206 réponses à ce sujet

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

I love reading about people bashing the game for attracting the "brainless CoD shooter crowd" and then they when there isn't a "Giant Space Archdemon" they can't puzzle out the story anymore. It's like... "You guys know you've been trashing yourselves this whole time?"



Edit:  OP's question was valid and answered, this is my additional observation.

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 29 mars 2011 - 12:09 .

[Legbiter]

Some people are upset that they don't know the entire plot 1 minute into the game like in DA:O. Oh...big bad Archie coming, gotta kill him, ´k.

[Medhia Nox]

@Prethen - you didn't appreciate "Sims: Kirkwall"?

[RohanD]

Volourn wrote...

It does have a major story but unlike DA1, the main plot isn't spoiled as soon as the game starts. L0L the moment you first meet Duncan, the entire story is spoiled. Archemonm coming, you will kill it, game over. 9and thatw as even spoiled prior to release0. DA2's story is a slow burn with lots of hints in ch1 (the quick cameo of a certain end boss when you first enter Kirkwall for example) until things blow up 9pretty much literally, lol).

DA1 does some things better but story wise, DA2 wins out easily.

Damn Volourn, this is a really poor attempt at fanboying for DA2. The plot of DA:O was not limited to simply fighting Darkspawn and killing the archdemon and you know it. It was about the many stories, characters, personalities and lore which you experienced leading up to that point. 

The plot was emboldened by the world in which it took place, by the experiences and atmosphere which added to its depth. This is the complete opposite in DA2, where a small, barren, poorly designed and repetitive world only serves to detract from a, lets be honest, typical faction war which has also been done a million times before.

[Scnew]

It's a game about making tough choices, which ultimately matter very little.

[Sidney]

erynnar wrote...

It didn't have to be about killing the "big bad." What it should have been is about choices and impacting the world. My character is a vehicle I don't get to drive, instead I am just along for the ride. A story told already that I am just running disjointed errands so I can see the ending which I had no influence over.

Let's see in DAO you are plenty along for the ride:

1. Well you have to join the Warden's. What a great deal..early death, no hope of  family and this jerk Duncan. I can't leave this outfit...nope.
2. You must recruit 4 allies. No more, and no less and no matter what decision you make you WILL have 4 allies who serve an indistinct but oddly similar purpose in the final battle as cannon fodder.  The only downside to one or the other is that siding with the werewolves steals your elfroot vendor.
3. The archdemon dies. Yes in the end no matter what decision you make up until that point he's dead. Toast. You literally cannot fail to be the Hero of Ferelden - even if it is sometimes a posthumus hero.

That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

[RohanD]

Sidney wrote...


That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

Modifié par RohanD, 29 mars 2011 - 12:50 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Scnew - putting it in that perspective is so insanely depressing. LOL

[Lumikki]

That is good question. I mean there isn't real driving force to motive player to go forward. Now if this is about Hawkes choises affecting to world, then how come they don't really affect much anything. I see hole story more like Hawke's personal history as what did happen. How ever, that doesn't solve the OP consern nor mine. Like someone sayed, there is story, but also OP is right, the purpose as why player is doing something is missing or is very light. Many other Biowares games player has allways know very early what they try to do in the game world, but in DA2 that's sort of missing. Act 1 was of course worst, but as the Hawkes story goes forward story seem to be more focused. Just how does new player get over the first 15 hour without geting bored by collect money with random quest is a question.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mars 2011 - 01:00 .

[aftohsix]

Stupid counter-question: Why do I feel there is a central narrative throughout this game. Which would be the battle between Mages and Templar. Personal accountability or Ordered Control?

[Zanallen]

RohanD wrote...

Sidney wrote...


That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

And that's all opinion. As for major sidequests becoming available if you made certain choices in the first game, that is just silly. Why would Bioware make an awesome sidequest that not everyone would have the opportunity to see? Especially when the trigger for that sidequest is in a game that not everyone has played? The only way that would work is if they made multiple versions of the quest depending on how you handled the trigger in the first game, including a default version for people without imports, but that would not be at all cost effective.

[OriginalTibs]

The plot simply isn't the one you expected, OP. A good storyline doesn't have to be threaded around the conflict between good and evil. In this case as aftohsix mentioned it is between order/control and freedom/chaos.

It is actually a rather literate storyline.

[Scnew]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Scnew - putting it in that perspective is so insanely depressing. LOL

Tell me about it, bro.

[Sidney]

RohanD wrote...

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

It is always about how you get there. The Illiad is just one big action movie-to-be and Hamlet is a trashy revenege story except that Homer and Shakespeare aren't  Michael Bey and Zack Synder (aka hacks). DAO is a generic story but it is well executed with enough original flourishes to be interesting. At the same time, I don't need everthing to be like that. Casablanca isn't about anything grand or any great people but it is fascinating all the same.

You might have felt more immersed in DAO but I felt the tracks of the rails a lot more clearly there because the roadmap was so heavily laid out for me. I mean the recruit allies, go to landsmeet, kill AD is pretty much laid out as soon as you leave Flemeth's hut. OK, got it. Let me get my checklist going. The DA2 plot wasn't as transparent and laid out and I didn't feel as railroaded. I was 100% as railroaded because that is what these games do but the feel wasn't as obvious.

I'm still glad that DA didn't turn into Warden Sheppard playing the same character from game to game but more importantly your Warden could be dead (granted not many) or he could have taken a ride through the Eluvian (likely a lot more) so it is hard to carry forward from such divergent points and any attempt to do so would have made a mockery out of the choices people made that in one way or antoher removed their Warden from Thedas. I do still want to see the fate of my decision to step into the mirror but I didn't expect the next story to be about that.

[Pandaman102]

Prethen wrote...

I'm a bit disappointed that there's no major driving force for Hawke's character other than a profit motive or good vs. evil initiative.  It's a bit lame.

Okay, I'm also getting sick of the recycled maps (like everyone else on this board).

Why, pray tell, are you asking a question about the plot (or supposed lack thereof) in the "no spoilers" section? It rather limits people's abilities to discuss the question in detail.

[ZombiePowered]

The major plot line is Hawke and his rise to power. Plots don't have to be a series of events that are connected by other events. The connection can be the people involved; namely Hawke and his companions. People expected a straightforward, undeniably evil villain to point at and say "that guy is evil, he needs to die."

As for the complaint about having no choice in how things ended, this was the same in Origins. You killed the archdemon, you united Ferelden, you gathered humans, elves/werewolves, mages, and dwarves. The ending was fixed, but the journey wasn't, just like it wasn't in DA2. Yes, that's right, in DA2 you didn't have to help companions, and you could denounce or support them. Just like you didn't have to do sidequests, and when you did do sidequests you got to choose how they unfolded. In the main quest you could constantly oppose and be an ignorant douche to the Qunari, or you could earn their respect. Depending on your actions, they may or may not have met the "demand of the Qun", and there is a large difference between how many Qunari die depending on your choices in the throne room. And there are huge differences in the ending depending on who you side with (sit down, listen to the ending cinematic, and actually think about the different consequences Hawke must face, because they are huge). Just because the major events are the same (just like they were in Origins and every other RPG who intends to continue the franchise) doesn't mean your actions didn't have an effect.

The only real difference between the ending of the two games (other than DA2 having a sexy tapestry cinematic) is that there were no walls of text explaining exactly what effect your actions had on the world. Bioware did this because they'd rather have us experience these differing repercusions in future games instead of just exposition them at us. By the way, for people claiming the ending is lazy for not telling you what happened, the walls of text thing is the real lazy solution. Anyone can type up some spiel about that. The difficult thing is to reveal that information in future games. Also, the reason you didn't see all of the Wardens choices have a direct effect on the Kirkwall is because it would not have made sense for every single thing the Warden did to affect Kirkwall. Some of his actions affected other parts of the world, and that will be revealed in later games.

[Waage25]

Zanallen wrote...

RohanD wrote...

Sidney wrote...


That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

And that's all opinion. As for major sidequests becoming available if you made certain choices in the first game, that is just silly. Why would Bioware make an awesome sidequest that not everyone would have the opportunity to see? Especially when the trigger for that sidequest is in a game that not everyone has played? The only way that would work is if they made multiple versions of the quest depending on how you handled the trigger in the first game, including a default version for people without imports, but that would not be at all cost effective.

Yes becaus it is not like any of the calssic RPG's with held content from you and there for where better games becaus there where multiple choises with real counsequense.

BG2: Assassins guild vs Thives guild.
Different quests and different options.

Arcanum: This game with held a ton of content IF you where to magic or to technological even some shops would not trade with you and it made the game better.

The Witcher: Choices would make some NPC's die and cut you off from some interesting quests.

Having some quests not be available to people becaus of choices they made helps to make a game more interesting and more involved instead of turning a game into the RPG genres answer to MoH.
Scripted and Linear.

[fn_outlaw]

Nevermind, no spoilers.

Modifié par fn_outlaw, 29 mars 2011 - 01:42 .

[Rockworm503]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

It does have a major story but unlike DA1, the main plot isn't spoiled as soon as the game starts. L0L the moment you first meet Duncan, the entire story is spoiled. Archemonm coming, you will kill it, game over. 9and thatw as even spoiled prior to release0. DA2's story is a slow burn with lots of hints in ch1 (the quick cameo of a certain end boss when you first enter Kirkwall for example) until things blow up 9pretty much literally, lol).

DA1 does some things better but story wise, DA2 wins out easily.

Oh you are a slippery one, you must have your fanboy cloaking device on high, slipped right past the fanboy radar tsk tsk.

Your lame attempts to pump up DA2 are just that, lame, just like the DA2 story.

We get it the game sucks I'd be rich if I had a penny for everyone who said this your hater cloaking device must be broken.

[RohanD]

Zanallen wrote...

RohanD wrote...

Sidney wrote...


That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

And that's all opinion. As for major sidequests becoming available if you made certain choices in the first game, that is just silly. Why would Bioware make an awesome sidequest that not everyone would have the opportunity to see? Especially when the trigger for that sidequest is in a game that not everyone has played? The only way that would work is if they made multiple versions of the quest depending on how you handled the trigger in the first game, including a default version for people without imports, but that would not be at all cost effective.

Cost effective?

This just in! Making good video games and any other kind of creative product costs, wait for it...MONEY!

Why the hell is anyone, any consumer, saying that things aren't cost effective? No, it is not cost effective because it cuts into the million dollar salaries of the people at the top who need to make a 200% margin on everything. 

There are heaps of ways they could have worked it into the game. For example if you didn't have a save import, you are asked some serious questions at the start which actually become role playing elements? Of course you get a quest no matter what, so there are 2 pathways. 

This kind of stuff used to be just accepted in Western RPGs, now there are fanboys saying "wait you're not thinking of the costs!" You're a consumer! You're not supposed to think of their costs, you should only care about the final product in your hands and how good it is. 

People really do become sheep so very easily. 

Modifié par RohanD, 29 mars 2011 - 02:16 .

[Stuffy38]

I agree with Rockpopple; a 3rd choice would have been welcome. Re-acquire your sibling, cash up and go back to Ferelden. If you ran out of cash you could always work as a butcher, judging from the in-game gore. You do end up getting railroaded into choosing heads or tails, and the final boss is not really apparent until the last couple of hours of the game - especially if you lean towards that sid eof the coin already.

Typing this without spoilers may make it more confusing... but I tried.

[fn_outlaw]

RohanD wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

RohanD wrote...

Sidney wrote...


That's not really a knock on DAO. Almost all cRPG's are like that. Sovereign will be stopped. Malek will be stopped. Irenicus will be stoped - you will rescue that annoying $%$^& of Imoen.  All the stories have a beginning and an end and all you do is fill in the gaps in between. They are a railroad.

This is like saying every story in the history of fantasy is the same. What is important isn't the final result, it is the way you get there. 

The way of getting there in DA:O was just much more immersive, deep and enjoyable when compared to DA2.

There was a lot of potential for C&C from DA:O to have been carried over to a sequel. For instance, if you didn't save the Arl's son and the demon came back to claim him later, this could have been a huge side quest opportunity for the sequel. 

These kinds of great possibilities were all thrown out the door. 

And that's all opinion. As for major sidequests becoming available if you made certain choices in the first game, that is just silly. Why would Bioware make an awesome sidequest that not everyone would have the opportunity to see? Especially when the trigger for that sidequest is in a game that not everyone has played? The only way that would work is if they made multiple versions of the quest depending on how you handled the trigger in the first game, including a default version for people without imports, but that would not be at all cost effective.

Cost effective?

This just in! Making good video games and any other kind of creative product costs, wait for it...MONEY!

Why the hell is anyone, any consumer, saying that things aren't cost effective? No, it is not cost effective because it cuts into the million dollar salaries of the people at the top who need to make a 200% margin on everything. 

There are heaps of ways they could have worked it into the game. For example if you didn't have a save import, you are asked some serious questions at the start which actually become role playing elements? Of course you get a quest no matter what, so there are 2 pathways. 

This kind of stuff used to be just accepted in Western RPGs, now there are fanboys saying "wait you're not thinking of the costs!" You're a consumer! You're not supposed to think of their costs, you should only care about the final product in your hands and how good it is. 

People really do become sheep so very easily. 

I might add:  Replayability.

You might think it costs more to include things for this purpose, but it allows you to save money marketing your next game.  Same princple as DLC.  Think of all of the so-called 'haters' of DA2.  If they released, hypothetically, an ORIGINS sequel, imagine how well it would sell, considering the fact that many people STILL play Origins because of this diversity.  NO, you can't marry the queen if your a FemDalish Warden.  You have to start over to do that.  It also makes it BELIEVABLE.  An apostate mage shouldn't be able to run around Templar central without getting chased...at least a little.  I mean...that's just me...but I digress...

In fact, this was evidenced by DA2 marketing, when they marketed it as the "Epic Sequel" to Origins, but then recanted same post release. 

ME3's sales are going to blow DA2 out of the water simply because people are STILL playing ME1 AND 2.

DA3 sales should be good, but there's so much controversy with DA2, that I'd be willing to bet it pales in comparison...only fix would be buttloads of DLC...maybe a toolset, but that's just my wishful thinking...

[erynnar]

Not everyone is a hater for not liking DA2, I don't think people are haters for not liking or being lukewarm about DAO either. Grow up.

And you felt DAO was on a rail? Well I feel like DA2 is in a tunnel. Yeah I knew the ending of DAO and the journey to get there was rich, varied and fun with errands thrown in (but at least they had stories instead of returning some dwarf's torn knickers for a gold and a one sentence comment). DA2 Act1 be a slave for a year, run around collecting money for a larger quest. Act 2 bad juju with one of the factions but you kill him...nothing really hinted at again. Run errands, big show at end of Act 2 with the title we all know Hawke gets so that's not a spoiler. No real hints to the supposed "real" story of this game, really, until Act 3. DAO was at least woven together. DA2 and its stories feel disjointed and not really tied together except in the thinnest of ways. I don't need the kill the big baddie of DAO. But I just felt like some unifying thing was left out of DA2.

DAO had many unifying things Blight, kill big baddie, gather armies, oust Loghain, build allies for the PC. Hell even my Warden was a unifying element to the story. If my Hawke is supposed to be that unifying theme, then it really fell flat. Because Hawke just being the Champion doesn't cut it.

Modifié par erynnar, 29 mars 2011 - 02:35 .

[RohanD]

Yep, again the "cost effective" line is still unbelievable to me. Replay value is a hugely important thing for a game. Different branching quests and paths mean the game is worth more than another which just has a single path to follow. This means the game is of greater value to consumers and it will thus create a higher level of brand loyalty thereby incurring greater sales in the future.

Sadly, these are long term goals, not short term quick cash grab schemes, so they were never the plan for DA2.