206 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberstrike nTo]

BobSmith101 wrote...
It makes even less sense when Hawke is a mage.

Spoilers:

Because Meredith knows arresting the Champion of Kirkwall without a mountain of damning evidence of Hawke being a blood mage would be extremely stupid. Because Hawke defeated the Qunari in front of every noble in Kirkwall something she didn't do, so she declares Hawke is now the Champion of Kirkwall. 

End of spoilers. 

She knows that many of the many of the Nobility, almost every mage, and even some of the Templars like, respect, and/or love Hawke for stopping the Qunari and that the arresting the Champion without any evidence would at best make the claims that she is a tyrant and a bigot seem more justified and makes the cries of her opponents even louder and at worse she and the Templars loyal to her would have to deal with a possible major riot/rebellion because of it. 

It's very likely she had people watching Hawke and was waiting for the chance for him/her to slip up.    

[Rockpopple]

Keep in mind that Templars are uniquely suited to take on Mages, unlike Ogres which just overpower things with power. A mage could conceivably have a much easier time dealing with an Ogre than dealing with even one powerful Templar.

Anyway, you're pushing things, Bob. What would you have the Champion do? Preside over the Senate? These holes were present in DA:O, and they'll probably keep being present.

[AkiKishi]

Rockpopple wrote...

Keep in mind that Templars are uniquely suited to take on Mages, unlike Ogres which just overpower things with power. A mage could conceivably have a much easier time dealing with an Ogre than dealing with even one powerful Templar.

Anyway, you're pushing things, Bob. What would you have the Champion do? Preside over the Senate? These holes were present in DA:O, and they'll probably keep being present.

This is another one of those cases of the game telling and not showing. There is nothing scary about Templars, at least not compared to the party you pick up.

I would have liked the option to leave in chapter 3 afer getting <spoiler> back.

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Spoilers:

Because Meredith knows arresting the Champion of Kirkwall without a mountain of damning evidence of Hawke being a blood mage would be extremely stupid. Because Hawke defeated the Qunari in front of every noble in Kirkwall something she didn't do, so she declares Hawke is now the Champion of Kirkwall. 

End of spoilers.   

 

Your not until the end of act2. You don't need to be a blood mage apostate is enough to get you arrested. Just not if your Hawke.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 29 mars 2011 - 06:57 .

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Keep in mind that Templars are uniquely suited to take on Mages, unlike Ogres which just overpower things with power. A mage could conceivably have a much easier time dealing with an Ogre than dealing with even one powerful Templar.

Anyway, you're pushing things, Bob. What would you have the Champion do? Preside over the Senate? These holes were present in DA:O, and they'll probably keep being present.

This is another one of those cases of the game telling and not showing. There is nothing scary about Templars, at least not compared to the party you pick up.

I would have liked the option to leave in chapter 3 afer getting <spoiler> back.

the entire end of origins was told and not shown!!!! all the "decisions" present in origins had no ramifications really felt in the game. they were told via slide at the end. in DA2 you actually get to see real ramifications because the time skips allow things to develop between acts. thanks for showing that
A. you are a troll or just blind
and
B. the actual pros in the storytelling of DA2

[Rockpopple]

Bob, I'm not saying your demands are particularly unreasonable. I agree that it'd give the game more scape and more depth. I'm sure that if the Devs had more time a lot of that would have been included. All I'm saying are that those things not being there doesn't take away from the story that's there.

I think Dragon Age: Origins would have been better if there was more account into why the Warden became the hero that he became - instead of just apparently was. Did that account not being there take away from the story? No. It didn't.

This is where you and I disagree.

[TJSolo]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Keep in mind that Templars are uniquely suited to take on Mages, unlike Ogres which just overpower things with power. A mage could conceivably have a much easier time dealing with an Ogre than dealing with even one powerful Templar.

Anyway, you're pushing things, Bob. What would you have the Champion do? Preside over the Senate? These holes were present in DA:O, and they'll probably keep being present.

This is another one of those cases of the game telling and not showing. There is nothing scary about Templars, at least not compared to the party you pick up.

I would have liked the option to leave in chapter 3 afer getting <spoiler> back.

the entire end of origins was told and not shown!!!! all the "decisions" present in origins had no ramifications really felt in the game. they were told via slide at the end. in DA2 you actually get to see real ramifications because the time skips allow things to develop between acts. thanks for showing that
A. you are a troll or just blind
and
B. the actual pros in the storytelling of DA2

I recall having some time chatting with my companions and compatriots after defeating the archdemon since my Wardens all live. So not the entire end of origins was relagated to text summaries. Also not all decisions were saved until the end Redcliffe, Dalish/Wolves, Sacred Ashes, Harrowmont/Behlen, Branka, and other decisions had demonstrated the results of the player's decisions on the game world almost immediately. As for telling and not showing, the timeskips are worse.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

TJSolo wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Keep in mind that Templars are uniquely suited to take on Mages, unlike Ogres which just overpower things with power. A mage could conceivably have a much easier time dealing with an Ogre than dealing with even one powerful Templar.

Anyway, you're pushing things, Bob. What would you have the Champion do? Preside over the Senate? These holes were present in DA:O, and they'll probably keep being present.

This is another one of those cases of the game telling and not showing. There is nothing scary about Templars, at least not compared to the party you pick up.

I would have liked the option to leave in chapter 3 afer getting <spoiler> back.

the entire end of origins was told and not shown!!!! all the "decisions" present in origins had no ramifications really felt in the game. they were told via slide at the end. in DA2 you actually get to see real ramifications because the time skips allow things to develop between acts. thanks for showing that
A. you are a troll or just blind
and
B. the actual pros in the storytelling of DA2

I recall having some time chatting with my companions and compatriots after defeating the archdemon since my Wardens all live. So not the entire end of origins was relagated to text summaries. Also not all decisions were saved until the end Redcliffe, Dalish/Wolves, Sacred Ashes, Harrowmont/Behlen, Branka, and other decisions had demonstrated the results of the player's decisions on the game world almost immediately. As for telling and not showing, the timeskips are worse.

and what did you talk to them about??? hey you want to go to antiva??? sure!!! and that was it. you saw no ramifications. it would be just like if you were asked to side with the elves or werewolves...and then the screen went black with text telling you the outcome. you experienced no ramifications.

and the timeskips are narrative devices used to show you the ramifications of the quests you have experienced.

[Medhia Nox]

ZombiePowered - you seem to connect and admire a character more because he has "selfish" concerns - am I wrong there? I can accept that - it is very human

I, on the other hand, connect more with a character willing to give up the selfish concerns of the common man, and strive for altruism for all men. You can argue that the Warden was forced into it - but you're easily capable of saying in each Origin that you want to be a Warden.

====

As for "victim" characters go - and I believe any character at the mercy of his supporting cast is simply a bystander and, in this story, a victim. I'm not interested.

Why would I side with these characters? Why would I make friends with Anders - I should have been able to just take the maps. I can skip Isabela and Fenris - so those two are fine. Aveline calls me "family" after a short cut-scene at the beginning. My sister/brother dies at the beginning. I have one/two quests with my other sibling before they die.

I feel like I had to add a lot that wasn't there for the story to have any "meaning" to me. I had to think - "Oh, I would totally be sad if I cared about my sister and she died." That's not good storytelling to me - a story ought to make me feel without having to think about it.

This story was an example of "Tell" and not "Show".

=====

You may not have liked Fallout: New Vegas' storyline - but there was a solid storyline happening in the world around you. In that game your character could support Order (NCR) - Power (CL) - Peace (FotA) - a few smaller ones - and yourself.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 mars 2011 - 07:22 .

[TJSolo]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...


and what did you talk to them about???

The end of the journey and their future plans. Snoozefest, I know.
 

and that was it. you saw no ramifications.

Well who was there, who was not there, and what role some characters now have are ramifications that can be seen there.

it would be just like if you were asked to side with the elves or werewolves...and then the screen went black with text telling you the outcome. you experienced no ramifications.

Right. I guess you didn't reach the part of DAO where the Warden is able to call upon the recruited allies for support. Your willful ignorance of the the decisions in DAO is simply untrue hyperbole.

and the timeskips are narrative devices used to show you the ramifications of the quests you have experienced.

My comment about the timeskips was that it is a worse device for an interactive game than telling and not showing because timeskips don't even give a description to the player WTH Hawke is doing for those years.

Modifié par TJSolo, 29 mars 2011 - 07:37 .

[exskeeny]

Prethen wrote...

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

corrected

Modifié par exskeeny, 29 mars 2011 - 07:39 .

[wintermonk]

Some of the criticisms, I think, are kind of funny.

Let's consider other games:
Sacred games, diablo games, Icewind Dale: You walk around in a world of creatures who do absolustely nothing but wait for you to arrive and kill them. However, with a little imagination (pretending in your mind that they actually do have a life), those games are still fun!

Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights: Good stories and interesting characters. Monsters sitting around with no life other than waiting for you to come and kill them. Again, imagination is required to enjoy these games. Most of us cooperated. NWN didn't just have recycled environments, but the same tiles over and over, so that I walked past the same rock a hundred times. Again, imagination is required, a "willing suspension of disbelief". If you cooperate, you can enjoy. I think most of us did.

DA:O. Very familiar, almost chiched, storyline. But it's a good storyline nevertheless (probably why people keep spinning the same tale while tweaking it a bit). Despite a very familiar story, it was very fun. Cooperate with it. The cities (Denerim and Redcliffe) were not populated with thousands of people (common complaint against Kirkwall). The computer controlled people didn't each have massively complex lives. They were somewhat predictable, standing around in the same places, etc. Used imagination. Enjoyed.

Now, there are legit complains against DA2--I didn't like the exploding bodies, the freakishly large two-handed weapons, or the way some creatures spawned into the game.
However, I loved the story, the characters, the various factions that all seemed to be vying for power and prestige and the favor of the "champion of Kirwall." Where the game was lacking due to it being a GAME, i used my imagination--I did my part and didn't expect the game to do everything for me. The flaws were minor. If it ruins the game for you, honestly, I don't know how some of you are able to enjoy any games or movies at all.

I think some people expect a roleplaying game to be the equivalent of a vacation in the holodeck of the USS Enterprise, and they are disappointed and frustrated that it doesn't turn out so. Be realistic! There are limitations to what computers can do and what people can do with the time and money available to them.

And they could have done a lot more development on the game. But I would rather play a game with a good story now rather than wait two more years from now to play it but it has more interesting looking, and more varied, caves. Maybe I'm just impatient, but I would rather play DA3 in two years, not five, even if the sacrifice is putting up with the horror of recyled environments.

[Rune-Chan]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Because they tried to create a story based around factions and failed.

Only because they both made them bad.

Mages - 9/10 of the ones we meet are Blood Mages.
Templars 9/10 of the ones we meet hate all Mages.
Leader of Mages = Weak, corrupt and the ending (no spoiler forum).
Leader of Templars = Strong, Paranoid to a fault and the ending (no spoiler forum).

If less Mages were hostile, and less Templars were dicks, it'd have worked out quite well I think.

That, and having the choices actually make the slightest bit of difference...

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 29 mars 2011 - 07:44 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Wintermonk - and if someone thinks the story was not deep, or good, they're funny - am I right?

[Iosev]

The reason why I enjoyed the story in Dragon Age 2 is because the main plot isn't just stated at the beginning of the game; it's slowly integrated into the story until it finally climaxes during the final act. First, you are given a hint that the world is in chaos through the conversation between Varric and Cassandra. Then, in the very first few minutes of the game you already witness a hint of what is to come (i.e., Ser Wesley and Bethany).

The main plot is there, it's just not immediately told to you like it usually is in these types of games. Instead, the main plot is dropped in hints, from both conversations with people (such as the city guard you first meet when you arrival in Kirkwall who talks about a certain Templar), and from the quests that you take along the way.  That said, the hints aren't particularly subtle by any means (many of your companions have STRONG opinions on it), so I'm having a hard time understanding how people could not catch the main plot.

Make no mistake, there are still primary antagonists that must be defeated (so it's still a tale about a hero), it's just that the plot is slowly built up, instead of just stating it at the beginning.

Modifié par arcelonious, 29 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[fn_outlaw]

I like that people still think DA2 gives you a choice. That's sweet.

At least in origins I can SEE my choices affecting the game world.

In DA2, (particularly, the endgame) choices are given..and then negated. It's also stated somewhere here that DA2 revolves around Hawke, but it can be difficult for SOME to connect to Hawke as a character.

Mage hawke galavanting around lowtown like he/she owns the place, casting spells in broad daylight (especially considering the city's plight) would attract some very UNNECESSARY attention. Or it should...

*spoilers*
Certain DEATHS in the game where little emotion is displayed is what gave me a disconnect (both early on and later in the game) to this character.
*/spoilers*

Not saying that DA:O was perfect. But many of the inconsistencies were made up for in other areas. Honestly felt more attached to the LI's in DA:O. Happy that recycled areas in Origins were used sparingly and only in context of the overall map. (I'm talking about the cave layout in DA2 that was recycled as a sewer...) Sure, some of it took me to the edge of immersion, but then something would come along and yank me back in.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that Origins had a toolset that allowed modders to implement their own fixes. Which I think is commonly overlooked

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

TJSolo wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...


and what did you talk to them about???

The end of the journey and their future plans. Snoozefest, I know.
 

and that was it. you saw no ramifications.

Well who was there, who was not there, and what role some characters now have are ramifications that can be seen there.

it would be just like if you were asked to side with the elves or werewolves...and then the screen went black with text telling you the outcome. you experienced no ramifications.

Right. I guess you didn't reach the part of DAO where the Warden is able to call upon the recruited allies for support. Your willful ignorance of the the decisions in DAO is simply untrue hyperbole.

and the timeskips are narrative devices used to show you the ramifications of the quests you have experienced.

My comment about the timeskips was that it is a worse device for an interactive game than telling and not showing because timeskips don't even give a description to the player WTH Hawke is doing for those years.

are you an idiot??? did you not see that depending on what you did npcs would join you in the final battle just like in origins......

and the timeskips were great. it would make no sense to have a character to have 10 years of his life be an epic. the time skips were down time living your life.because they were so mediocre and wouldnt make sense to play...they were summarized....

[uncleho]

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).

You mean lame like having to fight insurmountable odds to save the world?  In DA:O's case the country?  A lame story that has been told in almost every other rpg ever?

[Pyrate_d]

I'm unsure why many of you seem to think that a story needs to be unique to be good. DAO definitely doesn't have a unique plot, but it does "standard fantasy plot" very well.

You see this is a lot with films. I'm a big fan of noir, even though most noir films are extremely similar. It doesn't make these movies worse to be part of a genre.

DA2 might not have a typical fantasy plot, but the story is just badly told. It's boring, incoherent, and many of the most important characters are unconvincing in their motivations. There's also a bizarre lack of exposition concerning the Hawke family.

Modifié par Pyrate_d, 29 mars 2011 - 09:23 .

[SirGladiator]

The DAO story was so amazing and awesome, with extremely meaningful choices to make all the time. Will you save the town of Redcliffe, or not? Will you save Connor, or not? Will you side with the Elves or the Werewolves? Will you protect or destroy the Ashes? Will you use, or destroy, the Golem-creating machine in the Deep Roads? I could go on and on, but the story was simply incredible, you could replay the game over and over again and make different, meaningful choices every single time. That's just not present in DA2, its not that there aren't 'any' choices, but there's very little meaningful choice to be made. Do you want to side with the mages or templars, before you kill almost everybody on both sides anyway? Do you let your sibling die, or be taken prisoner by some group or other? Thats pretty much the extent of your big meaningful choices. Mostly things just happen whether you like it or not, like most of your family dying for no reason, and folks thinking you're their enemy and attacking you whether you sided with or against them. There's really no comparison between the two games, obviously the head of DAO wanted a game with lots of meaningful choices, and the head of DA2 wanted a game that was much closer to a traditional Final Fantasy game, you play it and watch what happens but don't really effect what happens. Both types of game can be plenty of fun of course, but I think lots of folks would rather keep what made DAO so great, the ability to make lots of big meaningful decisions. I know I sure feel that way.

[AkiKishi]

Pyrate_d wrote...

I'm unsure why many of you seem to think that a story needs to be unique to be good. DAO definitely doesn't have a unique plot, but it does "standard fantasy plot" very well.

You see this is a lot with films. I'm a big fan of noir, even though most noir films are extremely similar. It doesn't make these movies worse to be part of a genre.

DA2 might not have a typical fantasy plot, but the story is just badly told. It's boring, incoherent, and many of the most important characters are unconvincing in their motivations. There's also a bizarre lack of exposition concerning the Hawke family.

The only reason I can see for people calling DA2's plot new or even unique. Is they just don't play that many games. It's new for Bioware, but other developers have done DA2 type plots like forever.

[Rockpopple]

Unfortunately this is a non-spoiler forum, otherwise I could easily list the choices present in this game that can wrench the old gut.

People can check out the spoiler forums for the real score. Don't believe the hype.

[Medhia Nox]

@Rockpopple - it really "wrenched the old gut"? Seriously?

You know it's just force fed to you for shock value right? It's not like you had anything to do with it?

((I can talk this way because I basically just summed up the whole game.))

[ZombiePowered]

Medhia Nox wrote...

ZombiePowered - you seem to connect and admire a character more because he has "selfish" concerns - am I wrong there? I can accept that - it is very human

I, on the other hand, connect more with a character willing to give up the selfish concerns of the common man, and strive for altruism for all men. You can argue that the Warden was forced into it - but you're easily capable of saying in each Origin that you want to be a Warden.

====

As for "victim" characters go - and I believe any character at the mercy of his supporting cast is simply a bystander and, in this story, a victim. I'm not interested.

Why would I side with these characters? Why would I make friends with Anders - I should have been able to just take the maps. I can skip Isabela and Fenris - so those two are fine. Aveline calls me "family" after a short cut-scene at the beginning. My sister/brother dies at the beginning. I have one/two quests with my other sibling before they die.

I feel like I had to add a lot that wasn't there for the story to have any "meaning" to me. I had to think - "Oh, I would totally be sad if I cared about my sister and she died." That's not good storytelling to me - a story ought to make me feel without having to think about it.

This story was an example of "Tell" and not "Show".

=====

You may not have liked Fallout: New Vegas' storyline - but there was a solid storyline happening in the world around you. In that game your character could support Order (NCR) - Power (CL) - Peace (FotA) - a few smaller ones - and yourself.

Medhia,
Selfish concerns for a character just make them more believable for me. People, even when doing something quite selfless, tend to have some sort of personal stake in it, even if it's just pride. And yes, there was a wide range of reasons for the Warden to become a Warden (the events are all the same in each Origin story, but the Warden can state various personal reasons), but there is also a wide range of reasons for Hawke to do many of the things he does. It can be entirely selfish, or he can be doing things for the betterment of Kirkwall and its denizens (or a bit of both). The point I was making is that Hawke had just as much motivation to remain in Kirkwall as the Warden did to stop the blight.

As for character connections, I do agree that some were rather... weak (in the beginning). I felt like there was stuff going on behind the scenes that I wanted to be part of. My feeling is that Varric did a lot of social networking (i.e. luring them to the Hanged Man for gambling and booze night, which I firmly believe would be the greatest DLC ever), and through party banter I got the feeling that they were incorporated into the gang, but yes, I definitely would have liked to been more involved in that process. Aveline I found quite believable; I'm sure there was no shortage of bonding after the deaths in the beginning. Besides, we were the only people we knew for that first year. It's natural that she became part of the group. I got the same feeling from Merrill and Fenris, who again only knew me in a city of strangers. Isabela was always at the Hanged Man, so I... assumed... things. Still, it would have been nice to get a greater feeling of bonding, and there should have been an unseen 'loyalty' system or something that would determine whether they showed up at the very end. After all, if I never visited Merrill after dropping her off in the Alienage, why would she even be there with me in the ending of the game? DA2 didn't so much "tell" things as it did imply them. After those assumptions had been made, I completely believed all the subsequent interactions (which were definitely shown, not told), but I do agree that we shouldn't have needed to make those assumptions to begin with.

As for no interest in "victim" characters, DA:O had a whole mess of them (Morrigan didn't want to get possessed, Sten lost his sword, Ohgren needed a wingman, Leliana was being hunted by her past). ME2 had an entire crew who needed your assistance with their personal matters. To say you don't care for characters who need the assistance of their friends is saying you don't like anyone in any DA or ME game. Furthermore, you didn't have to be friends with them. Just because a quest popped into your log sometimes and they were available at the party screen doesn't mean you were friends with them. That whole thing was optional.

And don't take my FO:NV comment the wrong way, I absolutely loved it. It finally nailed the real mood of FO, something FO3 did not succeed at. I was just saying that it has a different story telling style and a different way of continuing through the greater FO story, so to compare it to any DA game in terms of openness of world and endings and choices just isn't reasonable. Bioware places a much greater emphasis on their characters, and hence I tend to have much deeper personal connections with my companions. FO's main attraction is the world itself, which is so incredibly rich and full of relevent social critiques, but I don't feel connected to either the PC or the companions. I still enjoy it, though, because developing romances and making friends do not list amongst the reasons one plays FO, just like sandbox exploration and the ability to abandon the story and hunt deathclaws and take their hands aren't among the reasons people play Bioware games.

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

The story is not one story, but 4, all with their each conclusion and disjointed when taken together.

[TJSolo]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
are you an idiot??? did you not see that depending on what you did npcs would join you in the final battle just like in origins......

and the timeskips were great. it would make no sense to have a character to have 10 years of his life be an epic. the time skips were down time living your life.because they were so mediocre and wouldnt make sense to play...they were summarized....

Relax and watch out with the insults as that is a surefire way to make civil conversations real short.
I am certain I was only describing the consequences and results that happened in DAO to point out how wrong your "no rammifications" lines were.  Telling you about the variation you were shown but seem to ignore in DAOs ending sequences does not conversly mean I am saying DA2 lacks all or some of those variations, unless explicitly mentioned.

The time skips were you living your life and those moments were mediocre? That looks like a guess. The timeskips were skipped not summarized. Summarizing them would mean I have some clue as to how Hawke coped with not being a delivery boy and problem solver for those two 3 year intervals.