149 réponses à ce sujet

[javierabegazo]

'Dragon Age II': Making the Case for "Quality" Games < PopMatters

Here's an excerpt.

By stripping the game of much of its visual excess—characters stick
to the same environments, don’t age despite the story taking the better
part of a decade, always wear the same clothes—the player’s attention is
steered to the characters themselves and all of their likes, dislikes,
politics, morals, and humors.

Dragon Age II is ultimately a character drama, less concerned
with an epic, save-the-world storyline than in examining the interior
worlds of distinct personalities. These are flawed beings, doomed by
their own hubris or madness, and weak creatures whose personal and
psychological failings become centerplace to the unfolding action. I
can’t really think of another game that has accomplished this kind of
presentation of character to the extent and depth that Dragon Age II does, save perhaps the kind of late-1990s Japanese RPGs that don’t really get made anymore.

I think it's a pretty awesome article and whether you like, or dislike, or feel lukewarm about Dragon Age II, I highly recommend reading the entirety of the Article.

Also I would love for Mr. Laidlaw, Mr. Gaider, or any of the Dragon Age Devs to take part and comment on this article, perhaps provide any unheard insight.

[IanPolaris]

Whoah....let me get this straight (pun intended). We are supposed to forgive a game of a metric ton of very visible flaws, a clearly rushed implementation, and plot holes bigger than an NFL Lineman because it makes us good to be a political liberal?! We are supposed to cheer this gae on because it shouts "gay rights"?! Really?

Whatever your political leanings or beliefs, a damn video game isn't the place for that honestly and even if it were, that doesn't excuse a frankly bad game by any objective standard of computer games.

Bear in mind that the same thing that the reviewer lauds is only supporte by perhaps a third (being VERY generous) of the general population at least in the USA.

-Polaris

[Tleining]

yup, it's a nice read. Some interesting theories (relation between Mages and homosexuality).
The one thing i don't like is this: "If you are not absolutely sick of the repetitious scenery and unaging characters by the third act, you are not investing yourself terribly much in the game."

I think i only ever played one game with aging characters. That was Fable. One of the first things i did was use the exploit to make my old character back young again. So i like that instead of experimenting with aging characters, Bioware kept them unchanging for those 7 years. And the repetitive scenery has been in every Bioware-game so far. I'm pretty much used to it .

don't know wether that's good or bad...

[Fraevar]

I think it has a good point - DA2 has an interesting premise and makes a welcome deviation from the standard save-the-world plot. But personally I can't say that that excellent idea forgives rather shoddy implementation in terms of pacing, combat mechanics (Oh look...*another* 30 guys...) and lack of depth. (No, Kirkwall still looks exactly the same 7 years later and all NPCs are still in the same place). The actual *game* that was meant to hold up the great narrative ultimately didn't manage to come close to the polish of its predecessor, whether you liked that game or not.

[hoorayforicecream]

I read it. I think it has some decent points, but it seems to steer towards a rather ubiquitous use of the word "quality". There are many aspects of craftsmanship that make me agree with some of what was stated (basically, that the minimalistic presentation heightened the focus on the characterization and social commentary of the game). However, I wouldn't look at this as something that was necessarily intentional. I'm pretty sure that the level designers wished they could have done more. I know most gamers wish that we didn't see the same section of wounded coast, deep roads, or caverns A, B and C so often.

So no, I don't agree with what Kris Ligman says. I don't think we need more games that have both hugely appreciable good qualities and teeth-grindingly annoying ones. I don't want a love/hate relationship with a game I play. I want to uniformly like it. It's like the friendship/rivalry meter in the game itself. I want to either be friends with it, or rivals with it, but I really don't want games that end up swinging back and forth so that I end up neutral. I'm not necessarily saying that DA2 was neutral to me (the gameplay, characterization and story elements won me over in the end), but that sort of game development, IMO, should be discouraged. I want a uniform experience, because any sort of weird disjointing of the experience breaks my sense of flow and immersion.

[AtreiyaN7]

Nice - that seemed to be a thoughtful and insightful review. I guess that part of what's so polarizing is that the story was centered more around human passions and frailties instead of being all about defeating some ancient evil. I liked that it was more character-driven, and I definitely found the themes explored in the game to be quite refreshing.

[Brockololly]

Ummmm....yeah.

I wouldn't call this:


A game "stripped of visual excess."

As for the article....eh. Honestly, I think Origins handled the more "controversial" elements far better than DA2. I can sort of see what they were often going for in DA2, but like so much in the game, the execution is not there. And so any attempt at a weighty moment or a heavy topic gets upended by troll face Hawke's sarcastic quips or the exploding gore balloon combat.

So while DA2 definitely is a more character driven game, that doesn't excuse its many failings. And for me, I found the Origins crew more layered than the DA2 companions, so, eh.

[Ensgnblack]

I am not sure I agree with all of the parallels the author draws between things, such as sexuality and mages, but it was well written. Regardless of the fact that I disagree with some of the premises, I do agree with the one quoted. It was a character drama, and I did enjoy the characters, and how they acted, what they said, how they were affected by things and how things affected them.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Brockololly wrote...

Ummmm....yeah.

I wouldn't call this:


A game "stripped of visual excess."

As for the article....eh. Honestly, I think Origins handled the more "controversial" elements far better than DA2. I can sort of see what they were often going for in DA2, but like so much in the game, the execution is not there. And so any attempt at a weighty moment or a heavy topic gets upended by troll face Hawke's sarcastic quips or the exploding gore balloon combat.

So while DA2 definitely is a more character driven game, that doesn't excuse its many failings. And for me, I found the Origins crew more layered than the DA2 companions, so, eh.

When you're forced to do a project in 18 months from concept to store shelf, especially an RPG, the execution is never going to be there. 98% of the mechanics in DA2 flat out feel rushed, unfortunately also the important parts, like the plot feel rushed which makes for just an average title.

[Sherbet Lemon]

This is all.  Seriously.  She totally killed it.

The first time I finished this game, the credits rolled and I literally sat there for five minutes trying to process what I just played. 

Add to that the uncommon subtlety of gestures and interactions in dialogue scenes, and you have a game which sincerely rewards your attention to enhance the dynamism of otherwise understated scenes.

QFT.

There are moments in this game that seriously deserve a close reading. As someone who is increasing saddened at the place of the humanities in our modern world, I want to distribute this review to every English and Philosophy department chair in the country.  Gah.  So awesome.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 05 avril 2011 - 09:17 .

[javierabegazo]

Brockololly wrote...

Ummmm....yeah.

I wouldn't call this:


A game "stripped of visual excess."

I don't know if you're intentionally pulling that quote out of context but it's terribly so. When the author wrote visual excess, he was referring to the lack of many different maps in the game

[LadyJaneGrey]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So no, I don't agree with what Kris Ligman says. I don't think we need more games that have both hugely appreciable good qualities and teeth-grindingly annoying ones. I don't want a love/hate relationship with a game I play. I want to uniformly like it. It's like the friendship/rivalry meter in the game itself. I want to either be friends with it, or rivals with it, but I really don't want games that end up swinging back and forth so that I end up neutral. I'm not necessarily saying that DA2 was neutral to me (the gameplay, characterization and story elements won me over in the end), but that sort of game development, IMO, should be discouraged. I want a uniform experience, because any sort of weird disjointing of the experience breaks my sense of flow and immersion.

Thank you for posting this so I didn't have to.  :innocent:

[Alamar2078]

I agree that the game focused MUCH more so on the characters and the overarching plot was just a way to explore the characters further. IIRC I have posted and said this myself several times. I do believe the game did this on purpose and did a GOOD JOB of it. [Better than ME2 did IMHO at this aspect]

On the other hand I don't think the "characters not aging" && "recycled environments" added a single iota to the effect. On the contrary I believe any obvious flaws with the game detracted from the experience and served to get in the way of the character driven story that was unfolding.

[Sesshomaru47]

Ah geez. It's a game, an ugly, lazily made game with music that's ripped from Halo Reach and Mass Effect. I swear one of those bits of music sounds exactly like the battle music out of Reach. The sexuality means very little considering everyone loves everyone no matter what gender you are. How can that be crossing boundries and shaking the norm? Dragon Age did it too and no one cared!

As for it being a character piece, yeah whatever. Anders is about the best character in the whole game despite how much I hate hime. Maybe it's for that reason he is the best. The rest are meh. Fenris is your typical J-RPG type (ironic considering) Isabela is a...err yeah. Merril a is batty, etc etc. I've played games with better characters that have acutally managed to move me.

As for the whole story well it was ok. I guess...it sort of went a drift there in Act II. But I will admit the end shocked me and made me hate Anders that bit more. But really there aren't that many choices in how to end the game. Kill that group first then Merideth....It's not very RPG in it's choices.

Dragon Age II is not a quality game however, not by a long shot. Games that are rushed and look it in the most drastic of ways do not deserve to be called quality. If I wanted a good story I would have read a book, no wasted $90 on a game with the same environments 100+ times. But why would BioWare post an article critising them?

[Blacklash93]

Dragon Age II is ultimately a character drama, less concerned
with an epic, save-the-world storyline than in examining the interior
worlds of distinct personalities. These are flawed beings, doomed by
their own hubris or madness, and weak creatures whose personal and
psychological failings become centerplace to the unfolding action.

Companion interaction felt like it was spread too thinly, making them feel rather shallow comapared to Origins' followers. Not to mention that other majors character only have like 10-20 minutes of screentime before they die or disappear.

DA2 failed even in that regard as far as I see. The story as a whole was just bare-bones.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 05 avril 2011 - 09:29 .

[zikadee]

The article itself aside, (Agreed with most of it, but not all)

THIS RIGHT HERE

The moment that you, the player, realize that that tap of Anders’s staff connects with that one particular game changing event that I won’t describe here, something happens inside the player.

MIND BLOWWWWWWN.

[Rifneno]

javierabegazo wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Ummmm....yeah.

I wouldn't call this:


A game "stripped of visual excess."

I don't know if you're intentionally pulling that quote out of context but it's terribly so. When the author wrote visual excess, he was referring to the lack of many different maps in the game

Really, that just makes it worse.  If a reviewer is trying to say that it's "excess" to not reuse the same handful of maps 10 times over, I can't take that reviewer seriously.  Reviewers are supposed to be unbiased and no one unbiased can possibly say that's anything but a negative.  It's like selling cheeseburgers without the cheese and focusing on the fact it's not as many calories.  Just...  no.  I'd also find the "not focusing on epic struggles but rather personal focus" angle more believable if Hawke wasn't called "the single most important character in the world of Dragon Age" in the initial press release.

Not to say it's a bad game.  It's good.  But reviews that try to make everything a positive are just as bad as the ones that try to make everything a negative.

[Camenae]

First of all, Mr./Ms. Moderator, I know the writer's name is Kris, but it's a she not a he.

Second of all, I would not call dynamic and not tediously reused maps "visual EXCESS" (emphasis added). A lack of different maps is not "stripped of visual excess" but "missing something very important" in my opinion. I get why the flaw happened, but that doesn't mean it's not a flaw.

I agree with an above poster that Origins treated many of the same moral and political issues, but with a finesse and a subtle beauty that DA2 did not have.

[Deified Data]

"In a risk averse industry, in which outspoken liberalism has never had much traction, we can see Dragon Age II playing with some very weighty, controversial ideas."

Ultimately, I agree with this article, which is not technically a "review". Faults and all, DAII definitely challenges the player in a number of different ways. That being said, I disagree that the game is an open appeal to liberal ideals. For every instance of a sympathetic mage (a social outsider, the designated "leftist"), we get three instances of mages abusing their freedom and using their Maker-given talents to harm innocents. For every honorable templar (the designated social conservative), we get three reactionary bigots who would sooner decapitate a mage than look at one. Indeed, the game challenges preconceptions on both sides, "liberal" and "conservative". Do mages deserve their freedom, even though an alarming amount of them present an open threat to themselves and others? Are templars justified in oppressing mages, even though most mages are, in fact, harmless?

I see this game set up to present a liberal idea followed by a conservative response, and vice versa. DAII did a good job of appealing to many different workviews, here. Definitely Bioware's most "mature" title.

Modifié par Deified Data, 05 avril 2011 - 09:52 .

[Herr Uhl]

Filament wrote...

No really, what is the tap of Anders' staff supposed to relate to?

A remote detonator.

[Naughty Bear]

Filament wrote...

No really, what is the tap of Anders' staff supposed to relate to?

A massive wooden phallus.

[Blacklash93]

I really didn't like the article. Disagree completely on the story due to points I stated above.

What bugs me the most is that the writer notes average gameplay and combat, music, and graphics... and yet says every one of those flaws should be forgiven because of the story.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 05 avril 2011 - 09:59 .