146 réponses à ce sujet

[Clonedzero]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Does Origins have a single option more in your character than DA2? Yes. Never questioned that. In fact I noted that in all of my posts. 

Hawke's origin was vital to where they wanted to take the story. A dwarf or elf "champion" of Kirkwall simply does not make sense in the context of the socio-political structure of Kirkwall. Could they have made it work? Yes, but I feel it would have felt like them trying to hard to justify it just so you could play as an elf or dwarf.

I highly doubt they would make another game in the series without letting you choose your origin. It was clear to me at least that this was chosen for this specific game because of where they wanted the story to go. 

It's more than a single option.

Then Bioware should be making JRPGs if they need that level of control over the main character to tell a story as generic as DA2, then Dave Gaider is not living up to his potential as a writer.

having a single origin isn't what makes it a JRPG you know....
is mass effect a jrpg?
is oblivion a jrpg?
is morrowind a jrpg?
is fallout a jrpg?
is baulders gate a jrpg?

all of those has a single origin for where your character came from and how their story / lives began. sure some of them let you be an elf or a dwarf, but thats because it didnt matter ot the story. in BG you were still the adopted kid of whats his name, no matter what. in fallout you still came out of the vault no matter what. in oblivion you were still a prisoner no matter what. ect.

[cotheer]

It means that I can play the game the way I want (to greater extent than DA2 allowed me to).
That's what it means to have a choice in a game, to tailor it the way you like, again, to some extent.
What choices in that domain did DA2 gave me?

[Baelyn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...
It may have several implications, but that doesn't change it is a single option. Choose your origin. And I thought they were poorly incorporated into DA:O's actual story personally. The only one I felt had a real tie in to the main story was the human noble. I felt like I really had a motive to try and reclaim my families name and kill Howe as I promised by my dying father. The other I just felt like were, hey heres a mini story to play before we get into what this is really about. Yes you can choose in your mind to deepen your character based off the origin, but you could do that with Hawke as well. The only difference being it would be easier to relate with Hawke, if his origin was the type you wanted to play. Whereas you had a choice on what origin you wanted in the first game and could pick one you related to more. 

My point was they obviously want the Champion of Kirkwall to be important to the story of Thedas. It was easy for people to overlook an elf or dwarf Grey Warden, because well, they were Grey Wardens. Hell, even mages were allowed to roam free if they were one (grey warden), and we know how that is commonly accepted (a mage running free of the circle).

The champion needed to be a human. If anything they wrote themselves into a corner beforehand by establishing elves and slaves and dwarves as wanting to have nothing to do with "topside" affairs.

That's a bit of a climb down from only one Warden.

I don't think it is. There is stil ultimately one Warden no matter what race you pick it as. My Hawkes are as unique to me as my Wardens. 

I don't really care what they want.

Well then this probably isn't the game for you. They have been clear that this is their story and that they won't sacrifice the overall plot and story they want to tell. 

I'm not paying $60 to be a puppet in their story transition. If you want to tell a story with no options, write a book.

Then don't and I'm sorry if you have and can't get it back. Some people will/did/and are happy about it. Is it so hard to agree that some people like this story/direction? 

A CRPG is not a book, a CRPG is all about what options the story gives to change it.
A City Elf Champion would have been far more interesting thna a human. The idea that it has to be a human is just lazy.

Again I have already provided substantial evidence in my opinion that DA2 does give options to change how the story plays out (almost as much as Origins does). Whether you agree with these or not is up to you. I know I am not going to change your mind and I am satisfied in the evidence I have given and that is really all I am concerned about.

Would I like to see some more choice come into the story in DA3? Absolutely. And its a tad too early to say that will or will not happen.

[AkiKishi]

Clonedzero wrote...
is mass effect a jrpg?
is oblivion a jrpg?
is morrowind a jrpg?
is fallout a jrpg?
is baulders gate a jrpg?

all of those has a single origin for where your character came from and how their story / lives began. sure some of them let you be an elf or a dwarf, but thats because it didnt matter ot the story. in BG you were still the adopted kid of whats his name, no matter what. in fallout you still came out of the vault no matter what. in oblivion you were still a prisoner no matter what. ect.

Is it really that hard to tell the diffterence between a pre-gen character and player created character? 

Pre-gen - a single character. Remove the character and the whole game collapses.
Player Created - may have a background but is not a single character anyone of them will be able to complete the story.

Remove Hawke from DA2 what happens ? 
Remove any one character from the non struck out games and it has no effect on the game.

[Baelyn]

Clonedzero wrote...

letting a character live in DA2 and having them return 6 years later to screw me over was a bigger deal to me than the entire redcliffe storyline, because it ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING in the game. it actually changed something.

This exactly.

[AkiKishi]

Baelyn wrote...

I don't think it is. There is stil ultimately one Warden no matter what race you pick it as. My Hawkes are as unique to me as my Wardens. 

Well then this probably isn't the game for you. They have been clear that this is their story and that they won't sacrifice the overall plot and story they want to tell. 

Then don't and I'm sorry if you have and can't get it back. Some people will/did/and are happy about it. Is it so hard to agree that some people like this story/direction? 

Again I have already provided substantial evidence in my opinion that DA2 does give options to change how the story plays out (almost as much as Origins does). Whether you agree with these or not is up to you. I know I am not going to change your mind and I am satisfied in the evidence I have given and that is really all I am concerned about.

Would I like to see some more choice come into the story in DA3? Absolutely. And its a tad too early to say that will or will not happen.

Maybe in your unique world view there is only one Warden.

"Rise to power over a decade by any means" Remember that. Not really a rise to power and not really a decade.

You can't change the ending, that's really all you need to know to realise that whatever contribution you made to the story was pointless.

Don't worry they will just retcon/ignore anything that does not fit how they want to tell the story. Just like they did in DA2.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 09:48 .

[Alikain]

I hate very thing that happened to hawk family and the choices giving if am actually allow to say choices because their was none. i still can't understand the ending of the game.

[Clonedzero]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
is mass effect a jrpg?
is oblivion a jrpg?
is morrowind a jrpg?
is fallout a jrpg?
is baulders gate a jrpg?

all of those has a single origin for where your character came from and how their story / lives began. sure some of them let you be an elf or a dwarf, but thats because it didnt matter ot the story. in BG you were still the adopted kid of whats his name, no matter what. in fallout you still came out of the vault no matter what. in oblivion you were still a prisoner no matter what. ect.

Is it really that hard to tell the diffterence between a pre-gen character and player created character? 

Pre-gen - a single character. Remove the character and the whole game collapses.
Player Created - may have a background but is not a single character anyone of them will be able to complete the story.

Remove Hawke from DA2 what happens ? 
Remove any one character from the non struck out games and it has no effect on the game.

i rather enjoyed having a controllable character who allowed me to make choices and roleplay him the way i felt like and was still DEEPLY involved in the story.

the warden was a generic warden and had no connection to the story aside from his job.

you really want to give up being connected to the story in a meaningful way just so you can pick your race?

[Nightnight]

LOL, this thread sounds like a bunch of pissed off Bio-devs backlashing on DA fans for hating DA2. Rationalizing how DA:O is as shallow as DA2 doesn't make DA2 a success in reality. You don't make important choices in DAO too! *cry* The choices made in DA2 are more personal! *wah* Give it up losers. Without the leadership of Brent Knowles, the DA franchise is doomed to fail.

DA2 SUCKS.

/thread

[Nightnight]

Clonedzero wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
is mass effect a jrpg?
is oblivion a jrpg?
is morrowind a jrpg?
is fallout a jrpg?
is baulders gate a jrpg?

all of those has a single origin for where your character came from and how their story / lives began. sure some of them let you be an elf or a dwarf, but thats because it didnt matter ot the story. in BG you were still the adopted kid of whats his name, no matter what. in fallout you still came out of the vault no matter what. in oblivion you were still a prisoner no matter what. ect.

Is it really that hard to tell the diffterence between a pre-gen character and player created character? 

Pre-gen - a single character. Remove the character and the whole game collapses.
Player Created - may have a background but is not a single character anyone of them will be able to complete the story.

Remove Hawke from DA2 what happens ? 
Remove any one character from the non struck out games and it has no effect on the game.

i rather enjoyed having a controllable character who allowed me to make choices and roleplay him the way i felt like and was still DEEPLY involved in the story.

the warden was a generic warden and had no connection to the story aside from his job.

you really want to give up being connected to the story in a meaningful way just so you can pick your race?

I happen to find the warden to be very deep and personal and hawke to be shallow. You know what other "rpg" game you may enjoy? Half-life. You get to roleplay as Gordon Freeman. Even though the only choices you can make in the game is 1: save the world by playing the game or 2: don't play and don't save the world, you will get a DEEPLY involved story. 

[AkiKishi]

Clonedzero wrote...
i rather enjoyed having a controllable character who allowed me to make choices and roleplay him the way i felt like and was still DEEPLY involved in the story.

the warden was a generic warden and had no connection to the story aside from his job.

you really want to give up being connected to the story in a meaningful way just so you can pick your race?

Maybe it's the roleplaying background. I felt the exact opposite way that you do. All I was doing with Hawke was picking between 3 tones not roleplaying.
Each of the Wardens I played grew from how they faired in the respective origin story and subsequent game events.  

Choice is good, meaningless choice is a waste all around both of the players time and effort and of the developer having to script redundant options with no real change of outcome.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 09:57 .

[Akjosch]

Narreneth wrote...

No, the choices you picked were of limited number.  Just as in every other RPG on any console anywhere.

Ah, I see somebody here didn't play Daggerfall yet.

[Everwarden]

Nightnight wrote...

LOL, this thread sounds like a bunch of pissed off Bio-devs backlashing on DA fans for hating DA2. Rationalizing how DA:O is as shallow as DA2 doesn't make DA2 a success in reality. You don't make important choices in DAO too! *cry* The choices made in DA2 are more personal! *wah* Give it up losers. Without the leadership of Brent Knowles, the DA franchise is doomed to fail.

DA2 SUCKS.

/thread

I hate to say it, but you're likely right. Dragon Age as a franchise is going downhill fast, and will likely die if they continue in the same direction for DA3. 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Was the story really that much more meaningful as Hawke than as the multiple Origins of the various possible Wardens people came up with?

I remember during DA:O's development that the devs spoke of the unique experience of talking about the game playthroughs with other people around a watercooler. Playing as Hawke might have a few decisions along the way but the player is always Hawke, things seems more set in stone and that stability of plot has it's pros and cons for me. The cons outweigh the pros, DA 2 feels less interactive with the player.

Breaching the fourth wall is bad in fictional entertainment, but I didn't even care much to peer over the wall to see what was going on at the other side since my imagination didn't have as many places to go as in Origins. Always having to be Hawke, always having Hawke's family, always having Hawke's voice for every dialogue and always having Hawke's decisions really limits a game like this for me. Even if I ever bought it, I can't imagine more than two playthroughs as characters with different genders.

Origins is not perfect, and I'll never claim that but I just can't agree that DA 2 could ever be a deeper experience from my own perspective.

[AkiKishi]

Everwarden wrote...

Nightnight wrote...

LOL, this thread sounds like a bunch of pissed off Bio-devs backlashing on DA fans for hating DA2. Rationalizing how DA:O is as shallow as DA2 doesn't make DA2 a success in reality. You don't make important choices in DAO too! *cry* The choices made in DA2 are more personal! *wah* Give it up losers. Without the leadership of Brent Knowles, the DA franchise is doomed to fail.

DA2 SUCKS.

/thread

I hate to say it, but you're likely right. Dragon Age as a franchise is going downhill fast, and will likely die if they continue in the same direction for DA3. 

Harsh but hard to disagree with.

Hawkes mom is my metaphor for DA2.

[Baelyn]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Was the story really that much more meaningful as Hawke than as the multiple Origins of the various possible Wardens people came up with?

I remember during DA:O's development that the devs spoke of the unique experience of talking about the game playthroughs with other people around a watercooler. Playing as Hawke might have a few decisions along the way but the player is always Hawke, things seems more set in stone and that stability of plot has it's pros and cons for me. The cons outweigh the pros, DA 2 feels less interactive with the player.

Breaching the fourth wall is bad in fictional entertainment, but I didn't even care much to peer over the wall to see what was going on at the other side since my imagination didn't have as many places to go as in Origins. Always having to be Hawke, always having Hawke's family, always having Hawke's voice for every dialogue and always having Hawke's decisions really limits a game like this for me. Even if I ever bought it, I can't imagine more than two playthroughs as characters with different genders.

Origins is not perfect, and I'll never claim that but I just can't agree that DA 2 could ever be a deeper experience from my own perspective.

Thats fair enough. I didn't share the same disconnect but I can see how people would. Focusing on Hawke and his personality changes deepened my connection to each of my character, where as with the Warden I felt it more generic. Not that I loved the Warden any less, but I just got two very different experiences from playing each.

[Baelyn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Nightnight wrote...

LOL, this thread sounds like a bunch of pissed off Bio-devs backlashing on DA fans for hating DA2. Rationalizing how DA:O is as shallow as DA2 doesn't make DA2 a success in reality. You don't make important choices in DAO too! *cry* The choices made in DA2 are more personal! *wah* Give it up losers. Without the leadership of Brent Knowles, the DA franchise is doomed to fail.

DA2 SUCKS.

/thread

I hate to say it, but you're likely right. Dragon Age as a franchise is going downhill fast, and will likely die if they continue in the same direction for DA3. 

Harsh but hard to disagree with.

Hawkes mom is my metaphor for DA2.

Love Knowles. But personally I think Gaider is the hope for the franchise. Thats just my two cents though.

[Clonedzero]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
i rather enjoyed having a controllable character who allowed me to make choices and roleplay him the way i felt like and was still DEEPLY involved in the story.

the warden was a generic warden and had no connection to the story aside from his job.

you really want to give up being connected to the story in a meaningful way just so you can pick your race?

Maybe it's the roleplaying background. I felt the exact opposite way that you do. All I was doing with Hawke was picking between 3 tones not roleplaying.
Each of the Wardens I played grew from how they faired in the respective origin story and subsequent game events.  

Choice is good, meaningless choice is a waste all around both of the players time and effort and of the developer having to script redundant options with no real change of outcome.

you're giving DA:O wayyyy too much credit. the dialogue options in DA:O werent varied enough to allow a deep roleplaying option. i have alot of roleplaying experience too so don't use that against me.

it feels robotic, theres no emotion in the dialogue choices and they are all specifically written to say specific phrases. you dont have any more control than you do in DA2. how you could think otherwise is beyond me.

it personally felt really awkward to play as anything other than the human noble, because they went far enough to establish a backstory to every origin, but didn't seem to bother to give them any personal ties to the story or any real motivation to continue on with the story. so constantly through DA:O i had to stop and think "well why would my character be doing this? it makes absolutely no sense in context with their backround and the way i've been roleplaying him...?"

so then i'd have to stop and justify my reasoning by tacting on some clause into his backstory to make whatever i was doing acceptable to him. personally it really killed the sense of having my own character and story when i was forced down the same way anyways. so why not have a character thats actually personally involved with the story than vague archtypes that dont even make sense in the story half the time.

ex: why would my anti-chantry / anti-religious mage who felt oppressed by the chantry his entire life in the circle go hunt down andrastes ashes, who he and just about everyone else doubts actually exists because of some religious rumor saying it could cure him? makes absolutely no sense and completely killed the entire experience for that character for me.

let their structured backrounds make sense within the context of the story. in origins the only one that made sense to me was the human noble. everyone else had no reason to really bother with the whole thing.

[scpulley]

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.

Fail.....probably if this had not been a Bioware game that might be true. However, when they give an illusion of choice rather than choice, and more importantly, they failed to actually show any reason for Hawke to be involved with the 'big decision' regardless if it was a choice you made or if you just were watching, the storytelling of the game failed to explain why he would be the one making that choice. It doesn't matter if we are just watching the game or not, if in the end you feel like the main character of the story, namely Hawke, fails to be connected to anything other than being present, that isn't just an issue with someone screamming me me me, that's just bad story telling regardless of genre. This game wasn't pitched as an adventure/action game, it was pitched as an RPG.

[nopho]

Clonedzero wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...
i rather enjoyed having a controllable character who allowed me to make choices and roleplay him the way i felt like and was still DEEPLY involved in the story.

the warden was a generic warden and had no connection to the story aside from his job.

you really want to give up being connected to the story in a meaningful way just so you can pick your race?

Maybe it's the roleplaying background. I felt the exact opposite way that you do. All I was doing with Hawke was picking between 3 tones not roleplaying.
Each of the Wardens I played grew from how they faired in the respective origin story and subsequent game events.  

Choice is good, meaningless choice is a waste all around both of the players time and effort and of the developer having to script redundant options with no real change of outcome.

you're giving DA:O wayyyy too much credit. the dialogue options in DA:O werent varied enough to allow a deep roleplaying option. i have alot of roleplaying experience too so don't use that against me.

it feels robotic, theres no emotion in the dialogue choices and they are all specifically written to say specific phrases. you dont have any more control than you do in DA2. how you could think otherwise is beyond me.

it personally felt really awkward to play as anything other than the human noble, because they went far enough to establish a backstory to every origin, but didn't seem to bother to give them any personal ties to the story or any real motivation to continue on with the story. so constantly through DA:O i had to stop and think "well why would my character be doing this? it makes absolutely no sense in context with their backround and the way i've been roleplaying him...?"

so then i'd have to stop and justify my reasoning by tacting on some clause into his backstory to make whatever i was doing acceptable to him. personally it really killed the sense of having my own character and story when i was forced down the same way anyways. so why not have a character thats actually personally involved with the story than vague archtypes that dont even make sense in the story half the time.

ex: why would my anti-chantry / anti-religious mage who felt oppressed by the chantry his entire life in the circle go hunt down andrastes ashes, who he and just about everyone else doubts actually exists because of some religious rumor saying it could cure him? makes absolutely no sense and completely killed the entire experience for that character for me.

let their structured backrounds make sense within the context of the story. in origins the only one that made sense to me was the human noble. everyone else had no reason to really bother with the whole thing.

-you are one of a few (most of the game 2) people left who can stop the blight before it becomes big, killing most, including you, so at the most basic level you are simply defending yourself if you do not care at least for the wellbeing of ferelden and it's people

- what exact reason does hawk have to do anything in the game? why exactly is my mage hawke helping the templers hunt mages in one quest? or why do i earn a fortune to go onto a mission wich may likely be my death to earn...said fortune? why do i care for the qunari? or anything at any time?


- and your anti-chantry anti-religious mage at least had the chance to put up a big "screw you" at the ashes in DA2 you'd have gotten 3 different ways to say "wow thats awesome"

[Mantaal]

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

I know you are hung up on the not being able to pick Hawke's origin thing, but that doesn't change that there was only one Warden. There is one Warden that saved the world from the blight (could be different origins), there is one Hawke who became the Champion of Kirkwall.

Really? Show me on the box where it says requires future content to be complete.

Again, twisting my words. Show me where I said the game wasn't complete because of this. Fleshing out a story/choices in a future game further =/= incomplete. By your definition then, Origins was far from "complete" either as you don't see the impact directly of several of your choices.

There is one Hawke period. Hawke is a pre-gen character.The Warden is not a pre-generated character.

I don't need to twise your words. Name one thing you do that changes how DA2 ends.

And there is one Warden period. The only difference being you decide which place Duncan was at the time in order to make the Warden. Whether you picked the Dalish origin or not, that still happened, the only difference being Duncan was somewhere else and that person was never made into a Grey Warden.

Name one thing you do that changes how DA:O ends? And I'm sorry but superficial textual slides thrown at the end of the game saying you did X and Y happened does not count as "changing" the ending. If you think so then I'm sorry but I would have to disagree strongly.

Either way you kill the Archdemon. You just pick who dies/doesn't die in the process. Either way the war starts. You just pick who you side with.

Wow what a Troll. And not even a good one. Just Copy the text and reverse it...

[Baelyn]

Mantaal wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

I know you are hung up on the not being able to pick Hawke's origin thing, but that doesn't change that there was only one Warden. There is one Warden that saved the world from the blight (could be different origins), there is one Hawke who became the Champion of Kirkwall.

Really? Show me on the box where it says requires future content to be complete.

Again, twisting my words. Show me where I said the game wasn't complete because of this. Fleshing out a story/choices in a future game further =/= incomplete. By your definition then, Origins was far from "complete" either as you don't see the impact directly of several of your choices.

There is one Hawke period. Hawke is a pre-gen character.The Warden is not a pre-generated character.

I don't need to twise your words. Name one thing you do that changes how DA2 ends.

And there is one Warden period. The only difference being you decide which place Duncan was at the time in order to make the Warden. Whether you picked the Dalish origin or not, that still happened, the only difference being Duncan was somewhere else and that person was never made into a Grey Warden.

Name one thing you do that changes how DA:O ends? And I'm sorry but superficial textual slides thrown at the end of the game saying you did X and Y happened does not count as "changing" the ending. If you think so then I'm sorry but I would have to disagree strongly.

Either way you kill the Archdemon. You just pick who dies/doesn't die in the process. Either way the war starts. You just pick who you side with.

Wow what a Troll. And not even a good one. Just Copy the text and reverse it...

You obviously do not know what a troll is.