149 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

[arcsquad12]

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

Your comparison with the Witcher falls flat when one realizes that The Witcher is about ten times the depth of Dragon Age 2. Bioware simply does not do branching storylines. Their games allow for alterations that adapt to the main plot.
True branching storylines can be seen in The Witcher and Alpha Protocol, where early choices can lead to incredibly different second and third acts. The "evil" storyline in Alpha Protocol looks nothing like the good guy storyline, yet both occur in the same game. How is it that a company like Obsidian with such an abysmal testing record is able to prodice a story that surpasses every Bioware game in terms of choice?

And, as ham fisted as it is, I much prefer the changes to Bowerstone depending on my actions than nothing changing in Kirkwall apart from the lighting.

[IanPolaris]

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

I'm sorry but no they don't.  You are supposed to be the Champion of Kirkwall.  You are supposed to be the nexus around which a ground breaking event evolved.  However, other than who you sleep with, your choices really don't matter.  Grace will try to kill you in the end whether you helped her or not, and no matter how pro-mage or pro-templar you've been.  The only question is who they kidnap.

You always lose your sibling at the end of act 1.  Only minor details change that.  Heck you lose your other sibling five minutes into the game just because of what character class you play.  Hardly ground-breaking choices.

The game is a raill-road from start to finish.  Your choices matter not at all.  You can not change any important decisions.  It's not a bad story I guess, but it frankly sucks as an RPG.

-Polaris

[txgoldrush]

arcsquad12 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

Your comparison with the Witcher falls flat when one realizes that The Witcher is about ten times the depth of Dragon Age 2. Bioware simply does not do branching storylines. Their games allow for alterations that adapt to the main plot.
True branching storylines can be seen in The Witcher and Alpha Protocol, where early choices can lead to incredibly different second and third acts. The "evil" storyline in Alpha Protocol looks nothing like the good guy storyline, yet both occur in the same game. How is it that a company like Obsidian with such an abysmal testing record is able to prodice a story that surpasses every Bioware game in terms of choice?

And, as ham fisted as it is, I much prefer the changes to Bowerstone depending on my actions than nothing changing in Kirkwall apart from the lighting.

There are branching paths in DAII...if you help Ser Varnell in Act II, you get a different Following the Qun quest in Act II, just like sparing Anabelle in Act I leads to an alternate "Heat of the Day" quest in Act IV in The Witcher.. My guide says there is an alternate 'Favor and Fault" quest if you do not do "A Long Road".  The endgame is branching as well, and very similiar to The Witcher. Also, the plot really isn't that branching in The Witcher.

How does the Witcher have more depth than DAII sticking just to the games, not the books? Hint: It doesn't. The characters are even more shallow if you do not bring the books into play. in fact Shani appears out of nowhere and claims to know you...wow.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 06 avril 2011 - 03:58 .

[IanPolaris]

txgoldrush wrote...

arcsquad12 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

Your comparison with the Witcher falls flat when one realizes that The Witcher is about ten times the depth of Dragon Age 2. Bioware simply does not do branching storylines. Their games allow for alterations that adapt to the main plot.
True branching storylines can be seen in The Witcher and Alpha Protocol, where early choices can lead to incredibly different second and third acts. The "evil" storyline in Alpha Protocol looks nothing like the good guy storyline, yet both occur in the same game. How is it that a company like Obsidian with such an abysmal testing record is able to prodice a story that surpasses every Bioware game in terms of choice?

And, as ham fisted as it is, I much prefer the changes to Bowerstone depending on my actions than nothing changing in Kirkwall apart from the lighting.

There are branching paths in DAII...if you help Ser Varnell in Act II, you get a different Following the Qun quest in Act II, just like sparing Anabelle in Act I leads to an alternate "Heat of the Day" quest in Act IV in The Witcher.. My guide says there is an alternate 'Favor and Fault" quest if you do not do "A Long Road".  The endgame is branching as well, and very similiar to The Witcher. Also, the plot really isn't that branching in The Witcher.

Sum total difference:  You kill Qunari instead of mobs and lose a bit of the Arishok's respect.  That's it.  Not noteworthy at all.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sum total difference:  You kill Qunari instead of mobs and lose a bit of the Arishok's respect.  That's it.  Not noteworthy at all.

-Polaris

The sum total difference of who you choose to help between werewolves and dalish in DA:O affects a cutscene and an NPC in your camp whom you may donate stuff to. How's that more noteworthy?

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Except for the liberalism thing...the writer is right. And she missed the biggest theme....ESCALATION.

While this game is flawed, it is incredibily wriiten.

If its so poorly written, what WRPG talks about its themes better, whose name is not either Ultima or Planescape Torment?

And Origin's story sucked overall. It was nothing new, it was nothing deep, its not well executed. It was one of the most generic RPGs I have ever played. Some parts of the story were great, like "Nature of the Beast", but the game descends into an orc killing simulator with very little substance.

DAII on the other hand, may very well be Bioware's best written game since BGII. And if people knew how to use the investigate option during quests and gift givings, they would learn that the characters are just as deep if not deeper than Origins....and the depth is better fitted into the plot. Origin's character stories are about the past, DAII's is about the present.

I don't get this.  Sure DAO was a formula but it was a classic and well respected formula that actually made your choices matter at least in how the world responded to you.  You actually got the feeling that your decisions mattered.  Not so here.  Frankly I may as well read a book.  Nothing wrong with reading a book of course, but that's not why I play CRPGs. 

You had a canned hero, canned story, no decision of yours matters, and the execution of it all is so poor that no one is going to want to explore the investigate options or find out how "deep" your characters are.  Good characters (and this is disputable) in rubbish still looks like rubbish.

-Polaris

Your decisions do matter in DAII.........instead of being world changing, your decisions affect peoples lives you come into contact with. Instead of having ham fisted decisions like in DAO or Fallout 3, or Fable....they are more in line with The Witcher, where peoples lives are affected by your decisions.

I found DAO's decisions to be big and cheap...ohhh wow, I can summon werewolves instead of elves...the power of choice....And most of th echoices only affect the end of the game.

I find most world changing choices in WRPGs retarded. Take a look at Fable II, the section of Bowerstone becomes a slum,all because I gave criminal warrants to the criminal instead of the cop. Thats dumb. And do not get me started on Megaton in Fallout 3.

I'm sorry but no they don't.  You are supposed to be the Champion of Kirkwall.  You are supposed to be the nexus around which a ground breaking event evolved.  However, other than who you sleep with, your choices really don't matter.  Grace will try to kill you in the end whether you helped her or not, and no matter how pro-mage or pro-templar you've been.  The only question is who they kidnap.

You always lose your sibling at the end of act 1.  Only minor details change that.  Heck you lose your other sibling five minutes into the game just because of what character class you play.  Hardly ground-breaking choices.

The game is a raill-road from start to finish.  Your choices matter not at all.  You can not change any important decisions.  It's not a bad story I guess, but it frankly sucks as an RPG.

-Polaris

And most WRPGs that are story driven railroad you...including ALL Bioware games. DAII is no different.

Yes, you do lose your sibling after Act I, HOWEVER, your choices influence how they develop as characters...for example, Bethany will grow differently as a Cricle Mage than a Grey Warden.

And what kind of power does the Champion have? He has no official power, just influential power, and that means nothing when people are that extreme in their views. In fact, Hawke's role of a hero is a complex one, not a simple one.

Why do WRPGs have to follow strict rules? Why can't they be different? I lioke how my character is NOT the center of the universe.

Look what happened to most JRPGs...same stories, same formula, same cliches.

Hell, Planescape Torment, hailed as the second coming of Christ by cRPG fans, has ONE ending, no matter what choices you make.

[Sjofn]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sum total difference:  You kill Qunari instead of mobs and lose a bit of the Arishok's respect.  That's it.  Not noteworthy at all.

-Polaris

You summon werewolves instead of elves and that's it. Not noteworthy at all, since you kill the archdemon anyway, am i rite?

[IanPolaris]

txgoldrush,

You probably won't understand why DA2 is such a bad RPG (not necessarily a bad story but a bad RPG) but I'll try to explain anyway. In an RPG, you need to give your player(s) at least the illusion that they matter. You need to immmerse them in the world and that world needs to (seem at least) to live and breath around them. That means the illusion of choice is paramount and what you do (such as casting spells in Grand Central Templar Stations) SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

You should have the option to save your mother. When your sister is forced into the circle, you have the dialog option of telling Cullen, "You take her over my dead body" At that point you should have the OPTION to fight Cullen and get Bethany out of town via the underground railroad. Again you still lose your sibling, but you are given at least the illusion that your choices matter.

For that matter, we need a lot more seeing rather than telling so we can identify with our companions. Honestly the only one we see enough to really identify with is Varic (and you can't even romance him).

I could go on but you probably don't want to hear it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sjofn wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sum total difference:  You kill Qunari instead of mobs and lose a bit of the Arishok's respect.  That's it.  Not noteworthy at all.

-Polaris

You summon werewolves instead of elves and that's it. Not noteworthy at all, since you kill the archdemon anyway, am i rite?

No, you are not.  Choosing the werewolves has ripple effects that go throught the serious even into a (brief) scene in DA2.  It also affect how available certain key resources are and how much XP you can get from those resources.  It's a rather big deal.

Edit PS:  Honestly the Dalish vs Werewollf choice is about the worst possible one to try to prove what you are trying to say.  It happens that that choices has a lot of far reaching consequences in DAO, DAA, the DLCs and even (briefly) in DA2.  A better argument would have been mage vs templar in DAO.
-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 avril 2011 - 04:15 .

[Sjofn]

You're like one of those people who complains they don't want to be a Grey Warden in DA:O.

EDIT: And I find your scrabbling for how it's totally different in DA:O on the elf/werewolf plot sort of adorable. Because there are choices to make in DA2 that have consequences, but they aren't the choices and consequences you care about, therefore they don't count.

I mean ... OK, let's go with the dwarf king choice, then. At its heart, it doesn't matter at all who you picked, dwarves are showing up in your final battle, period. In DA:O itself, there's no difference AT ALL save an end game slide, and bleeding into DA2 is the difference of a single quest being there or not being there and a throwaway line of dialogue by Varric. But it feels like a big choice anyway, right?

I do not see how that is any different than deciding to send, say, Grace back to the Circle or not. Yeah, ultimately she winds back up there, but it helps define your character and how they feel about this world they're in. Picking Bhelen over Harrowmont is the same sort of thing.

Modifié par Sjofn, 06 avril 2011 - 04:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

No, you are not.  Choosing the werewolves has ripple effects that go throught the serious even into a (brief) scene in DA2.  It also affect how available certain key resources are and how much XP you can get from those resources.  It's a rather big deal.

-Polaris

It's a huge deal. I got +5 friendship from Isabela and +500 exp from that! Key resources, exp and far-reaching ripple effects!

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No, you are not.  Choosing the werewolves has ripple effects that go throught the serious even into a (brief) scene in DA2.  It also affect how available certain key resources are and how much XP you can get from those resources.  It's a rather big deal.

-Polaris

It's a huge deal. I got +5 friendship from Isabela and +500 exp from that! Key resources, exp and far-reaching ripple effects!

You just proved my point.  500 XP is a lot in DA2, and the fact that a DAO choice had this sort of impact in a much later games shows you how important that choice was.

-Polaris

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush,

You probably won't understand why DA2 is such a bad RPG (not necessarily a bad story but a bad RPG) but I'll try to explain anyway. In an RPG, you need to give your player(s) at least the illusion that they matter. You need to immmerse them in the world and that world needs to (seem at least) to live and breath around them. That means the illusion of choice is paramount and what you do (such as casting spells in Grand Central Templar Stations) SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

You should have the option to save your mother. When your sister is forced into the circle, you have the dialog option of telling Cullen, "You take her over my dead body" At that point you should have the OPTION to fight Cullen and get Bethany out of town via the underground railroad. Again you still lose your sibling, but you are given at least the illusion that your choices matter.

For that matter, we need a lot more seeing rather than telling so we can identify with our companions. Honestly the only one we see enough to really identify with is Varic (and you can't even romance him).

I could go on but you probably don't want to hear it.

-Polaris

I guiess then by your logic, many classic RPGs, such as Ultima VII, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Betrayal at Krondor and others are "bad" RPGs...as well as all other Bioware games.

In Deus Ex, could you stay on the side of UNATCO and MJ12? No. You are railroaded to join your brother. But still, Deus Ex is a classic, even though its one huge railroad.

Your problem is double standards? You are trying to force DAII to meet standards that many classic games in the genre don't meet. Its hypocritical.

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

You just proved my point.  500 XP is a lot in DA2, and the fact that a DAO choice had this sort of impact in a much later games shows you how important that choice was.

-Polaris

Yeah... I was totally wondering where that last 2.5% exp I needed to level up was going to come from... but that's ok! Werewolves to the rescue!

And Isabela totally loved me 5% more.

[IanPolaris]

txgoldrush wrote...

I guiess then by your logic, many classic RPGs, such as Ultima VII, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Betrayal at Krondor and others are "bad" RPGs...as well as all other Bioware games.

In Deus Ex, could you stay on the side of UNATCO and MJ12? No. You are railroaded to join your brother. But still, Deus Ex is a classic, even though its one huge railroad.

Your problem is double standards? You are trying to force DAII to meet standards that many classic games in the genre don't meet. Its hypocritical.

Yes I do consider most of those you list to be bad RPGs.  Computer RPGs had a bad name for a long time for a reason.  Too many were FPS diquised as RPGs.  Other bioware games?  No.  In DAO (and for that matter even in BG1,2, and Throne of Bhaal) you could choose NOT to have certain companions.  Heck, you could even KILL some of them (or wind up on the other side) and for the most part, you could count on those choices being carried over in a logical way (and in some worlds explicit ressurection was possble.....see Forgotten Realms). 

Not so in DA2.  Honestly DA2 plays like perhaps a decent story, sketched up on a limited budget of time and money to make a quick buck.

-Polaris

[Sjofn]

You can pretty much choose not to have companions in DA2? Fenris and Isabela are definitely capable of being missed, and you can lose companions over time easily enough.

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes I do consider most of those you list to be bad RPGs.  Computer RPGs had a bad name for a long time for a reason.  Too many were FPS diquised as RPGs.  Other bioware games?  No.  In DAO (and for that matter even in BG1,2, and Throne of Bhaal) you could choose NOT to have certain companions.  Heck, you could even KILL some of them (or wind up on the other side) and for the most part, you could count on those choices being carried over in a logical way (and in some worlds explicit ressurection was possble.....see Forgotten Realms). 

Not so in DA2.  Honestly DA2 plays like perhaps a decent story, sketched up on a limited budget of time and money to make a quick buck.

-Polaris

You realize that Fenris, Isabela, Sebastian and Merrill are all skippable, right? The only companions you must take along are Aveline, Varric and Anders. And you know something? You can even end up killing some of them (Fenris, Anders, Merrill) and ending up on the other side of them too.

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I guiess then by your logic, many classic RPGs, such as Ultima VII, Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Betrayal at Krondor and others are "bad" RPGs...as well as all other Bioware games.

In Deus Ex, could you stay on the side of UNATCO and MJ12? No. You are railroaded to join your brother. But still, Deus Ex is a classic, even though its one huge railroad.

Your problem is double standards? You are trying to force DAII to meet standards that many classic games in the genre don't meet. Its hypocritical.

Yes I do consider most of those you list to be bad RPGs.  Computer RPGs had a bad name for a long time for a reason.  Too many were FPS diquised as RPGs.  Other bioware games?  No.  In DAO (and for that matter even in BG1,2, and Throne of Bhaal) you could choose NOT to have certain companions.  Heck, you could even KILL some of them (or wind up on the other side) and for the most part, you could count on those choices being carried over in a logical way (and in some worlds explicit ressurection was possble.....see Forgotten Realms). 

Not so in DA2.  Honestly DA2 plays like perhaps a decent story, sketched up on a limited budget of time and money to make a quick buck.

-Polaris

Last time I checked....I could kill off Anders, give Fenris back to the slavers, give up Isabela to the Arishok...and have Merill, Aveline, Fenris, and Anders turn on me in the end and attack me, Hell I can choose not to have Fenris or Isabela as my companion AND ask Anders to leave in Act II.

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes I do consider most of those you list to be bad RPGs.  Computer RPGs had a bad name for a long time for a reason.  Too many were FPS diquised as RPGs.  Other bioware games?  No.  In DAO (and for that matter even in BG1,2, and Throne of Bhaal) you could choose NOT to have certain companions.  Heck, you could even KILL some of them (or wind up on the other side) and for the most part, you could count on those choices being carried over in a logical way (and in some worlds explicit ressurection was possble.....see Forgotten Realms). 

Not so in DA2.  Honestly DA2 plays like perhaps a decent story, sketched up on a limited budget of time and money to make a quick buck.

-Polaris

You realize that Fenris, Isabela, Sebastian and Merrill are all skippable, right? The only companions you must take along are Aveline, Varric and Anders. And you know something? You can even end up killing some of them (Fenris, Anders, Merrill) and ending up on the other side of them too.

You can't actually kill any of them until the very end of the game.  That doesn't count.  However, in prior games, you could dismiss companions at any time, or they'd just leave themselves.  The only one that does that is Isabella and only in an extremely scripted way.

I'm sorry, but you should play DAO and DA2 at the same time.  The difference in immersion and player choice and influence is night and day.

In DAO you are driving the story.  In DA2, you are watching it.  That's the difference.

-Polaris

Edit:  Forgot about Fenris.  Yes you can be an evil person and send him back to slavery but that is another highly scripted event.  In the games I am talking about, you had those events AND you had the ability to kick them out at any time AND you had the abiliy to have them reject you if you treated them badly enough.

It's the difference between living inside a game world and pushing buttons but otherwise watching it.  If you don't get the difference, I'll never be able to explain it better than that.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 avril 2011 - 04:32 .

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes I do consider most of those you list to be bad RPGs.  Computer RPGs had a bad name for a long time for a reason.  Too many were FPS diquised as RPGs.  Other bioware games?  No.  In DAO (and for that matter even in BG1,2, and Throne of Bhaal) you could choose NOT to have certain companions.  Heck, you could even KILL some of them (or wind up on the other side) and for the most part, you could count on those choices being carried over in a logical way (and in some worlds explicit ressurection was possble.....see Forgotten Realms). 

Not so in DA2.  Honestly DA2 plays like perhaps a decent story, sketched up on a limited budget of time and money to make a quick buck.

-Polaris

You realize that Fenris, Isabela, Sebastian and Merrill are all skippable, right? The only companions you must take along are Aveline, Varric and Anders. And you know something? You can even end up killing some of them (Fenris, Anders, Merrill) and ending up on the other side of them too.

You can't actually kill any of them until the very end of the game.  That doesn't count.  However, in prior games, you could dismiss companions at any time, or they'd just leave themselves.  The only one that does that is Isabella and only in an extremely scripted way.

I'm sorry, but you should play DAO and DA2 at the same time.  The difference in immersion and player choice and influence is night and day.

In DAO you are driving the story.  In DA2, you are watching it.  That's the difference.

-Polaris

And how do you exactly drive the story in DAO? You don't.

Oh, and this proves how useless the characters were in DAO. They really contribute nothing to the game with there so called depth.

You are railroaded into killing the archdemon.....the only difference is that you can go to four railroad stations in any order in the midgame.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 06 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[Sjofn]

The difference between the two games in the realm of "player choice" is roughly the same for me, partly because I am not a murderous psycho that wishes I could turn and knife one of my companions at any moment, I guess.

[IanPolaris]

Yes but HOW you go about that makes a big difference in Fereldan (too much of a difference apparently since the writers have chosen since to retcon most of those choices away). You don't see that in DA2. Most egregious example? If you are a mage and you side with the Templars you become Viscount.

SAY WHAT?!?! The Templars would agree to make a mage, *any* mage a Viscount? What about "Magic is supposed to serve man not rule him." Obviously the reason is becase your choice doesn't count. You sided with the Templars and you are viscount no matter what the logic of the world might say.

Morever, in DAO you cared about your companions and you could speak to them at any time. Here? They are bit of flotsom and jetsom along for the ride. Even your own family is so poorly present that I find it impossible to care about any of them. If I don't care about the NPCs,then what I can and can';t do to them doesn't really matter does it?

-Polaris

[Sjofn]

How I make those choices don't really matter at all in terms of the story, although they do matter in terms of how I see my character (you know, like in DA2). It matters not at all. I kill the archdemon, blight is over, Fereldan is saved, hooray. I might be dead, I might not be dead, I might've sired a demon baby, I might've made Alistair do it, but ultimately the only part that matters happened, which is killing the archdemon.

I care a lot about my DA2 companions, by the way. Aveline is my favoritest.

Modifié par Sjofn, 06 avril 2011 - 04:50 .