313 réponses à ce sujet

[Seena]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Doing a poll in this method is not very scientific. People who are haters from either camp can spam the choices to fit their bias. I'd like to think mostly real choices are being made. IF going by what most opinion are by those who leave out the ad hominem and hyperbole, the results are not that close. Then again, that isn't scientific either.

How dare you bring science into statistics! 

[Annarl]

Very interesting survey. The results will be fun to watch.

[We Tigers]

OhoniX wrote...

Dragon Age Origins

Brecilian Forest Options:
a) Kill Witherfang
Help the werewolves to kill all elves in the camp
c) Free the ancient soul that is trapped in witherfang, bring Zahtrian to justice

Mage Tower Options:
a) Proceed with the Right of Annulment
 Help the mages but let the first enchanter die
c) Help the mages, save the first enchanter

Sacred Ashes Options:
a) side with the fanatics, destroy the sacred ashes
kill the fanatics, save the sacred ashes.

and so on. Okay i get it. I have more choices in DA2 ../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or wrong there. Yes, you were given some options, and they effected the outcome of that world, to a point. But what practical difference did they make? The only thing they would change about the end of the game was how many peon support troops you got, and the same happens in this game, with a number of people you save becoming allies in the final battles.

[spoilers excised]

We don't know what the plot of DA3 might be, but potentially the choices you make in DA2 could have even wider-ranging ramifications on your options in 3 than the outcomes of DA:O had on the events of 2. Now, were there plot points where it'd have been nice if they'd given you a broader course fo options, for example with certain characters that die no matter what choices you make? Sure, but doing so would in many cases have splintered the late game considerably, and would have required a lot more work on their part. Sometimes certain events are just fated to play out.

I'm with this post here.  I think it takes a certain step back to look at DA2 and consider it as a different type of story.  It's a risky followup for Bioware, given how much they know their fanbase loves to make choices and see them acted on, but I think it's an interesting one. 

What DA2 seems to be about is the inevitability of convictions.  There are people who are strong in their views, justified or not, from their personal experiences, their jobs, their families, their lives, and they have their own choices to make.  In DA:O, the Warden is generally allowed to make all the major decisions in the game.  In DA2, this is not the case; it's a different world, one in which, no matter how strong he becomes, Hawke is still one former refugee, and there are already powerful people in place.  The conflicts of Origins take place in power vacuums, between groups struggling and desperate for a solution to their own frustrating problems.  Very few of the people we meet and influence in DA:O have the well-established political power and authority of Meredith and Orsino, and few also have the convinction of those characters, the Arishok, or Anders, probably the most driven and focused character in the entire DA universe.  The decisions Hawke makes and the things he says aren't without meaning--they just don't have the wide and, let's be honest, somewhat forced impact of the Warden's proclamations in DA:O.  What you as Hawke choose still matters, because that's what you chose to believe.

It's just that Hawke is just another player in this field.  People with convictions and power may act on them regardless of what others say, show, or do, to the benefit or detriment of many more people than themselves.  And in DA2, as much as Hawke's decisions can affect his personal life (romance, sibling, party member rivalry/friendship, party composition) or own moral compass and beliefs, those convictions drive the endgame, when the real players are much stronger and ready to die or destroy for what they believe, regardless of what the Champion tells them to do.  Dangerous stuff, but a very compelling--and very different--story for Bioware.

Modifié par We Tigers, 10 avril 2011 - 03:50 .

[Pandaman102]

OhoniX wrote...
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or wrong there. Yes, you were given some options, and they effected the outcome of that world, to a point. But what practical difference did they make? The only thing they would change about the end of the game was how many peon support troops you got, and the same happens in this game, with a number of people you save becoming allies in the final battles.

Most of the choices are more personal ones. (DA2 spoilers to follow)
[...]

You're too focused on "decision->gameplay consequences" and ignoring the "decisions->story consequences" that is the core of a lot of people's arguments. In Origins (for those who cared) there was a certain satisfaction of having changed Ferelden's future through those decisions, even if you don't get to see them actually play out. In DA2 you're supposedly the most powerful person in Kirkwall, but - as you said - all of your choices are personal ones, nothing you do or say has any bearing on how Kirkwall will evolve after the game ends with the exception of ONE decision you make in the last ten minutes.

OhoniX wrote...
We don't know what the plot of DA3 might be [...]

No, we don't, so why are you even trying to use this in an argument? Dragon Age was never advertised as a trilogy like Mass Effect was, so there's nothing to support the notion that DA3 will be any more or less influenced by DA2's choices than DA2 was by Origins' choices. Trying to justify game design decisions with unfounded speculation does nothing to support your argument.

[ShinsFortress]

Here's a question, how well is DA2 selling? Less, similar or better than DA:O?

[Otterwarden]

ShinsFortress wrote...

Here's a question, how well is DA2 selling? Less, similar or better than DA:O?

If you are genuinely asking, we track that here: 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6983324

[FiachSidhe]

* I prefer the combat in Dragon Age 2.
* I prefer the choices in Dragon Age Origins.
* I prefer the story in DA2.
* I prefer the class/race choices in DAO.
* I prefer the conversation style of DA2.
* I prefer the character models/gear of DA2.
* I prefer the world of DAO, but I also enjoyed the consistency of Kirkwall.
* I like the redesigns of the Elves and Qunari, but neither are what I'd prefer.
* I don't know exactly what "fixed with DLC" means. So I'd say it depends on the DLC. I want bug fixes for DA2 before DLC.
I hate having to make Isabella a rival, just to move normally, post chapter 2.

[SteelRaptor]

Filled out, thanks for doing this.

[Lalue]

Anyone else is scarred of playing a whole story in Orlais? Hearing this accent too much could have a bad effect on my health ><

[DeathStride]

Lalue wrote...

Anyone else is scarred of playing a whole story in Orlais? Hearing this accent too much could have a bad effect on my health ><

Many, many of us are. That's why I wished the poll had had a +1/-1 system for the country choice so that people could do stuff like vote for their favorite place and vote against their least liked place. That way, the significant number of us who are horrified by the idea of spending a 40-60 hour game based in Orlais could also be represented(along with any other countries that people had beef against.)

Not that I'm hating on the survey though, this thought was simply a "If only" kind of thought.

Modifié par DeathStride, 11 avril 2011 - 09:43 .

[ShinsFortress]

Otterwarden wrote...

ShinsFortress wrote...

Here's a question, how well is DA2 selling? Less, similar or better than DA:O?

If you are genuinely asking, we track that here: 

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6983324

I was. Thanks for the link.  Though most such data I have seen there and elsewhere seems to either not show PC data at all or lump it in with another sample, the overall information was what I was looking for.  If the overall sales of DA2 had matched or exceeded DA:O I would have likely changed certain thoughts from x to y.  Not likely now.

Thanks again.

[_000Darkstar]

Tevinter Imperium plz!

[cindercatz]

surveyed

Lalue wrote...

Anyone else is scarred of playing a whole story in Orlais? Hearing this accent too much could have a bad effect on my health ><

If you've got actual native French speakers doing the voices, you shouldn't get that over-embellished faux french we see so much in the first two games. BioWare's Canadian. It can't be that hard to find native spoken actors to play most roles. You've got Quebec not all that far away. I'd like some bilingual ambience too, along the lines of how Assassin's Creed 2 uses Italian. It just comes down to a commitment to do it well.

Personally, I want to play Orlesian next time (all races). I'm tired of hearing British-Ferelden all the time when we've got this great world and lore set up with all these cultures. It would be very cool to see DA's world from new perspectives.

[In Exile]

Pandaman102 wrote...
You're too focused on "decision->gameplay consequences" and ignoring the "decisions->story consequences" that is the core of a lot of people's arguments. In Origins (for those who cared) there was a certain satisfaction of having changed Ferelden's future through those decisions, even if you don't get to see them actually play out. In DA2 you're supposedly the most powerful person in Kirkwall, but - as you said - all of your choices are personal ones, nothing you do or say has any bearing on how Kirkwall will evolve after the game ends with the exception of ONE decision you make in the last ten minutes.

I think one thing to be said (for people like me who do not see a substantive difference) is that a gameplay consequence is what matters. That isn't to say that this broad idea of changing the world doesnt... but I don't care if they let me pick between Harrowmont & Bhelen if I can't actually ever see a consequence from it compared to either saving or capturing the Starkhaven mages and always seeing them caught back.

If the choice itself matters, DA2 had many dead-end choice itself choices. 

[DeathStride]

cindercatz wrote...
If you've got actual native French speakers doing the voices, you shouldn't get that over-embellished faux french we see so much in the first two games. BioWare's Canadian. It can't be that hard to find native spoken actors to play most roles. You've got Quebec not all that far away. I'd like some bilingual ambience too, along the lines of how Assassin's Creed 2 uses Italian. It just comes down to a commitment to do it well.

Personally, I want to play Orlesian next time (all races). I'm tired of hearing British-Ferelden all the time when we've got this great world and lore set up with all these cultures. It would be very cool to see DA's world from new perspectives.

If they can do the accent more naturally without the ridiculously heavy faux-french thing they've done so far, especially in Origins, I'd be a lot more open to Orlais as an option. Also the bilingual aspect would be sweet, I highly approve of what AC2 did there.

[OhoniX]

OhoniX: your faith that the choices we make in this game will be visible
in the next game is touching, but not supported by reality. If the
DA:OandA epilogues are myth now, there's nothing to stop the events of
DA:Kirkwall from never having happened at all. (I'm favouring this as an
option.)

Call it a hunch. DA:O, after playing DA2, feels much more like a prologue than DA2 does. Your character is more solid in this one, more like Shepard than "The Exile", and the events you provoked are more likely to have consequences. Maybe they will discard Hawke in 3, I kind of doubt it. Remember that at least in DA2, they don't give you the option of dying.

I'm puzzled as to your definition of "practical differences". Your choices in DA:O affected the story.

How? In what way was the actual gameplay significantly effected by your choices in DA:O? You could alter what was basically the epilogue quite significantly, choosing whether you sacrificed yourself or not, but up to that point it was all a series of binary choices. You couldn't choose whether or not to "solve" the tower, Dwarflandia, Elflandia, Redcliff, etc., all you could choose was how you solved it, which is the same choice that each act of DA2 offers. All that would change based on how you solved each area was in which NPCs lived or died, and in practical terms, that made little difference to the remainder of the game, it just changed dialog, basically. The more significant difference is that in DA2, the order at which you could complete major plotlines was set, so that they could have the actions of Act 1 directly impact the situation in Act 2, and so on.

They don't in DA:K. You could sweet-talk all your party members and
choose from all of them for your final battle in DA:O. In DA:K, you lose
party members willy nilly: not one thing you can do about it. Good luck
fighting the final battle without a healer.

That's not true. There are no party NPCs in the game that you have no control over losing (well, aside from the sibling that doesn't make it out of the prolouge. There are only three of them that you have a significant chance of losing, and you can make it to the final boss with up to seven out of eight of the roster, depending on your choices. There are only two party members that are mutually exclusive in the final battle, and the choice between them can be clearly made. If you lost any additional party members, it's because you didn't put enough effort into bringing them along. On my first playthrough, without looking to any guides, the only character I didn't bring with me is the one I executed myself.

Needed a: "Liked the voice, but need a bit better acting" choice. xD

It's true that the female Hawke was no Jennifer Hale, but she wasn't terrible.

You can't try for a neutral route cause of Anders. *salutes him
sarcasticly* Thus, you can only choose two paths. And regardless of your
choices, it falls apart in the end anyway.

Yeah, but to be fair, what would the neutral path be? Everyone hugs it out? No climactic boss battle? I played it diplomatically throughout the game, so that would be the outcome I'd be aiming for, but they obviously needed something to go nuts. It's odd that nobody complains that DA:O didn't have an ending in which you could make peace with the Arch Demon.

Added: I don't see how some of you find the survey biased
towards DAO. Aside from maybe question 2, the rest of the survey clearly
offers pro-DAO, pro-DA2, and nuetral options to pic from. The only bias
I see is the results so far...which are

It's the wording. The way the questions are phrased passively put DA2 on the defensive.

You're too focused on "decision->gameplay consequences" and
ignoring the "decisions->story consequences" that is the core of a
lot of people's arguments. In Origins (for those who cared) there was a
certain satisfaction of having changed Ferelden's future through those
decisions, even if you don't get to see them actually play out. In DA2
you're supposedly the most powerful person in Kirkwall, but - as you
said - all of your choices are personal ones, nothing you do or say has
any bearing on how Kirkwall will evolve after the game ends with the
exception of ONE decision you make in the last ten minutes.

As I noted, I think there are several lives you change over the course of the game that could have significant impact on the world. Most notably I can't imagine Feynriel not playing a role in 3. If it's the story consequences that matter to you, they come up constantly in DA2, in the form of letters from grateful/spiteful NPCs, or NPCs standing around that will update you on their current place, and even several quest lines that shift around based on your previous actions.

No, we don't, so why are you even trying to use this in an argument?
Dragon Age was never advertised as a trilogy like Mass Effect was, so
there's nothing to support the notion that DA3 will be any more or less
influenced by DA2's choices than DA2 was by Origins' choices. Trying to
justify game design decisions with unfounded speculation does nothing to
support your argument.

Fair enough, but Bioware knows where they want 3 to go, so assuming I'm at least close for a moment, if they ARE headed that way, then would their choices with DA2 have been more justified? If I'm completely off base then my analysis would obviously fall apart on that one, but seeing as how Bioware knows where they're going, and Bioware made the decisions about how DA2 should be, I do trust them to make a good game, as they've done consistantly over the years, and for the choices they've made to pay off.

I also do want to second the notion that while I'm almost certain that at least a decent portion of 3 will take place in Orlais, I really am not looking forward to the French accents.

[Herz2146]

Nice job with the survey questions!

[Lord_Kaza]

Still, the voice of the volks die in the cold dark night.... we don't matter, and WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT !!

[Dragoonlordz]

The surveys is quite good, both of them in fact. But I do have issue with the way you write your results they are starting to come across as biased rather than just listing the overal percentages you seem to be wording it in a way that leaves specific results out, group more favorable ones together and not vice versa.

Nice work on polls but need work on how you phrase the results imho.

[Ravenmyste]

took it!

[Aermord]

Thank you for doing this. I hope Bioware will listen and LEARN!

I guess I should say thanks to Bioware as well for making this thread a sticky.. since there is not a lot of stuff to thank them for these days. Might as well give them credit for appearing to be interested in our reception of their crappy game.

[shai-hulud-lama]

good idea. i gladly participated.

[erynnar]

I think the question of voiced PC should have been: Do you prefer a voiced PC even if it means a shorter game and less content? Otherwise, yeah people love the voiced PC, but do most who do realize you are going to get less of a game because of it?  So is the sacrifice worth it?  To my mind. no it isn't.

[ShaneAXD]

I can't believe more people don't want to see Antiva.

[OhoniX]

I think the question of voiced PC should have been: Do you prefer a voiced PC even if it means a shorter game and less content? Otherwise, yeah people love the voiced PC, but do most who do realize you are going to get less of a game because of it? So is the sacrifice worth it? To my mind. no it isn't.

Yeah, I mean that's the thing, if you ask players "do you want more choice?" of course they're going to answer "yes", but that's just offering free candy. Even "choice" is a choice, It's not "would you rather be able to choose from multiple races, or just a human?", the REAL question is "would you rather play as just a human with 60 hours of potential gameplay per playthrough, OR have the option of also playing as an elf with only 45 hours of gameplay, OR have the option of also playing as a dwarf with only 30 hours of gameplay, etc.?"

The more real choices the offer, the exponentially less content follows each path. Choices are good, but it's always a trade-off.