mages/templars plot was done well, and it wasn't because I wanted to fight an archdemon.  It's because it was executed poorly.  Saying the audience "can't deal with anything less obvious" is just making you look like exactly the thing you complained about earlier:  someone with an unbalanced view.  Hypocrisy at its best!

Yes well, your entire argument is just subjective. "I didn't like the mage templar plot therefore it sucks". I liked it, both of the friends who played the game at the same time as I did liked it. It's hardly representative but subjectivity goes both ways.

Liking it is also not tantamount to putting it on a pedestal. Its not perfect. I feel the individual quests lack depth (for example I wished for a quest as deep as the one to Orzammar/Deep Roads), but it wasn't to be. Probably another symptom of the game feeling a bit rushed. I felt while they did a good job of giving us a morally grey situation where both sides had a point and yet were both wrong in some ways they also cheapened it somewhat by having both of the mage and templar faction leaders drink several bottles of crazy juice. This is why I claim to hold a balanced view; I'm not blind to all its flaws but on the whole I applaud Bioware for writing a new style of story. A style that they will get better at telling given the experience of writing this game. Their event tapestries will likely improve so if you didn't entirely piece them all together in this game (I didn't either) it will only get easier to do so in DA3 and such. And it is why I will continue to argue against people trying to drag the series back to the plotline of Origins. Leave fighting the arbitrary monstrous evil to John Shepard and stop whining that they are trying to do something different with this series. Who knows, once you've stopped being determined to hate it you may even appreciate it as well.

On the contrary, I *don't* hate it.  As I've said, I disliked the mages versus templars plot, and various other sloppy things about the game.  There is plenty I like about the game, which I do state.  And I said several times that I am not complaining that they did something different, just that I don't feel they did it *well*.  But I'm done repeating myself 70 times.   You'll read what you want to read, I suppose.

[Parrk]

This is a great new spin on "I don't like DA2". This particular complaint thread (with its thrilling twist of mourning a dead game) is miles ahead of the 40,000 other mindless hate threads. This one touched me on an emotional level and inspired within me a real dedication to the whole DA2-hate genre of writing.

Bravo!



Also.....DA2 is a great game and DA3 will use it as a baseline.

There should be a hate thread section of the forums. That would be nice. We would not have to go past page 1 to find the actual pertinent discussion of the game because those topics would not be crowded out by scores of bland whine threads.

[Reinveil]

Parrk wrote...

This is a great new spin on "I don't like DA2". This particular complaint thread (with its thrilling twist of mourning a dead game) is miles ahead of the 40,000 other mindless hate threads. This one touched me on an emotional level and inspired within me a real dedication to the whole DA2-hate genre of writing.

Bravo!



Also.....DA2 is a great game and DA3 will use it as a baseline.

There should be a hate thread section of the forums. That would be nice. We would not have to go past page 1 to find the actual pertinent discussion of the game because those topics would not be crowded out by scores of bland whine threads.

Yes, people voicing their disappointment for a buggy, rushed game they paid 60 dollars for and offering constructive criticism is in no way "pertinent".

What an intelligent post, branding everyone that doesn't agree with you a "whiner".  Shall I apply that same logic and assume you'll blindly support anything Bioware releases, no matter how shoddy, out of misguided brand loyalty?  I mean, since we're tossing out ignorant generalizations and all.

[Lithuasil]

Reinveil wrote...
Yes, people voicing their disappointment for a buggy, rushed game they paid 60 dollars for and offering constructive criticism is in no way "pertinent".

What an intelligent post, branding everyone that doesn't agree with you a "whiner".  Shall I apply that same logic and assume you'll blindly support anything Bioware releases, no matter how shoddy, out of misguided brand loyalty?  I mean, since we're tossing out ignorant generalizations and all.

Technically, you get called a fangirl in these forums, for voicing criticism, as long as you don't also complain that DA2 is the worst game ever made in existence. (Which it can't possibly be, until Gothic 3 and Bad Company 2 get retconned out of reality)

But to use your words - "Yes, opening a thread that declares the series dead, and insulting anyone who begs to differ, in the wrong forum section no less, is in no way 'trolling'. It's apparently "constructive criticism".

[Aloradus]

Lithuasil wrote...

I'll have to tell my editor at times - she's usually a rather nice woman when we speak. That said, you do realize you're not taking up on what I said, but rather arguing pure relativism, for the sake of being able to disagree?

/edit/

Ha Ha! Great please do.  Whats with the e-pen-5 pumping.  Its the internet, what I make or have, or what you and your supposed editor do lol is unverifiable.  You can make nothing and have an "editor", *clap clap!*

It seems you are not grasping the comparison between "the purpose of art" and "the experience of it".

Here is what I laid out.  Popular Stories = Purpose + Organizing Motis + Suspense

 . . . now imagine any change done unto this equation and let's see if the counter-position feels like it should hold:

Popular Story = (no purpose) + organizing motifs + suspense

Or remove any part...

Modifié par Aloradus, 29 mars 2011 - 04:36 .

[Bmeszaros]

There's nothing else new that can be added to this discussion, I think. DA2 was billed and promised things that I think it utterly failed to deliver, I preordered it based on the Developer and the Dragon Age name, not because of the new combat system, etc. I'm sure Bioware has heard/read people's mixed opinions, its up to them if they decide to listen. Personally, they've lost my preorder for any following console Dragon Ages, I will be reading reviews before purchasing.

I'm just glad that the same development team that was responsible for this doesn't handle the Mass Effect series too.

[Marcy3655]

basically now everything sux!!!!

lol

M