149 réponses à ce sujet

[Miashi]

The author wants us to seperate the bad elements off the game and appreciate the good elements for what they are. It's difficult to do this because a game is not just about its story but its gameplay as well; when Merrill gives up with the Eluvian and breaks it in my face, then next act asks me for help get the hammer to make it work, it's frustrating and far from a brilliant story concept. I mean- you may have the best intentions in the world, but if all your elements don't glue in together, your whole collage will be an ugly mess.

Modifié par Miashi, 06 avril 2011 - 04:26 .

[Bmeszaros]

Miashi wrote...

The author wants us to seperate the bad elements off the game and appreciate the good elements for what they are. It's difficult to do this because a game is not just about its story but its gameplay as well; when Merrill gives up with the Eluvian and breaks it in my face, then next act asks me for help get the hammer to make it work, it's frustrating and far from a brilliant story concept. I mean- you may have the best intentions in the world, but if all your elements don't glue in together, your whole collage will be an ugly mess.

I agree, I think it would be a great book or movie because of this, not as something thats supposed to be "Interactive and Hands on".

Bioware took a concept that would've made for decent book in the DA series and tried to format it for an interactive video game. Makes the buy in for me even more difficult when you have obvious flaws in the story due to what i can only guess was poor time management in the testing phase or lack of polished testing.

Im glad that video game companies still take risks, even with their AAA franchises, but as with all risks, there's a chance of falling short of an expectation of the consumer.

I totally agree with you though, judging something based on its messages is a lot easier when the experience flows naturally instead of jumping sequences.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 06 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[LobselVith8]

Sjofn wrote...

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.

The consequences of choosing to side with the Dalish or the cursed werewolves have an impact, though. The werewolves can be convinced to slaughter the Dalish, but will never overcome their bestial nature and they all recede from human civilization. If the werewolves were slaughtered or the curse was broken, the Dalish can earn the respect of the human settlements and improve relations between humans and elves for a time. It's a ripple effect of the Warden's choice having an impact.

What bothers me is that Hawke becomes a Human Noble, has a manor, wealth, and a connection to both the Arishok and the Viscount, but we can't have Hawke change the society he's in. Why can't he make any changes to Darktown or the Alienage? Why can't be help his friend Anders with the clinic or smuggling mages out through the mage underground with his connections (like the cellar in his basement), or assist the elves in improving their impoverished district of the city?

Sjofn wrote...

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?

Choosing between Bhelen and Harrowmont has consequences for Orzammar as a Great Thaig, and can mean the difference between a better tomorrow for the casteless and the reclamation of the lost thaigs or a downward spiral of regression and destruction where the casteless can remain destitute and without rights or end up all getting slaughtered by Harrowmont's golems. The Warden's choices have consequences in DA:O. Hawke has no ability to shape and change the world around him in the same way, or even the city-state of Kirkwall.

Sjofn wrote...

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.

But if the choice ultimately doesn't matter, then it's not really a choice at all, especially when it has only one outcome. Hawke's choices aren't going to afford us to join Thrask's initiative, they aren't going to allow us to change the Dalish perspective on Merrill and her use of blood magic, they aren't going to change the Alienage or Darktown, and we're forced down a linear progression where our refusal to accept a quest will still force us to go through with it.

[Any0day]

Bmeszaros wrote...

Im glad that video game companies still take risks, even with there AAA franchises, but as with all risks, there's a chance of falling short of an expectation of the consumer.

Let's not confuse artistic risks with... "how little can I do and get away with it" risks.

For example: Magicka was an artistic risk, and people appreciate what the developers were doing even though it didn't make millions.

That said - this article is very bias to me. There's so much double talk too that it wouldn't surprise me if the writer was a lawyer. "I find it hard to fault any player—even a fellow reviewer—for openly and honestly disliking the game. It’s just frankly not all that good under the parameters that we are used to using in evaluating games." So, it's not the reviewers' fault, it's just that Dragon Age 2 is so epic on it's scale that reviewers have a hard time understanding how to review it properly. Give me a break - lol.

"you have what is possibly some of the most compelling characterization this side of a good book"
I seriously almost laughed and closed the page after reading that line. Please tell me you're joking - either that or your English teachers in high-school were really terrible. I've read a lot of books that sent me crying over a character dying; I think the only time I came close to that kind of emotion in a Bioware game was watching the Epilogues in Throne of Bhaal roll with the epic post credit music back drop; Mask of the Betrayer, and Origins are up there too. Because random conversations with my characters was removed save for the 'house' machanic, they felt like cardboard to me. I really didn't care one way or another about any of them except possibly my sibling, and even then it was a rather shallow experience due to how poorly the deaths were handled.

(In reference to Anders bi-sexuality) "Anders says, 'Ten years, a hundred years from now, someone like me will love someone like you, and there will be no templars to tear them apart.'"
Please tell me how that has anything to do with sexual oppression? At best the argument could be made that his statement was ambigious, but that would be a huge stretch. Templars are only apostate mage hunters - that's all they are, they are not the Law. To even suggest he was referring to sexuality in any way shows me the author is trying to see something that isn't there or that the author doesn't even know the lore (I'm inclinded to believe the latter). I'll be honest, with how open the sexuality was I just assumed that sexual orientation openness was the norm; and nothing in the game ever gave me any reason to think otherwise.

"we need more quality games. We need games like this that court a more cerebral sort of controversy and subtlety in equal doses."
Look, I'm fine with games bringing up things like terrorism (Deus Ex did it fairly well), sexual orientation, class oppression... etc - but these things alone don't make a good story nor do they make a good game. Regardless the nature of it, making the entire game one huge political statement without an engaging overwrapping storyline is like a one-legged man trying to run a marathon thinking he'll come in first place.

Modifié par Any0day, 06 avril 2011 - 05:52 .

[Darth Obvious]

Zan Mura wrote...

Really? Personally I feel that anyone who feels the need to attack people personally by labeling them dishonest, "yes men", or that they need their heads examined, is the first one whose opinion's validity flies right out of the window. It's the equivalent of a child telling another that "my daddy is better than your daddy, and if you don't agree then you SUCK". What a great argument, and such a stellar display of intellect too.

 I've made plenty of specific arguments as to why DA2's story is weak. And guess what? Thousands of others seems to have come to the exact same conclusions that I have (and for the exact same reasons). In fact, I've never seen a Bioware title do so poorly (~4 out of 10 by actual players on Metacritic), and the reasons why this is so should be glaringly obvious. It's a pathetic story that doesn't go anywhere, and that offers the player no real choices, despite being labeled as a role-playing game. How much more obvious does it need to be? Oh yeah, and the insanely predictable combat waves and ridiculous overuse of the same freaking dungeon a zillion times aren't helping either.

So all your childish whining is pointless. I didn't attack you, you big baby. I simply stated that all the simpering "yes men" are the problem with Bioware games these days. If you can't handle that, then you are the one with the problem.

[Teramore]

Please don't bring politics and religion into this! The article was a piece of ****! I don't care a **** about gay rights nor societal oppression from religion or ****. All I ever wanted was to fantasize about a world where magic, monsters, glory and myths are real. I bought this game to get away from all this logical, philosophical, scientifical, societal craps that those godlike professors teach in my damned college.

[Zan Mura]

Darth Obvious wrote...

I've made plenty of specific arguments as to why DA2's story is weak. And guess what? Thousands of others seems to have come to the exact same conclusions that I have (and for the exact same reasons). In fact, I've never seen a Bioware title do so poorly (~4 out of 10 by actual players on Metacritic), and the reasons why this is so should be glaringly obvious. It's a pathetic story that doesn't go anywhere, and that offers the player no real choices, despite being labeled as a role-playing game. How much more obvious does it need to be? Oh yeah, and the insanely predictable combat waves and ridiculous overuse of the same freaking dungeon a zillion times aren't helping either.

So all your childish whining is pointless. I didn't attack you, you big baby. I simply stated that all the simpering "yes men" are the problem with Bioware games these days. If you can't handle that, then you are the one with the problem.

Right now, the metacritic score in Steam (a well known and commonly accepted scoring) is 82 / 100. That's not some vague pass provided without a source, it's fact. And regardless, as I said this is not about your argumentation. It's about the manner in which you deliver them. You see, you could be as right as they come about everything you say, but when you deliver the message by deliberately insulting everyone in the room and attempting to proclaim your own superiority at every turn, you can only help to achieve two things: For one, you alienate people from you, making sure that even IF you were right, they will disagree on principle alone. Two, as I said before, you show that you are arguing with emotion. Being emotional about something is a surefire way miss the target. Even IF you were right, it could only be by pure luck, since reason and logic has very little to do with your arguments.

Either way, you will completely fail to convince anyone. Now if that's your goal, if you just want to rant and to insult, then sure I guess you delivered. I'm not gonna say that's too mature or constructive, but hey it's your choice. Other than that, the only ones you'll convince of anything you say are those who already agree, and possibly even some of those will take issue because you're effectively damaging their cause with your behaviour. Either way, your actions aren't exactly smart. No offense.

Also, the "thousands agree with my arguments" claim is old and doesn't work. The thousands do not agree unless they are here now, saying they agree, or unless you can provide a source to some address or site or whatever where thousands do agree. Similarly I could say that thousands agree with me that the game is decent enough, if not exactly BW's usual level. Or someone else could say that thousands agree that the game is perfect. We'd both probably be right too, because with a million copies sold, thousands are *bound* to agree on something as general as that. In the end my point is that you do not speak for thousands, you do not speak for your friends, you do not even speak for your spouse. You speak for yourself, period. Don't try to fish for credibility by implying that you are representing some huge group of people who have chosen you as their voice.

Even from an objective standpoing, extremists are practically never right. Whether they're fanbois who see nothing wrong with the game, or haters who only ever see what's wrong with the game. Me, I try to walk the middle path. Something I'm glad to see quite a few others are doing too. DA2 was below expectations, and below BW's usual level, but it wasn't some complete failure. It had quite a few good features that I hope to make it into future games. But those mob spawn waves, ridiculous immunities, almost total lack of choices and consequences in the story and the repetitive areas... they need to go, and never come back.

[IanPolaris]

Zan Mura,

A metacritic score in Steam of 82/100 is not very good. In fact it's downright mediocre...for a computer game anyway.

-Polaris

[Any0day]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zan Mura,

A metacritic score in Steam of 82/100 is not very good. In fact it's downright mediocre...for a computer game anyway.

-Polaris

I agree with this man and everything he's said.

[thesilverlinedviking]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zan Mura,

A metacritic score in Steam of 82/100 is not very good. In fact it's downright mediocre...for a computer game anyway.

-Polaris

You sir, have baffled me. How is 82% considered mediocre? Most reviewers consider that somewhere between good to great.

[Zan Mura]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zan Mura,

A metacritic score in Steam of 82/100 is not very good. In fact it's downright mediocre...for a computer game anyway.

-Polaris

It's an average+ to good, depending on your genre. At no point have I claimed that it meant "very good". Any way you look at it, 82 / 100 is nowhere near the same as 4 / 10, or 3 / 10 as some here keep claiming. 82 is also not a total failure. As I've said countless times now, the problem is with people who deal in absolutes, basically going "if it's not top-grade, then it's a horrible failure". Doesn't work like that.

Granted, scores divide opinions as much as any other thing. Some consider only 90+ games worth buying, some like myself see it more as a 70 - 79 = average, 80 - 88 = good, 89 - 100 excellent. And I've bought several games that were in the 70 - 79 scale or even below that, which were awesome. APB got around 50 or somesuch and I loved that game. Jade Empire has 81, and it's definitely better than DA2, more deserving of a 85 - 90 range in my opinion. Etc. And then there are several games like GTAIV etc that positively suck to me, yet they sit comfortably on scores of 90+.

Modifié par Zan Mura, 07 avril 2011 - 04:31 .

[t3hTwinky]

- Recycling environments and epic backtracking does not equal minimalism.

- Having a highly disjointed plot does not equal subtle.

Dragon Age 2 becomes exponentially better when you ignore all its flaws? Excellect observation.

That was some heavy over-analysis, imo.

[Merced652]

This article is one giant excuse. Character drama? I'm sorry.. where were the characters?

[Bmeszaros]

thesilverlinedviking wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Zan Mura,

A metacritic score in Steam of 82/100 is not very good. In fact it's downright mediocre...for a computer game anyway.

-Polaris

You sir, have baffled me. How is 82% considered mediocre? Most reviewers consider that somewhere between good to great.

An 82 percent was a C, not even a C+ (Which was an 84 percent), when I was in High School.....

I'd say thats medicore.

Obviously, based on a grading scale that I was familiar with, but I'd say an 82 is pretty generous. If this game didn't say "Bioware" on it, I wonder what it would've been...

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 07 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[Miashi]

Note that the author gave the game a 70%, that's lower than metacritics.

I mean, if to her the game is a masterpiece, I wonder what a 90% would be to her.

Modifié par Miashi, 07 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[Zan Mura]

Miashi wrote...

Note that the author gave the game a 70%, that's lower than metacritics.

I mean, if to her the game is a masterpiece, I wonder what a 90% would be to her.

*Sigh*

One of these days I'll make it my life's goal to learn that logic. It'l be incredibly hard, challenging beyond anything I've ever faced. But it must be worth it, considering how common it is.

[roundcrow]

That 4/10 score on Metacritic was caused in some part by a large number of users who posted bad reviews on March 8, 2011.

[frylock23]

This is clearly a case of reading more into something than is there. After all, I identify with mages because I value liberty, freewill, and individuality - all things that mages are denied by an outside governing force embodied by the templars.

However, there is no way that I'm going to go so far as to make this a conservative/liberal message embedded in the game. If anything, it's a conservative/liberal thing embedded in my personal schema that colors how I view the world around me. There may be a freedom v. control theme, but it is far from one that can be directly related to the current politics of the country.

I think exploration of sexuality is embodied in the romances if it's there, but honestly, I don't even think they wrote the romances to challenge or explore sexuality. I feel like the options are only there to cater to the broadest range of customers. Sure, you can engage in openly homosexual romances, but there's no deeper exploration of that beyond the kissy-face scenes, meaning that you aren't actually challenging anyone just letting them continue on in their present worldviews which is exactly what you do when you're trying to offend anyone by challenging them.

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

I agree the game is basically a period drama, lacking all epicness of the fantasy genre.

[Sherbet Lemon]

I just wanted to reiterate one thing that several others seem to be missing.  If you're going to disagree with her at least know what you are in fact disagreeing with.  You keep applying the same parameters for review this game that she in fact seems to be against. 

The problem is that those parameters are not the right ones for talking about Dragon Age II.

The parameters that she's talking about are the exact same ones that a good portion of the naysayers (I didn't say all) on this thread keep using to discredit her assertions.  Sure, you can disagree, but make sure you know what you're disagreeing with.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, video games are in an uncomfortable position in that they are starting to come into their own as an art form (and in my opinion, all art forms have gone through this transitional experience and have come out the better for it).  Games have the ability to combine  three  major elements of culture (music, literature and visual arts) into uniquely cerebral and highly embodied art form, an art form that can invite commentary on the human condition and reinvigorate philosophical discussion. We don't place emphasis on these sorts of things any longer, and these types of discussions are sorely needed.

I'm also a little bit sick of the condescending attitude about "overanalyzing" things.  Since when is it wrong to look at fictional elements and make real life parallels.  Since when is it wrong to look at elements of culture and attempt to find meaning.  If anything, I wish that people would use their brains more.  The anti-intellectualism in this thread makes me sad and if we do not have these discussions then there is no hope for games to evolve as an art form.

It's about becoming more than just a game and proving people like Ebert wrong when he continues to say things like this.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 07 avril 2011 - 10:47 .

[Addai]

Village Idiot wrote...
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.

Care to specify?

[Nauks]

Thanks for linking the article, many fair points worth mulling over indeed.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Addai67 wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...
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.

Care to specify?

Sure

You could certainly look at some of the dialogue between the Arishok and Hawke as means to looking at how social roles function in society. Their philosophy one that offers some interesting dichotomy particularly when the Arishok is talking about how free a person is within in their particular role.  I know in the West we like to think we have more freedom then we do (that's just my personal opinion of course) and it would an interesting comparison/contrast.

You could use Flementh as a means for understanding some of Campbell "monomyth."  In particular, I think she serves as the sort of supernatural opening (within Campbell's framework) action for both DAO and DA2.  That is an interesting bit of parallelsim and you could write about how these actions set her up as a "goddes figure" throughout the series.  It seems an obvious sort of observation but the how mechanics are the most integral piece of it and exploring that is one piece of analysis.

I don't want to get too longwinded but here are a couple of others:

1.  The politics of clan leadership and the formation of family in the Dalish.  (a la Merrill)
2. Using Janders as a means to discussing the limits of Justice/Vengeance.  Where does one begin and where does one end and of course begging the question, what does it mean to be just?
3.  The importance of memory in the formation of identity (i.e Fenris)
4.  Mages and Gidden's structuration theory (i.e. the social structure imposes upon the indvidual and the individual in turn imposes upon the social structure).  What happens to the mages could be comparable to this as the question could be asked if someone is told they are dangerous does this mean that they will in turn become dangerous?  Once can make the argument that mages are a kind of social structure. (though this is more a sociological argument, I like to sometimes make those sorts of arguments because literature mimics society whether we know it or not and social theory is integral to understanding the reasons why an individual forms the way they do)
5.  Memento mori and the tragedy of the Hawke family.  Since Hawke has the potential to loose all immediate family member in the game one could argue that this the player is reminded of their own mortality by proxy.  Persona 3 used this as a prominent theme not too long ago.

Aaand, I think I'll stop here.  Sorry for going on too long. >.<

EDIT: Typos and I still might have missed some.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 07 avril 2011 - 11:49 .

[Miashi]

I think I can have respect for people that spend time to analyze a storyline and its societal meaning, but at the same time, I still think it becomes a fallacious practice to only consider that aspect of the game: As good as the story may be, the bugs and the poor way it is presented stain its delicate structure.

Regarding art and video games, I guess it becomes purely subjective. Some people see art in the way snowflakes fall, or gasoline traces swirling in the water. I mean, if you want to call a video game art, by all means. But games (nowadays), are a collage of images, stories and gameplay. Without each other, the game would not exist. Or it'd be pong I guess.

[Kilshrek]

Using a great story to paper over bad mechanics may fly for some but not me. And the story was good but really was more suited to a book than a game. I play a game for interactivity, to get involved in the game world as it gets involved with me. Taking me out of the game and running me along the story much like a book does is not what I spent my time on the game for. I think one of the more unworthy aspects of the game is where picking up a specialization only costs a spec point. No story involvement, no earning the spec, nothing. Hit level 7 and blood magic is yours. At least DAO linked a spec to a character or a story event or something, even the purchasing of a book (which was a little silly but still).

DA 2 is certainly not the best, nor the worst, but I think it's on the wrong side of the scale here.