192 réponses à ce sujet

[ushae]

I very much agree, the story had a lot more focus and development. My main concern is the half weighted nature of the plot.

Hmmm how do I put this ... they left us hanging at what felt like the halfway point in the game ? While Bioware are still excellent storytellers, they gave us half a story for a fully fledged sequel. I was getting very excited and felt the story was building upto something really epic only it turned out to be a precursor to something larger scale i.e. Dragon Age 3.

But otherwise a very good game, and I really like the direction the game is taking us.

[txgoldrush]

Darth Obvious wrote...

@OP: Who ever said that the game lacked focus? Do I suspect a strawman in our midst?

The problem with the game is that the 3rd act is completely anti-climactic. It has nothing to do with focus. Act 3 should have ended with a massive Qunari invasion/war, with Act 2 being when you choose between the Templars and mages. Then, whichever side you supported in Act 2 would come to your aid in the final battles of Act 3. There is simply no other logical way of doing it.

Building up this huge epic conflict with the Qunari, and then just forgetting about it in Act 3 was completely insane on the part of the devs. Somebody should be fired for that blunder.

Some game reviews, including Gamespot.

[Elfseeker]

The plot is what you do with the options you get. Or, 'the plot is the story Varric tells the Seeker'. That means that what we play through might not even be the actual story. Which can be mildly confusing.

And about 'lazy writers' again...'except of course (that pirate I can never seem to recall the name of)'...that's it? Geezus...

[Sabrestrikealpha]

It wasn't as much a  "focus" problem for me as it was the plodding sense of inevitability about the plot. The devs clearly wanted the story to come out one way and one way only, possibly to set up the next game in the series. This meant there were far too many points in the game where there were "choices" offered that had no material effect on the outcome of the game. As a result, I never got the sense that Hawke was an active participant in the outcome of events. Rather, he/she was a passive observer who becomes Champion by accident rather than any particularly noble actions or special ruthlessness.

I think this was the result of there being too many points in the game where you were offered conversation options that didn't really affect the outcome of the situation you were in. The end of the 2nd Act was a good example. It doesn't matter if you turn Isabella over to the Qunari or not, or even if she is still in your party at that point. No matter your choices, you end up in a fight. Sure, you can choose to fight the Arishok 1-1 or in a group, but you still need to fight him. There isn't any series of choices you can make that will avoid the fight and create a peaceful solution to the problem.

Same thing at the end. Anders always blows up the Chantry, no matter how you have handled interactions with him during the course of the game. You always fight both Orsinio and Meredith, no matter if you side with the Templars or the Mages.

The effect of all of this is that it cheapens every decision you do during the game. I'm not shaping my character's destiny in any way because the outcome is completely pre-determined. I'm just getting dragged along in events I have no control over. The result is an experience that is not individualized in any way. Compare this to a game like Mass Effect/Mass Effect 2. In those games, two different people will have significantly different experiences and experience the game from very different perspectives. For example, my friend played a hard-core renegade Shepard and wasn't even aware you could recruit Legion the first time he played through the game. If that game worked like  Dragon Age 2, you would be presented with the option of activating or selling Legion, but no matter what you picked, he'd end up in your party anyway.

It isn't enough to create a cool universe for players to inhabit in games like this. You need to offer players the ability to make it "their" universe in some identifiable way. DA:O did this, Mass Effect did this. The choices you made in those games resulted in an individualized experience that DA2 lacks. (and for Pete's Sake, if you offer us the option of importing our game, at least get it right. Don't talk about the Architect as thorugh he is alive when I very clealy killed him in the save I imported from. I'd rather they not offer the option at all than offer it and have obvious contradictions like that).

[Addai]

@Foolsfolly:  Those are questions you are supposed to fill in for yourself. It's the same silly debate I've had with people who say their Wardens wouldn't have stayed to fight the Blight. There are story parameters and you find your own meaning within them. Why stay in Kirkwall? Because you have a start and a foundation there, standing and family, and because no other place is any better.

Modifié par Addai67, 29 mars 2011 - 03:30 .

[Foolsfolly]

Wardens would stay to fight the Blight because that's their job. They should have probably sent word to another country for back-up but if they left they may come back to nothing but rubble and a much stronger horde of darkspawn.

The Hawkes have nothing in Kirkwall and as the years go by the city takes more from them. They even have Varric and Alistair ask you about returning to Ferelden and if you say you want to go back it has no affect. There's no leaving the city until the game's complete because the plot requires that. But there's no character reason to stay.

But you're avoiding the point that Hawke has no motivation for the plot. The Warden was a Grey Warden and their whole mission is to stop Blights. Shepard was tracking Saren and then stopping the Reapers. The Spirit Monk was trying to restore the natural laws of their world.

Hawke didn't need to save the world, since apparently BioWare's tired of that. But Hawke needed a motivation, even if it was just to get a nice ham sandwich for five coppers or less. The good guy (upper-right dialogue choices) Hawke says he's doing it for family a lot but the game goes out of its way to strip Hawke's family away, which can be a good storyline but that needs to happen later in the game and not in the beginning.

[Revakeane]

I think the problem is not so much there is focus vs there is no focus in plotline, but rather MANY PLAYERS DID NOT GET IT. If the focus is inaccessible on the first playthrough, and people simply lose interest, it won't really matter that there ACTUALLY is a secret focus if you just look hard enough.

I agree with the OP that there are many elements tying the quests together... but these elements, such as uncertainty, loss, death, are themes rather than plotlines. The themes are brilliantly explored in DA2 and we are presented with a plethora of plausible and justifiable viewpoints on each major theme; this is good, it makes the players think, it makes each player's experience in the game unique, because it elicits a personal take on grey areas.

However, it does not necessarily make for a good driving narrative, nor does it necessarily tie all the branching plotlines together. I spend Act 1 basically getting money for a get rich quick scheme. To be honest, that didn't really make sense to me, since there were no immediate pressures for fund-raising other than a vague level of discomfort and implied greed. If money-making were the main motivation, perhaps they could have added a personal stake to the enterprise; maybe Leandra falls really ill and needs the money for a healer... maybe someone found out who Bethany is and threatens to tell the templars unless he is bribed with a massive amount of money. Maybe Hawke was coerced into joining the Expedition. Whatever, just as long as it makes sense for the player to join... the sense wasn't apparent to me.

Then in Act 2, you handle the whole Qunari problem while the Mage/Templar issue spirals out of control. These are two easily discernable plotlines that tie many quests together. The only problem I have with this is that it doesn't serve as a good bridge between the first and third acts, as you suddenly transform to the Kirkwall-go-to person just because you went on a successful expedition... and you gained the Arishok's grudging respect no matter how brief or varied your experience with him in Act 1 was. Then in Act 3, Hawke is expected to mediate the conflict between Templars and Mages. And despite the many quests revolving around the issue, I personally did not feel drawn into the conflict as I was in DAO's civil war. The only personal stake I could have (my sibling) in the conflict was taken from me already, and there was little family bonding to begin with. I agree with other poster in that the focus in Acts 2 and 3 are apparent, but not necessarily something many people want to focus on. We have to care about it first, it has to affect us directly and deeply. I think they wasted too much time in Act 1 in random money-making quests when they could have already been drawing us deeper into the main plot's conflict.

On the other hand, I think side quests are bound to be quite unrelated to the story-line... I thought that was the point. But many of the side-quests just seemed pointless in and of themselves. Like the random fetching quests. I didn't mind doing them, but it just felt like fodder to me.

Anyway, I know DA2 had a focus; Hawke. And it had a plotline: Mages vs. Templars. What it didn't have was an overarching sense of deep personal involvement. That's just what I think.

[Darth Obvious]

Played through twice, and not one decision I ever made had any effect whatsoever on the story.

All this simpering excuse-making is comical.

[Foolsfolly]

::starts a slow clap for Revakeane::::

Seriously, good job, sir or madam.

[IntheAbsence]

Sabrestrikealpha wrote...

It wasn't as much a  "focus" problem for me as it was the plodding sense of inevitability about the plot. The devs clearly wanted the story to come out one way and one way only, possibly to set up the next game in the series. This meant there were far too many points in the game where there were "choices" offered that had no material effect on the outcome of the game. As a result, I never got the sense that Hawke was an active participant in the outcome of events. Rather, he/she was a passive observer who becomes Champion by accident rather than any particularly noble actions or special ruthlessness.

I think this was the result of there being too many points in the game where you were offered conversation options that didn't really affect the outcome of the situation you were in. The end of the 2nd Act was a good example. It doesn't matter if you turn Isabella over to the Qunari or not, or even if she is still in your party at that point. No matter your choices, you end up in a fight. Sure, you can choose to fight the Arishok 1-1 or in a group, but you still need to fight him. There isn't any series of choices you can make that will avoid the fight and create a peaceful solution to the problem.

Same thing at the end. Anders always blows up the Chantry, no matter how you have handled interactions with him during the course of the game. You always fight both Orsinio and Meredith, no matter if you side with the Templars or the Mages.

Up to this point, you have done a wonderful job of highlighting the main themes of the entire DA2 story. This sense that the conflict is inevitable, that violence will occur no matter what anyone, even the Champion, says about it is what makes the plot so much richer than stereotypical "You have X choices. The ending will be changed in a few mundane ways by the choice you have picked." DA2 is making a sophisticated thesis on the inevitability of conflict in the situations they portray, which can be shown to represent many larger forces at work in our world today. It isn't any coincidence that Hawke makes several references to "Anders's Manifesto."

Sabrestrikealpha wrote...

The effect of all of this is that it cheapens every decision you do during the game. I'm not shaping my character's destiny in any way because the outcome is completely pre-determined. I'm just getting dragged along in events I have no control over. The result is an experience that is not individualized in any way.

You are being dragged along in events you have no control over. However, that shouldn't be a point of blame for the game, I actually view it as one of the successes in the plot. Maybe I've read too much absurdist material, but this storyline is second only to KOTOR 2.

[Statulos]

If I want to think about inevitability I read Sartre, Camus or Sophocles, not play RPG´s.

While I enjoy those themes (nothing like good old fatum) or the stories that build on the topic of what will you able to save while the world burns (and sometimes you cannot save anything), I don´t think they´re appropriate for an RPG, where you´re given a very explicit chance to turn the tide.

Imagine a completely streamlined strategy game about WWII where you could simply never win the Ostfront with Germany. You´ll be pissed for sure.

[Aloradus]

Revakeane wrote...

Anyway, I know DA2 had a focus; Hawke. And it had a plotline: Mages vs. Templars. What it didn't have was an overarching sense of deep personal involvement. That's just what I think.

Then - I ask those defending this game, who agree with this...  Is Hawke's focus to free the Kirkwall mages from the templars?    Or keep them locked up...

If its not, then someone else should have been the main character.  Someone who actually cared and wanted to free the mages, or opposite that someone who wanted to make sure the mages couldnt rise up against the templars.

Modifié par Aloradus, 29 mars 2011 - 05:27 .

[Foolsfolly]

I agree with Statulos.

I love BioShock because of how well it deconstructs video games (and Objectivism). It's take on how the player ultimately has no real choices was a great twist in the game and in the story. I love that, thank you kindly.

But if that was the whole point of DA2 then it missed that spark that BioShock had. It didn't have that moment where you realize you're powerless, that you're a pawn for larger figures. Which actually makes me think that wasn't the point of DA2 at all.

And if it was supposed to be there...then BioWare didn't do a good of enough job of presenting that.

[Foolsfolly]

Aloradus wrote...

Revakeane wrote...

Anyway, I know DA2 had a focus; Hawke. And it had a plotline: Mages vs. Templars. What it didn't have was an overarching sense of deep personal involvement. That's just what I think.

Then - I ask those defending this game, who agree with this...  Is Hawke's focus to free the Kirkwall mages from the templars?    Or keep them locked up...

If its not, then someone else should have been the main character.  Someone who actually cared and wanted to free the mages, or opposite that someone who wanted to make sure the mages couldnt rise up against the templars.

+1000 ditto.

Hawke's motivations and the plot really don't mesh. And even a pro-templar/mage Hawke can't really be pro-anything until after the Qunari invasion. Otherwise there's just a few scattered chances to help anyone (mostly mages).

[Statulos]

I posted a massive plot alternative in the game review section. To sumarize, my idea is that **** will hit the fan and it will hit it hard. The question is will you profit from it or will you try to save as much as possible?

[IntheAbsence]

I thought that the death star beam destroying the Chantry pretty much showed you that you were dealing with **** way beyond your control. The clash was present throughout the story, and it escalated to its natural conclusion.

@Statulos
This is a bit different. You still "win," it's just a question of what winning entails. Imagine playing a WWII game from the Allies' perspective, seeing the destruction incurred by the conflict. Actually, war games employ this idea frequently, often to great effect. (Think COD, when the nuke just fell and you struggle to crawl out of the wreckage.)

[chester013]

Funker Shepard wrote...

Nah, people subjectively don't like the game (whether through actually giving it a chance and not liking it, or IMO more commonly due to some EA/conspiracy theory/"it became popular so it sucks now" confirmation bias) and are trying to objectify their dislike through nebulous criticisms.

It happens quite a lot on the Internet, really.

So true, if someone decides they don't like something (an emotional not rational decision) then they will find reasons not to like it and retrofit these as reasons why they came to the conclusion.

[Mugnir]

I can not for the life of me figure out my personal motivation to remain in Kirkwall throughout the entire game. Kirkwall doesn't grow on me at all; it's oppressive and everyone there begrudges my existence. I'm either a mage or have a sister who is mage and it's clearly the worst place to be one. Your parents specifically leaves Kirkwall because it's a terrible place to live as a mage.

I have no motivation to be in Kirkwall, and plenty of motivation to be elsewhere. 

Modifié par Mugnir, 29 mars 2011 - 05:51 .

[Aloradus]

IntheAbsence wrote...

I thought that the death star beam destroying the Chantry pretty much showed you that you were dealing with **** way beyond your control. The clash was present throughout the story, and it escalated to its natural conclusion.

@Statulos
This is a bit different. You still "win," it's just a question of what winning entails. Imagine playing a WWII game from the Allies' perspective, seeing the destruction incurred by the conflict. Actually, war games employ this idea frequently, often to great effect. (Think COD, when the nuke just fell and you struggle to crawl out of the wreckage.)

A war game about someone who just wants to survive and get rich?.. Knocking over an enemy museum they quickly accomplished this and have several outs, but somehow at the end of the game they are still in the trenches slugging it out.  That could be a good comedy, but I don’t think its what Bioware shot for.

In my oppinion Hawke could have been a good side-character one the player manipulates due to Hawke's fighting prowess but … this game isn’t Hawke's story, he just happens to end up in it.   I’ll be crazy nerdy here but it’s as retarded (to me) as Emperor Palpatine being a footnote in the star wars sequels.  Instead we watch a Kid who doesn’t cause any of the events meander through childhood and adolescence… When how the republic gets tricked, and a Sith Lord rising to power happens off screen.  (ya those movies had a bajillion other faults too)

My question again-

to those defending this game if the "focus is Hawke. And it's plotline is Mages vs. Templars"...  Is Hawke's focus to free the Kirkwall mages from the templars?    Or keep them locked up...

If it is not I think someone else should have been the main character.  Someone who actually cared and wanted to free the mages, or opposite that someone who wanted to make sure the mages couldnt rise up against the templars.

Modifié par Aloradus, 29 mars 2011 - 06:05 .

[Foolsfolly]

chester013 wrote...

Funker Shepard wrote...

Nah, people subjectively don't like the game (whether through actually giving it a chance and not liking it, or IMO more commonly due to some EA/conspiracy theory/"it became popular so it sucks now" confirmation bias) and are trying to objectify their dislike through nebulous criticisms.

It happens quite a lot on the Internet, really.

So true, if someone decides they don't like something (an emotional not rational decision) then they will find reasons not to like it and retrofit these as reasons why they came to the conclusion.

So there's been pages of people expressing with rational reasons why the game lacked focus or was just disappointing. And your contribution to the discussion is, "Haters be hatin'".

I wanted to love this game. I got the second copy of Dragon Age 2 sold at my local Wal-Mart. I was there at midnight, found a small group of people waiting for the game and made small talk on how epic the game was going to be. My copy of DA2 never even touched the shelf, they just opened the box and handed out copies.

I came home giddy beyond belief that I finally held it.

It disappointed me. It disappointed me for reasons I've stated throughout the thread. But no, no. I spent over 60 dollars on a game I wanted to hate.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 29 mars 2011 - 06:37 .

[Lianaar]

Aloradus wrote...
My question again-

to those defending this game if the "focus is Hawke. And it's plotline is Mages vs. Templars"...  Is Hawke's focus to free the Kirkwall mages from the templars?    Or keep them locked up...

The focus of the game is not on what, but on how. Some people don't give a damn about how, so for them the game will lack focus. Some people (like me) mostly care for the how, and less for the what, so we found quite a lot of focus in the game.
Whether a game was good or not for you depends on what you seek in games. This game was not a satisfy everyone out there sort of game. They targeted a certain group of players, accordingly a certain group of players love the game.

edit: this is not a statement that people who enjoy different things in the game then me are any way less then me. They are merely different. Just like I am different to them. But the game does have entertainment value for numerous people and their joy is not any way less justified.

Modifié par Lianaar, 29 mars 2011 - 06:09 .

[Foolsfolly]

The focus of the game is not on what, but on how. Some people don't give a damn about how, so for them the game will lack focus.

That's because the how wasn't interesting. The how was an idol did it. That's not interesting.

[fantasypisces]

Foolsfolly, I want to have your children! Your post on the first page (yes I'm a bit late to the discussion) is exactly how I felt.

I just felt the story was a bit disjointed. The trailers and lead-up to the game all state the game is about how Hawke becomes Champion, but that is concluded in act2. In reality the story is about mages vs templars, and although there are references throughout the game, they all get kind of lost between everything else.

I mean I liked the game, but I think the story did need more time to cement everything together, and then it would have been magnificent rather than "ok-ish".

Modifié par fantasypisces, 29 mars 2011 - 06:16 .

[Lianaar]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The focus of the game is not on what, but on how. Some people don't give a damn about how, so for them the game will lack focus.

That's because the how wasn't interesting. The how was an idol did it. That's not interesting.

Please do remain respectful of the tastes of other people. I accept that you found no enjoyment in it. But the question wasn't why Meredith went insane, but how did things turn out to be the way they ended up being. And the idol is not the answer of that. My 60 hour of gameplay is the answer to that question. My decisions in the game as a character, those were the hows. They might have little effect on the big what questions, but they perfectly brushed on everything I am interested in (how did Hawke became the person she is, how did people respond to her personality, how did other people change because of her ideas and expressed views, how do these people in general respond to the challenges that were laid before them by others).

[Aloradus]

Lianaar wrote...

Aloradus wrote...
My question again-

to those defending this game if the "focus is Hawke. And it's plotline is Mages vs. Templars"...  Is Hawke's focus to free the Kirkwall mages from the templars?    Or keep them locked up...

The focus of the game is not on what, but on how. Some people don't give a damn about how, so for them the game will lack focus. Some people (like me) mostly care for the how, and less for the what, so we found quite a lot of focus in the game.
Whether a game was good or not for you depends on what you seek in games. This game was not a satisfy everyone out there sort of game. They targeted a certain group of players, accordingly a certain group of players love the game.

edit: this is not a statement that people who enjoy different things in the game then me are any way less then me. They are merely different. Just like I am different to them. But the game does have entertainment value for numerous people and their joy is not any way less justified.

Well said, I respect this.  There are plenty of things to like in this game.  But, do you not think the game would have been more enjoyable if Hawke actually had an interest and cause in the main events that happened... Instead of watching how they happened?

Modifié par Aloradus, 29 mars 2011 - 06:26 .