206 réponses à ce sujet

[ReinaHW]

I found the politcal angle of the story to be more interesting than some tired 'Good against evil' nonsense.
If you take the time to really note the story, you'll see that the actual 'evil' was the prejudgice and ignorance that was the real threat and those who were targetted were sick of it, they were fed up of being seen as the enemy when it wasn't all of them who were turning to Blood magic, most just wanted to live their lives in peace and not be treated like dirt for being born with something they didn't choose.

It made a change from the usual 'There's the bad guy, kill them' kind of story line which is overused and brings nothing new. I found myself actually questioning my choices and wondering which choice was right because I support and understand why the Mages feel as they do - what with suffering prejudgice and ignorance from others ever since I was very young, but at the same time I do agree with the feeling that those who do intend to cause harm to others do need to be dealt with.

I didn't support the Templer's method's however, I felt they were too heavy handed and unwilling to listen to reason.

I found the story to be interesting and a change from the norm. And the ending has got me wondering what's going to happen next.

[Kimberly Shaw]

On the one hand some complain the storyline is too indirect. On the other some complain the story is too linear. I must conclude that some people are not well qualified to judge.

Good lord. Why can't someone say the plot is poorly conceived and poorly executed/implented and also too linear? I don't know what you mean by "indirect" but if that means disjointed and all over the place it is not mutually exclusive with linear if the game has only one possible outcome in Act 3 (no one happy).

[CitizenThom]

A poorly executed story cannot be successful in being linear can it? If a game is poorly executed, you could imagine that the game 'meant' to be linear if properly executed, but there's no way of knowing because it's poorly executed.

So the two are conflicting criticisms.

Now, if you assume that the game didn't mean to be linear, and in it's attempt to be non-linear, it was a poorly executed effort... that would be a non conflicting argument. But first you have to acknowledge that the game's intent wasn't linearity and so not something that can be critiqued.

[/semantics]

[Hannibal218]

First of all I'm not reading all of the posts in this thread, sorry. I think that having a story with no clearly defined "bad guy" is a good thing. The story feels more real than one that has some evil demigod behind everything. In real life there are almost no clearly defined bad guys with the exception of psychopaths like Moammar Gadhafis and Hitlers.

Look at Hosni Mubarak for example. Mubarak was a tyrant that ruled with an iron first. He limited the rights of his people and ran a fake democracy. He also came into power when his predecessor was violently assassinated by terrorists. He managed to keep the violence in Egypt at a minimum and acted as a stabilizing force in the otherwise chaotic region.

Examine the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians at length without your pre-conceived notions and try to say who is unequivocally in the right in their actions. Look at the IRA, hell, look at Nelson Mandela and the ANC (they took part in terrorist actions against hard targets). In reality there is really no good and evil, merely point and counterpoint, thesis and antithesis. I feel that DA2, despite it's flaws in some other areas, effectively captures this idea. Hawke is just trying to survive and make his way through life. He, however, is swept up into greater events and has to try his best to protect his home and it's people. Along the way he makes choices that shape the world around him and fights against and alongsinde some of the greyest anti-heroes/antivillians I've ver seen. All arguments from each side are valid neither is right and neither is wrong. You have to decide which side you believe is right.

And as for there being no "good" ending. Well, sometimes, there are no happy endings, regardless of how much choice you have. Often times choice is merely an illusion, causality can be a **** like that.

Modifié par Hannibal218, 31 mars 2011 - 08:31 .

[neppakyo]

Hannibal218 wrote...

First of all I'm not reading all of the posts in this thread, sorry. I think that having a story with no clearly defined "bad guy" is a good thing. The story feels more real than one that has some evil demigod behind everything. In real life there are almost no clearly defined bad guys with the exception of psychopaths like Moammar Gadhafis and Hitlers.

Look at Hosni Mubarak for example. Mubarak was a tyrant that ruled with an iron first. He limited the rights of his people and ran a fake democracy. He also came into power when his predecessor was violently assassinated by terrorists. He managed to keep the violence in Egypt at a minimum and acted as a stabilizing force in the otherwise chaotic region.

Examine the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians at length without your pre-conceived notions and try to say who is unequivocally in the right in their actions. Look at the IRA, hell, look at Nelson Mandela and the ANC (they took part in terrorist actions against hard targets). In reality there is really no good and evil, merely point and counterpoint, thesis and antithesis. I feel that DA2, despite it's flaws in some other areas, effectively captures this idea. Hawke is just trying to survive and make his way through life. He, however, is swept up into greater events and has to try his best to protect his home and it's people. Along the way he makes choices that shape the world around him and fights against and alongsinde some of the greyest anti-heroes/antivillians I've ver seen. All arguments from each side are valid neither is right and neither is wrong. You have to decide which side you believe is right.

And as for there being no "good" ending. Well, sometimes, there are no happy endings, regardless of how much choice you have. Often times choice is merely an illusion, causality can be a **** like that.

So basically you're saying that having depressing world events into my fantasy escape from the real world is good? I play games to ignore all the sh!t in mudane life. I don't need video games trying to mirror it.

[Hannibal218]

Not everyone plays games, watches movies, or reads books as a means of escapism. Furthermore, I consider it an insult to my intelligence when the "bad guy" in a story is clearly defined as being "evil" and he's doing evil things just because. Of course that's largely because I'm a moral relativist so feel free to disagree.

[CitizenThom]

I'm not a moral relatavist, but I'm more than aware that the world is composed of people with differing motives. The intersection of them is an interesting thing to see from the sidelines, or while being directly involved. DA2 certianly offers the opportunity for people to decide on who the bad guy(s)/ gal(s) are, but it avoids forcing a definition on the player. Which in my opinion, gives the game more depth.