146 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Baelyn wrote...

****SPOILERS BELOW****

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Dalish clan surviving and dalish getting their own land? Big impact - PLAYER CHOICE

In DA2, you also have choice on whether an entire Dalish clan survives or not.

How about armies?

You can't say that DA2 doesn't have this for sure. DA2 was obviously a set up for something big, and there is every indication that whether you sided with the mages or the templars decides who is going to be on your side in future expansions/games

elves or warevolves?

You can choose to end the Qunari conflict peacefully by giving them Isabela (if you made the right CHOICES and she actually comes back) or you can kill the Arishok. Both of which will most likely have consequences in the future, like most DA:O "choices."

golems of dwarves? The player can end the curse and destroy the anvil, directly and immediately influencing the world.

You can choose whether to let the "mysterious rock wraith thing" live in the Deep Roads, which we don't even really know what it was so who knows what consequences that will have.

I'll go on to name some more. You choose the fate of your brother/sister. Choose to kill or let a serial killer go (Kessler sp?...the elf guy not your mom's guy). Its VERY obvious to me that Feynriel is going to have some major consequences later on. Kill Anders or not. (And if you have DLC Sebastian has some interesting choices that you make in his development. You, again, can make a deal with a demon to gain power (In 2 scenarios.) Thrask...And I am sure there is more I missed.

The full impact of some of those choices is not immediate, and should be handeled in the sequel (but wasn't).

As is the case with Dragon Age 2. This is an episodic game. The problem isn't that you didn't have choices, its that people want to see IMMEDIATE resultls. The only reason you saw that in SOME of the choices in DA:O was because of slides at the end of the game, which is cheap IMO. No you don't see alot of the impact of your choices (although I would argue you see a substantial amount and I'd provide that if asked) because this was neither the time nor the place to reveal that. IMO they put plenty of hints and cameos in DA2 for you to realize that this is the same world that YOUR specific warden lived in, anymore and it would have seemed out of place.

The way the game ended almost ensures in my mind that now they are at a place in developing the story and the conflict that from here we can actually start to see really what happened because of things we did (in both games). I think its too early in both cases (DA:O and DA2) to say..."Man...all that for nothing...None of my choices even mattered."

EDIT -Fixed BBCode

I understand the point you are trying to make, and you do it well.

But let me point out something as well.  Do you notice how, in your examples, you speak a lot about how the impact of our choice is unknown, or about how it may affect future games?  I think that's a significant thing.

In DAO, we saw the impact of so many of our choices in the game itself, or in the epilogues.  As example, we saw Bhelen or Harrowmount get crowned.  Anora or Alistair gives a speech before the final battle.  We watch Connor die, or see him after he is saved.  Elves rather than werewolves come to fight with us at the final battle, or the reverse.

Yes, we can kill or not kill the Dalish clan - but we don't see what, if anything, that changes.  We can kill the Arishok or have him leave peacefully, and it may change something down the line, but it changed nothing in DA2.  Our sibling can die, become a Templar/Circle mage/Grey Warden, but we don't see any effect in DA2.

I think this is why a lot of people feel that we don't really have choices in DA2 - because it seems that whatever we do has no effect, no impact, on the game we are currently playing.  Nothing changes, it seems, no matter what you do.  I know that's one reason I have a problem with the "choices".  They just don't seem meaningful.

[Vicious]

Basically, what you're saying is that if DA2 had an ending epilogue slideshow of stuff you did, quests you undertook, and what happened, you'd say 'this game had choice.'


But since it has no slideshow, you say it didn't.

it really needed an epilogue slideshow. Boy did they get lazy. Worst ending ever.

[Baelyn]

Vicious wrote...

Basically, what you're saying is that if DA2 had an ending epilogue slideshow of stuff you did, quests you undertook, and what happened, you'd say 'this game had choice.'


But since it has no slideshow, you say it didn't.

it really needed an epilogue slideshow. Boy did they get lazy. Worst ending ever.

Nope. I was saying that the only reason that some of your choices in Origins had seemful impact was because of a slide that said you did X and Y happened.

[TJPags]

Vicious wrote...

Basically, what you're saying is that if DA2 had an ending epilogue slideshow of stuff you did, quests you undertook, and what happened, you'd say 'this game had choice.'


But since it has no slideshow, you say it didn't.

it really needed an epilogue slideshow. Boy did they get lazy. Worst ending ever.

Were you referring to me?  Because that wasn't what I was saying at all.

What I was saying is that the choices we made should have had some impact on the game we were playing.  Make something change because I killed the Dalish clan, or didn't.  Make there be some difference in whether I helped Anders or not.

That wasn't the case.  As such, it seemed to me that any choices I made were meaningless.

Hell, even deciding to side with the mages or the Templars at the end didn't change a thing.

[Da2IsAnAbomination]

Wygrath wrote...

 I keep seeing this stuff over and over and it's really gotten under my skin because it's all a subjective illusion brought about by your own differing expectations.

None of which have ever been fulfilled in any game let alone Origins.

I get that Dragon Age 2 is not game of the year quality, but it isn't half as bad as some on the forums here have played it out to be.

You didn't have "your warden" in Origins. If it was, than Hawke is "your champion" in as much as the warden was.
You didn't choose how his story unfolded, you just made choices along the way, just like in Dragon Age 2. 

The dialogue was laid out barebones for you, line for line, 1990's style and as dry as a bone. None of you wrote that dialogue so you didn't choose who the Warden was. You chose from a predetermined list of responses just like in Dragon Age 2. The difference is the wheel, which also had symbols to let you know the tone of the responses you chose.

Was the wheel spot on and perfectly accurate? Not at all. They just gave us paraphrased, short hand versions of the choices, which were not at all misleading. You can't say the same for the Origin's dialogue because every one who played chose a response that they thought would go over one way, but was seemingly taken out of context by the NPCs involved in the conversation.

If you guys really want a tailor made story/adventure/character, the only way you are going to get that is by getting a group of friends together, buying some table top RPG handbooks and manuals, and set about creating your own campaign.

So how about easying up on the me, me, me, mine, my, my stuff when discussing both Origins and DA2.

ME thinks you are dumb for calling this game anything but trash. The only thing it has in common with origins is the words "dragon age".It is what people who have half a brain call a scam.

[Baelyn]

TJPags wrote...

I understand the point you are trying to make, and you do it well.

But let me point out something as well.  Do you notice how, in your examples, you speak a lot about how the impact of our choice is unknown, or about how it may affect future games?  I think that's a significant thing.

In DAO, we saw the impact of so many of our choices in the game itself, or in the epilogues.  As example, we saw Bhelen or Harrowmount get crowned.  Anora or Alistair gives a speech before the final battle.  We watch Connor die, or see him after he is saved.  Elves rather than werewolves come to fight with us at the final battle, or the reverse.

Yes, we can kill or not kill the Dalish clan - but we don't see what, if anything, that changes.  We can kill the Arishok or have him leave peacefully, and it may change something down the line, but it changed nothing in DA2.  Our sibling can die, become a Templar/Circle mage/Grey Warden, but we don't see any effect in DA2.

I think this is why a lot of people feel that we don't really have choices in DA2 - because it seems that whatever we do has no effect, no impact, on the game we are currently playing.  Nothing changes, it seems, no matter what you do.  I know that's one reason I have a problem with the "choices".  They just don't seem meaningful.

Well, whether I showed it or not, that was kind of the point I was getting at. That is isn't that DA2 didn't have choice, but its that you don't get immediate "gratification" of the choices you make (As several of the major choices in DA:O where as well, Dark Ritual or Ultimate Sacrifice, the Architect, etc) There is just more in DA2 that are not directly consequential. I personally was happy with the ones that were consequential in DA2 and would rather have more of these "we don't know what effect this will have in the future" choices like the DR, IF (THIS IS A HUGE IF...Giving Bioware the benefit of the doubt on this one) and ONLY IF, those choices are actually well handled and brought out in the future games/expansions.

I was impressed on how many of the things you did in, say, Act 1, directly affected how quests turned out in later Acts (I.E. Quests changed depending on whether you picked the mercenaries or the thieves etc) Those were very well done in my opinion and made me want to do another playthrough to try out the other options to see their affects later on.

[Da2IsAnAbomination]

TJPags wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

****SPOILERS BELOW****

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Dalish clan surviving and dalish getting their own land? Big impact - PLAYER CHOICE

In DA2, you also have choice on whether an entire Dalish clan survives or not.

How about armies?

You can't say that DA2 doesn't have this for sure. DA2 was obviously a set up for something big, and there is every indication that whether you sided with the mages or the templars decides who is going to be on your side in future expansions/games

elves or warevolves?

You can choose to end the Qunari conflict peacefully by giving them Isabela (if you made the right CHOICES and she actually comes back) or you can kill the Arishok. Both of which will most likely have consequences in the future, like most DA:O "choices."

golems of dwarves? The player can end the curse and destroy the anvil, directly and immediately influencing the world.

You can choose whether to let the "mysterious rock wraith thing" live in the Deep Roads, which we don't even really know what it was so who knows what consequences that will have.

I'll go on to name some more. You choose the fate of your brother/sister. Choose to kill or let a serial killer go (Kessler sp?...the elf guy not your mom's guy). Its VERY obvious to me that Feynriel is going to have some major consequences later on. Kill Anders or not. (And if you have DLC Sebastian has some interesting choices that you make in his development. You, again, can make a deal with a demon to gain power (In 2 scenarios.) Thrask...And I am sure there is more I missed.

The full impact of some of those choices is not immediate, and should be handeled in the sequel (but wasn't).

As is the case with Dragon Age 2. This is an episodic game. The problem isn't that you didn't have choices, its that people want to see IMMEDIATE resultls. The only reason you saw that in SOME of the choices in DA:O was because of slides at the end of the game, which is cheap IMO. No you don't see alot of the impact of your choices (although I would argue you see a substantial amount and I'd provide that if asked) because this was neither the time nor the place to reveal that. IMO they put plenty of hints and cameos in DA2 for you to realize that this is the same world that YOUR specific warden lived in, anymore and it would have seemed out of place.

The way the game ended almost ensures in my mind that now they are at a place in developing the story and the conflict that from here we can actually start to see really what happened because of things we did (in both games). I think its too early in both cases (DA:O and DA2) to say..."Man...all that for nothing...None of my choices even mattered."

EDIT -Fixed BBCode

I understand the point you are trying to make, and you do it well.

But let me point out something as well.  Do you notice how, in your examples, you speak a lot about how the impact of our choice is unknown, or about how it may affect future games?  I think that's a significant thing.

In DAO, we saw the impact of so many of our choices in the game itself, or in the epilogues.  As example, we saw Bhelen or Harrowmount get crowned.  Anora or Alistair gives a speech before the final battle.  We watch Connor die, or see him after he is saved.  Elves rather than werewolves come to fight with us at the final battle, or the reverse.

Yes, we can kill or not kill the Dalish clan - but we don't see what, if anything, that changes.  We can kill the Arishok or have him leave peacefully, and it may change something down the line, but it changed nothing in DA2.  Our sibling can die, become a Templar/Circle mage/Grey Warden, but we don't see any effect in DA2.

I think this is why a lot of people feel that we don't really have choices in DA2 - because it seems that whatever we do has no effect, no impact, on the game we are currently playing.  Nothing changes, it seems, no matter what you do.  I know that's one reason I have a problem with the "choices".  They just don't seem meaningful.

When i loaded dao save for da2 save I expected choices to matter there but people actually came back from the grave! (zevran) You are wrong about this. Choices don't matter and the game series is ruined so they won't ever matter.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Wygrath wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I don't PnP.
I don't LARP.
If I wanted to keep buying and playing action adventure games where I just watch a story unfold because I am able to fight my way to the next plot point, I would do that.
I want a cRPG story that is has choices with different consequences on the game world. That is why I got into cRPGs. Specifically that is what ME1 offered and got me hooked.

So I will not stop with the me me me crap because that is what brought me into the genre of cRPGs.

That's exactly what Dragon Age 2 offers to the letter. I would argue that your choices have heavier consequences than the ones you made in Origins.

And I would argue Hawke is unfortunate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The events of the game would have unfolded regardless of your presence.

[Da2IsAnAbomination]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I don't PnP.
I don't LARP.
If I wanted to keep buying and playing action adventure games where I just watch a story unfold because I am able to fight my way to the next plot point, I would do that.
I want a cRPG story that is has choices with different consequences on the game world. That is why I got into cRPGs. Specifically that is what ME1 offered and got me hooked.

So I will not stop with the me me me crap because that is what brought me into the genre of cRPGs.

That's exactly what Dragon Age 2 offers to the letter. I would argue that your choices have heavier consequences than the ones you made in Origins.

And I would argue Hawke is unfortunate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The events of the game would have unfolded regardless of your presence.

I would argue to ctrl+Alt+Delete this piece from the series. Trash

[TJPags]

Da2IsAnAbomination wrote...

When i loaded dao save for da2 save I expected choices to matter there but people actually came back from the grave! (zevran) You are wrong about this. Choices don't matter and the game series is ruined so they won't ever matter.

Zev appearing if he died in your game is an import bug.

[Hyper Cutter]

Point is, there's a continuum of how much control over your character you have, and Hawke is much, much farther towards "completely predetermined" than the Warden (hell, or even Shepard).

[bill4747bill]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Because they want pen and paper, they don't want any of Bioware's stories at all.

If you've been on the boards long enough [before this social website] you would know the kind of insanity that people wanted for Dragon Age: Origins.

I have no idea where people get this idea that you can do whatever you like in PnP..

The only difference between PnP and CRPG is that in PnP the DM can adapt on the fly , where as in a CRPG setting everything must be pre-programmed.

I've met DMs who act like the players are only there to tell the story they are chosing to tell. A good DM like a good CRPG gives the players room to do certain things without breaking the story as a result. One of the most important being the players feeling their characters actions matter in the campaign. If that is not the case, they may as well read a book or watch a movie.

In DA2 Hawkes relevance ends the moment the item is discovered. Events were already on that path before he arrived and would have continued with or without him except this one scripted event accelerates the breakdown.

Bob; unless the dm's you have played with are the worst ever, pen and paper offers VASTLY more options than any computer rpg.Even those very dimwitted linear railroading dm's probably offer moe choices. it is the nature of the medium.

I don't want to come across here as being insulting; I just find that comparison so incredibly different than my experience with pen and paper and crpg's that is boggles the mind.

[AkiKishi]

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

And the award for most angsty poster goes to... /drumroll

I'm not even touching the "which game was better" argument because it's a subjective thing and is outside of the realm of right and wrong. Is it wrong to like onions because you don't?

What's with all of the angery defensive assaults? I'm not attacking either game. I'm simply trying to point out that there a hell of alot more similarities between Origins and Dragon Age 2 than some of you are willing to admit.

It doesn't matter which game you liked more because that's a totally subjective thing and is therefore pointless to discuss unless you just want to post your thoughts over and over without ever learning anything or altering your views based on anyone else's input.

You are trying to play down the failures of DA2 by trying to make DA less than it was. That you even need to do that at all proves what a failure DA2 is better than a 1000 word essay.

Everything I said is fact. Want to try to argue be me guest.

You are trying to upsell the success of DA:O by trying to make DA2 less than it is. See I can do it too.

Is your proof invisible or did you just forget to type it ? 

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 10:21 .

[AkiKishi]

bill4747bill wrote...
Bob; unless the dm's you have played with are the worst ever, pen and paper offers VASTLY more options than any computer rpg.Even those very dimwitted linear railroading dm's probably offer moe choices. it is the nature of the medium.

I don't want to come across here as being insulting; I just find that comparison so incredibly different than my experience with pen and paper and crpg's that is boggles the mind.

It's really not the case, unless you have the sort of chaotic game where your players go off and kill Eliminster or the like. As DM you give them the illusion of choice, but they are still going to be exactly where you want them to be and do exactly what you want them to do regardless. What separates the skillls of the DM is how obvious they make this look. The only way you can get full freedom is if the DM makes it up as the go. Something I could do with MERP and Exacaliber (knowing both settings intimately).
Most beginners would have started with pre-published scenarios anyway. That immediately puts you on quite a narrow path to begin with. If your scenario is based around Waterdeep, then they won't be going to Baldurs Gate no matter what they want to do.

This in many ways illustrates the difference between DA and DA2. In DA Fereldan is your "playground" in DA2 you get Kirkwall, but if you compare that to a city adventure from PnP it's lacking in almost every respect.

DA gives you choices and shows you the results in many different ways. What happens at the time, who shows up to support you in battle, how the epilogue plays out.
DA2 gives you choices that are not really choices, but rather events that will happen regardless. Some people may be happy being merely a puppet in the story, put that is not what CRPGs are or have ever been about , or what PnP is about.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 10:34 .

[Baelyn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

And the award for most angsty poster goes to... /drumroll

I'm not even touching the "which game was better" argument because it's a subjective thing and is outside of the realm of right and wrong. Is it wrong to like onions because you don't?

What's with all of the angery defensive assaults? I'm not attacking either game. I'm simply trying to point out that there a hell of alot more similarities between Origins and Dragon Age 2 than some of you are willing to admit.

It doesn't matter which game you liked more because that's a totally subjective thing and is therefore pointless to discuss unless you just want to post your thoughts over and over without ever learning anything or altering your views based on anyone else's input.

You are trying to play down the failures of DA2 by trying to make DA less than it was. That you even need to do that at all proves what a failure DA2 is better than a 1000 word essay.

Everything I said is fact. Want to try to argue be me guest.

You are trying to upsell the success of DA:O by trying to make DA2 less than it is. See I can do it too.

Is your proof invisible or did you just forget to type it ? 

To you, it might as well be. DA:O was flawed. DA2 is flawed. Yet, I love DA:O and I love DA2. You obviously don't agree.

I've seen you presented with many very vaild arguments and its clear you aren't changing your mind. So why try? I've defended my position on the game in various, well organized (and lengthy) posts on this forum. No need to beat a dead horse.

[AkiKishi]

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

And the award for most angsty poster goes to... /drumroll

I'm not even touching the "which game was better" argument because it's a subjective thing and is outside of the realm of right and wrong. Is it wrong to like onions because you don't?

What's with all of the angery defensive assaults? I'm not attacking either game. I'm simply trying to point out that there a hell of alot more similarities between Origins and Dragon Age 2 than some of you are willing to admit.

It doesn't matter which game you liked more because that's a totally subjective thing and is therefore pointless to discuss unless you just want to post your thoughts over and over without ever learning anything or altering your views based on anyone else's input.

You are trying to play down the failures of DA2 by trying to make DA less than it was. That you even need to do that at all proves what a failure DA2 is better than a 1000 word essay.

Everything I said is fact. Want to try to argue be me guest.

You are trying to upsell the success of DA:O by trying to make DA2 less than it is. See I can do it too.

Is your proof invisible or did you just forget to type it ? 

To you, it might as well be. DA:O was flawed. DA2 is flawed. Yet, I love DA:O and I love DA2. You obviously don't agree.

I've seen you presented with many very vaild arguments and its clear you aren't changing your mind. So why try? I've defended my position on the game in various, well organized (and lengthy) posts on this forum. No need to beat a dead horse.

In other words you can't disprove what I said. Which is not suprising because it's exactly why I did it that way.

Without proofs you just look like like a whiner with no real comeback.

[didymos1120]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

And I would argue Hawke is unfortunate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The events of the game would have unfolded regardless of your presence.

Well, as the origins of Origins demonstrated, that's true for all the potential Heroes of Ferelden as well.  Didn't go Dalish?  Well, all the junk with the mirror still happened, only no Warden resulted because Duncan happened to be somwhere else, and the events of the game unfolded without a Dalish Warden.  Pick your prologue poison, it doesn't matter: Aeducan's middle child still got exiled;  the Couslands still got massacred; Jowan still pulled his phylactery stunt. So on, so forth.  The major events of the game, all of them, unfolded anyway.  Your choice of origin really just decided where Duncan happened to be kicking it at that moment in time.

Modifié par didymos1120, 27 mars 2011 - 11:07 .

[Alex Kershaw]

No - you could choose what race the Warden was, the Warden's background, etc. Also, there was much more choice in the game and the mute PC really added to the immersion. I can safely say that my Warden is unique - he's the class, gender, race, background, etc, that I wanted, and he made all the choices I wanted regarding the mages, elves, Redcliffe, urn, werewolves, ruler of the country, what to do with Loghain, etc, etc

[bill4747bill]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bill4747bill wrote...
Bob; unless the dm's you have played with are the worst ever, pen and paper offers VASTLY more options than any computer rpg.Even those very dimwitted linear railroading dm's probably offer moe choices. it is the nature of the medium.

I don't want to come across here as being insulting; I just find that comparison so incredibly different than my experience with pen and paper and crpg's that is boggles the mind.

It's really not the case, unless you have the sort of chaotic game where your players go off and kill Eliminster or the like. As DM you give them the illusion of choice, but they are still going to be exactly where you want them to be and do exactly what you want them to do regardless. What separates the skillls of the DM is how obvious they make this look. The only way you can get full freedom is if the DM makes it up as the go. Something I could do with MERP and Exacaliber (knowing both settings intimately).
Most beginners would have started with pre-published scenarios anyway. That immediately puts you on quite a narrow path to begin with. If your scenario is based around Waterdeep, then they won't be going to Baldurs Gate no matter what they want to do.

This in many ways illustrates the difference between DA and DA2. In DA Fereldan is your "playground" in DA2 you get Kirkwall, but if you compare that to a city adventure from PnP it's lacking in almost every respect.

DA gives you choices and shows you the results in many different ways. What happens at the time, who shows up to support you in battle, how the epilogue plays out.
DA2 gives you choices that are not really choices, but rather events that will happen regardless. Some people may be happy being merely a puppet in the story, put that is not what CRPGs are or have ever been about , or what PnP is about.

I think you are confusing the fact that a dm technically allows all actions the players take, with the dm allowing players freedom to choose actions. I would not play in a game where the dm did not allow the player to choose what they want to do. In any case, the number of options is clearly greater in pen and paper. you simply have more options than in a computer rpg. And if the players do want to go after elminster (whom I detest) i would allow it, even if they were likely to get killed trying. Flexability is a dm's best friend. railroading is the devil.

I really can not fathom how you can say pen and paper has as limited choices as a crpg. 

[AkiKishi]

bill4747bill wrote...
I think you are confusing the fact that a dm technically allows all actions the players take, with the dm allowing players freedom to choose actions. I would not play in a game where the dm did not allow the player to choose what they want to do. In any case, the number of options is clearly greater in pen and paper. you simply have more options than in a computer rpg. And if the players do want to go after elminster (whom I detest) i would allow it, even if they were likely to get killed trying. Flexability is a dm's best friend. railroading is the devil.

I really can not fathom how you can say pen and paper has as limited choices as a crpg. 

Can you be more specific by what you mean be "do" ? We may be thinking about different things here.

With a good DM you never have a clue you are being railroaded. Even though you are.

I never said it was not less limited. I said the idea that PnP gives you total freedom is false.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 11:15 .

[KalDurenik]

The problem is that DA2 is more of a adventure / action game then a rpg. You as the player dont change anything in the story. You dont have any impact... And the story flow is bad with lots of newbie mistakes. You jump forward years and have no player interaction there. The companions are bland and the inventory system is horrible. Lets not forget that we get less freedom, less ways to solve problems with our character.

Oh well in the end its a bad action game... A bad adventure game and a bad rpg.

[bill4747bill]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bill4747bill wrote...
I think you are confusing the fact that a dm technically allows all actions the players take, with the dm allowing players freedom to choose actions. I would not play in a game where the dm did not allow the player to choose what they want to do. In any case, the number of options is clearly greater in pen and paper. you simply have more options than in a computer rpg. And if the players do want to go after elminster (whom I detest) i would allow it, even if they were likely to get killed trying. Flexability is a dm's best friend. railroading is the devil.

I really can not fathom how you can say pen and paper has as limited choices as a crpg. 

Can you be more specific by what you mean be "do" ? We may be thinking about different things here.

With a good DM you never have a clue you are being railroaded. Even though you are.

I never said it was not less limited. I said the idea that PnP gives you total freedom is false.

Do, as in, take whatever actions their character desires that are realisticly possible within the setting.
as opposed to only doing what the dm wants them to do.

Railroading and players not knowing? eh....more like if the game is fun they don't mind. A clever player will know.

Total freedom? we may have miscommunicated, as I did not know anyone had suggested that. 'total' being a loaded term anyway. you seemed to be comparing the pen and paper degree of choice with a cprg, unless I misinterpreted.

[bill4747bill]

KalDurenik wrote...

The problem is that DA2 is more of a adventure / action game then a rpg. You as the player dont change anything in the story. You dont have any impact... And the story flow is bad with lots of newbie mistakes. You jump forward years and have no player interaction there. The companions are bland and the inventory system is horrible. Lets not forget that we get less freedom, less ways to solve problems with our character.

Oh well in the end its a bad action game... A bad adventure game and a bad rpg.

 for what it's worth, they thought the jump forward was a good idea. framed narrative they call it.

[DJBare]

Narreneth wrote...

That's because that certain mage's decision is an integral and necessary part of the storyline.

And the reason for "All that remains"? or was that just to throw in a heart wrenching scene?(which failed in it's impact because of the way it was done, it was distasteful in my opinion).
Yes, DA2 had choices, meaningless choices for the most part.
I was going to start a thread called "Dread" but this thread seems appropriate, when I restart the game I know there are some quest lines I would rather avoid but cannot, what causes the dread is I know I cannot change the outcome of some particular quests, sure you can have a different attitude to the quest but you know the result will always be the same, unfortunately my argument is greatly weakened here because of the risk of spoilers, lets just say the Anders quest line is pretty poor.

And yes, for my $60 it's me, me, me.

[sleepyowlet]

Wygrath wrote...

 I keep seeing this stuff over and over and it's really gotten under my skin because it's all a subjective illusion brought about by your own differing expectations.

And what is wrong with that? Different people, different expectations. And then there are expectations grounded firmly on DA:O, to which DA2 allegedly is a sequel. People were expecting DA2 to be like DA:O mostly, not like ME2. This is strange why exactly?

None of which have ever been fulfilled in any game let alone Origins.

I don't think that you can tell me if my expectations were fulfilled in any game or Origins. Just for the record, they were. I expected a CRPG that gave me a customizable character model which I could infuse with the personality I wanted them to have. I got that. I expected the same in DA2 and was disappointed.

I get that Dragon Age 2 is not game of the year quality, but it isn't half as bad as some on the forums here have played it out to be.

That is totally subjective. I found the game so bad that I returned the copy I rented, and have no wish to ever play that game again. I played through Origins about eight times.

You didn't have "your warden" in Origins. If it was, than Hawke is "your champion" in as much as the warden was.
You didn't choose how his story unfolded, you just made choices along the way, just like in Dragon Age 2.

Yes I did have my Warden. Several of them, and they are all different people. And by that I don't only mean different by their origin, but different in their personalities. I was free to imagine. Most of my Wardens chose to spare Loghain, but they all had different reasons for doing so.
With Hawke I have no idea why she's doing what she does. Hell, I don't even know why she stays in a place that is as messed up as Kirkwall. And the "count the responses and apply" - mechanic booted me out of her character even more. I want to roleplay my character (this game does call itself a RPG, after all), and I don't want the game to do it for me.

The dialogue was laid out barebones for you, line for line, 1990's style and as dry as a bone. None of you wrote that dialogue so you didn't choose who the Warden was. You chose from a predetermined list of responses just like in Dragon Age 2. The difference is the wheel, which also had symbols to let you know the tone of the responses you chose.

Dry as bone? No. I used my imagination. I could imagine the tone of voice. One of my favourite lines from Origins can perhaps shed some light into this: "I killed an Arl's son for raping my friend." Does Chaeli Tabris snarl that sentence at the king? Does she say it coldly? Or perhaps she says it with a sweet smile on her face and a sugary voice? I get to imagine that. I get to imagine what kind of person Chaeli Tabris is.
And if the NPCs didn't react as I expected - well, misunderstandings happen. My jokes fall flat IRL more often than not. So what?

Was the wheel spot on and perfectly accurate? Not at all. They just gave us paraphrased, short hand versions of the choices, which were not at all misleading. You can't say the same for the Origin's dialogue because every one who played chose a response that they thought would go over one way, but was seemingly taken out of context by the NPCs involved in the conversation.

Not misleading??? There might be a world where "It's unexpected." means "Doesn't mean I want you to stop." - but it sure isn't this one. And the game was full of it. That might not be such a big deal in normal conversation - but when it comes to the wriggly-wobbly arrow thingy that denotes plot decisions, I found myself reloading a lot, because the paraphrases *were* misleading. The magistrate quest comes to mind, among others.

If you guys really want a tailor made story/adventure/character, the only way you are going to get that is by getting a group of friends together, buying some table top RPG handbooks and manuals, and set about creating your own campaign.

I would, If my friends and I had schedules that match. But I kinda like diving into a world on my own sometimes too, to experience a story and interact with interesting characters.

So how about easying up on the me, me, me, mine, my, my stuff when discussing both Origins and DA2.

Well, they are single player RPGs. Of course it's about me. Duh.

Modifié par sleepyowlet, 27 mars 2011 - 12:00 .