39 réponses à ce sujet

[Big I]

RPGrogue wrote...
Bioware has written a story that seems to prove far to smart for it's own audience. The has the underlying theme of loosing control, and this is very clearly shown by the city of Kirkwall falling apart. First it gets hit by a wave of refuges, then the Quin rise up, then mages and the templers duke it out

The game does not have a theme of losing control. It only appears that way because of how Act 3 ends, with player choice being inconsequntial, and what happens to the Hawke family. Besides that, the game is about one sufficiently amazing person (Hawke) surmounting insurmountable odds.


For example, Act 1. This act is essentially about "Hawke the refugee", or "Hawke vs poverty". It's hammered home on several occasions that Fereldans living in Kirkwall have a bad time of it, from the Bone Pit miners to the inhabitants of Darktown. However, the act ENDS with Hawke having conquered the Deep Roads and eliminated his material problems. He's rich, has a sweet estate, and if a mage is wealthy and connected enough to thumb his nose at the templars. Hawke took control of the situaton and turned it to his advantage.


Act 2 is about "Kirkwall vs the Qunari", with Hawke being a corollary to the conflict as an independent mediator between the two. The story comes to a point of crisis, but is then resolved by Hawke. The qunari leave, and Hawke has once again stepped in to solve insurmountable problems, however that may have happened.


Act 3 is the polar opposite of the rest of the game. Here we're shown that Hawke doesn't matter. Saved Thrask, Keran and Grace? Doesn't matter, they're still conspiring against you. Didn't help Anders, or told him to reconsider in the rivalry Questions and Answers? Doesn't matter, he still attacks. Chose between Orsino and Meredith? Doesn't matter, you fight them both. In Act 3, a story that had been about Hawke bending the world to their will became about Hawke being unable to do anything of consequence because magic made people crazy. It's a complete reversal.


You might be thinking that what happens to Hawke's family is proof that this game is about an examination of inevitablity. In fact, they're just used to support the story Act 1 or 3. It supports Act 1 because it's telling you "the Blight is so terrible because it killed my sibling and then killed the other/forced them to become a Warden!" It's a reiteration of what drives you to Kirkwall. It supports Act 3 because it tells you "the mage/templar conflict is important because a blood mage killed my mother and my surviving sibling is a templar/Circle mage!" It's trying to give you a point of buy in for the conflict.


Last of all, how this was all presented was just bad. By the end of Act 1 I could have over 50 sovereigns, a half share in a mine, and a legal claim to prime Hightown real-estate. Why do I need to go on this expedition? In Act 2, I could be a rich guy whose only living relative is a weasel of an uncle, living in a city that looks down on my nationality. Why am I sticking around? Or potentially, why aren't I helping the the Arishok to conquer this city? In Act 3, I'm being asked to choose between two equally unpalatable choices, after being betrayed by someone I've apparently known for 6 years. Why choose either? Why not just rally the city and become viscount?

Modifié par LookingGlass93, 06 avril 2011 - 06:07 .

[sphinxess]

There is another thread like this "Making a case for quality games." In that thread character interactions are what Bioware was going for. I pretty much agree these <while too short> are extremely well done" if this is what Bioware was going for they hit a homerun. However going for one thing at the expense of everything else does not make a good game in my book.

As for the actual story being outstanding I have to disagree:
I. Refugee - raises money to fund a risky chance at great riches while ignoring the illegal sale if an estate that is worth quite a bit - returns with riches. Hardly a breathtaking story
II. First to arrive with the forces needed to rescue a bunch of Nobles that were taken by a surprise attack - proclaimed Champion - like city forces couldnt kill 600 Qun - right
III. Holds enough military power to make the difference between two almost even forces both of which are morally bankrupt when a war erupts No choice given to hold off and destroy the winner - no choice given to leave the city. Fade to black Hmm

Im not sure where the majority of people have stated they want a "save the world" game - I sure haven't. Just off the top of my head two of my favorite RPG games of all time you sure don't save the world - you can even die in one and go down in history as pretty much an idiot <Planescape:Torment and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines>

[wright1978]

I like the story. Hawke's has an impact on people but less so on events that sweep in like the tide. I think this was deliberately done to facilitate future installments & allow a better feeling of your import mattering. It is much easier to manage continuity of people's choices for individuals than having to model multiple divergent storylines of events. I expect the likes of Feynriel etc to turn up in DA3, depedent on your choice in DA2.

Origins was a game that seemed written without thought for future games within the Dragon Age universe. They even had epilogue cards to further set in stone events that didn't happen in the game itself. In truth all they could do was try and transplant decisions that effected individuals to a new location, kirkwall. In origins i chose the option where the werewolves become human again. In Da2 there is a side quest where one them turns up being hunted by Dalish. The game can't let anything like this be the main thrust of the story arc as someone else may have a made one of the alternative decisions and not get this quest.

[Knightly_BW]

I think comparing Origin's story to Champions story, is like comparing apples with oranges.

To my take: Origins story focused on an event: Blight. DA2 story is focused on a person, Hawke.

Both stories are brilliant with many sub-plots. In Origins those plots were choices we can effect. In DA 2 thos plots are important events in Hawke's life.

While bringning those two stories into game, Origins was very successful. Unluckily in DA 2 devs so focused on story so they butchered game. You can't make real choices to effect Hawke's life. In story-wise it is very reasonable as you are re-telling a history but in games, especially in RPG games I think most people like me, love to make choices and how his/her choices effected the outcome.

In my opinion, DA 2 is better if you think it as a poor adaptotion of a good novel.

[Everwarden]

RPGrogue wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No, really, thanks for sharing.

I enjoy being called dumb, especially when its said so eloquently, with so many spelling and grammatical errors.

See that would be helpful, pointing out errors is my writing. You on the other hand just like to put out snarky remarks because.. well because you do not have anything intelligent or even helpful in a topic about in-depth story telling. So just go away if your not going to talk about the topic.

I'll talk about the topic.. you're wrong. That about sums it up. 

[Corto81]

RPGrogue wrote...
In origins characters were you b*tch, and did what you want.  

That's not even remotely true.
Morrigan as the most clear example.
Not to mention your choices and your relationships with characters can lead to you eventually killing companions (Leliana, Wynne, Zevran...).

So in short, WTF are you talking about???

This is a great story, but the video game community just was not ready for it...

It was a good idea in concept, it was just incredibly sloppily done, with glowing flaws in the timeline (as opposed to Awakening), the story and the realism (BM going all over the place, npnp...), and just connencting to the it as a whole (Meredith is a poor villain who just sorta pops up after you're done with 70% of the game).

It also desperately poor on the "immersiveness" factor.

Compare say, Human Noble Origings story to this...
A lovely built mansion, your mother, father, brother, nephew, etc.
You can spend an hour going around the place, reading up on history, assisting the Tutor teaching kids about family history etc.
You feel connected. And then, after the night's events and the Joining Ritual, you get to see a completely awesome Ostagar battle scene.

DA2? You run from Lothering (no idea who you are), your brother/sister dies an incredibly stupid death followed by a plastic mourning scene, etc etc.

The story could have been good  with certain tweaks etc.

But at no point did it feel close to the emotion that DAO gave you
(and before anyone says the darkspawn thing is generic, I hope you realize the DAO story is 90% about the journey to the archdemon fight etc.).

[Foolsfolly]

This is a great story, but the video game community just was not ready for it...

HAHAHAHAHA!

That's right. Dragon Age 2 has terrible reviews and isn't selling well because the world's just not ready for it. All those reports of solid 7-8 out of 10 reviews and decent sales are lies. It's brilliant but the world cannot understand it's deeply complex storyline.

Gamers should just go back to Doom and Mortal Kombat because it's clear they're not ready for narratives and characters who are deeper than just catch-phrases.

Please. It's not some forgotten gem or game that deserved better than it's got. It's a decent seller (maybe better seller than I'm aware of) with decent reviews. There's not really a multitude of reviews praising it to the high heavens but likewise there's not many reviews screaming out in pain at how horrible it is.

It's just there. Flawed and rushed but playable and enjoyable.

[Anarcala]

This game tries to do two things:

1 – Focus on the characters which is, by nature, an understated story (RPG)
2 – Satisfy the average gamer (Action)

Unfortunately, the latter seems to mean:

Big, flying, glowing bad guys & walking statues
Combat moves that defy physics
Game mechanics that take focus from the characters (i.e. apostate Hawke’s Templar mind trick “I am not the apostate you’re looking for...”)

So, you’re left with satisfying the RPG hardcore, satisfying the average gamer, or trying to find the middle ground. They obviously went with the last option. Unfortunately that gives the game a lack of creative cohesion which directly impacts its ability to provide character focus...effectively killing both game objectives I mentioned above.

The unfortunate thing is you can really see what the writing team were trying to do. These characters have amazing potential, and the story (while fairly modest) does try and keep you on the edge. When my first Hawke lost her mother to the crazy Mage I was gob-smacked! How much more could this character take? But I would have been genuinely upset had the preceding fight not involved Fenris jumping about like Spring-Heeled Jack, and Isabella performing physically impossible somersaults.

If you look at DA:O, part of the reason the story was so emotive was that the character performed combat moves actions that didn’t defy belief. That added to their realism, and your involvement with them. Even the Mages (who have abilities totally outside the norm) had reasonable limitations within their field of magic. In DA:2 you don’t have that. It’s almost like the story suggests something very personal and the combat mechanics suggests something entirely epic and bombastic.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. Unless you’re Sten...in which case take the cake andpleasedon’thurtme.

Modifié par Anarcala, 06 avril 2011 - 11:17 .

[exskeeny]

A couple of my thoughts:

Act 1: The deep roads expedition is a chance for Hawke to earn enough gold and reputation to buy and MAINTAIN a Hightown Mansion. Just using the 50 gold to help his mother reclaim her property would just end up in it being lost. How could a Ferelden refugee raise enough regular capital to maintain that household unless he creates enough respect and reputation from the expedition.

Act 2: Hawke doesn't resolve the crisis, he deals with it. I would imagine that resolving the crisis would have averted any bloodshed. Hawke was forced into the middle of a situation that no matter how hard he tried was always going to breakdown. This situation can neve rbe "resolved" merely dealt with when it all goes ****** up. The qunari would probably have been expelled from Kirkwall in time but Hawke was at the forefront of the forces that removed them without all out warfare.

Act 3: Who's to say that the Idol didn't corrupt Merediths views to an even more extreme version of herself. As it did with Bartrand. Kind of like the one ring from Tolkien. The Templars are lyrium addicts basically( that may be a little too strong) so of course a different type of Lyrium would be of interest and why wouldn't the Templar Knight-Commander, who already has extreme views, be any less corruptable by this.

Orsino........What a prat. It seriously needed a cutscene with dialogue choices that revealed he knowingly helped the murderer. You would have no choice but to confront him therefore the battle makes more sense( I speak from a mage supporting playthrough, I am only halfway through a templar supporting playthrough.)

I think that make sense.

[Miashi]

"Dragon age 2 story... is to smart for its audience."

Derp.

[AlexXIV]

I feel that the topic is too smart for the OP.

[aox_general]

RPGrogue wrote...

[DA2 story] is to smart for its audience. The story is is masterfully written as a character drama. [...] Despite its down falls some seem to have the story is THE BEST story Bioware has ever written. To quote people who don't understand the story, " Its not focused, its like a bunch of stories mashed together..." well sorta.

The story is not too smart for its audience. The game was full of victims. Nobody, I mean NONE OF THE VILLIANS were ever responsible for their own actions and choices, they were ALL under the influence of spirits, demons or evil ancient relics: e.g. Anders, Knight Commander Meredith, Varric's brother, all the blood mages, the dude that killed your mother, etc. 

How is that a superior story with difficult moral choices? Is it really so morally difficult to decide to kill the obviously evil demons? Kill the people possessed by the evil relic?? no, it's a straight forward decision, nothing to ponder over, really. 

In contrast, in DAO Loghain was really convinced he was doing the right thing at all times, and the blood mage who posioned the Arl of Redcliff was truly sorry for his actions and was willing to take responsibility. *That* was superior writting, *that* made me, to put it dramatically, "agonize" over what to do - should I kill them or should I spare them.  In DA2 all the morally right choices were obvious to anyone with 2 functioning brain cells. E.g. you may have initially decided you like Anders but he became a terrorist and carried out a terrorist act targetting civilians - he used you to blow up the Chantry thereby committing mass murder of who knows how many innocent people who happened to be in it when it blew up. Not really difficult to decide to get rid of terrorists, is it?

And I understood the story quite well, thank you. It's not really a brain teaser. Rise to power. Period. Which part of the DA2 story did you find challenging and made you ponder the righteousness of your actions? Even the final moments where you had to choose between templars and mages were also a no-brainer. Meredith ordered the total annihilation of all mages, regardless of their involvement with blood magic or with Ander's idiotic act of terrorism. The equivalent of that would be going like "hey, my mother was killed in London, therefore I must nuke the city and kill everyone in it.".... whaat??? That's so obviously wrong and overkill.  

Granted, maybe if you're a young game player, say in your late teens or early 20ies, and you've never before considered such questions, then the plot might present some moral dilemas for you. But I'm 33, so this was really truly a no-brainer. DAO made me wonder, on the other hand. 

[RPGrogue]

 Many do not understand the point of this thread.

 

We are talking about the story, not the game play or even choices.
I am arguing the fact Bioware deserves recognition for this story. I believe if
it had been a book or film you all would have loved the story, but since you do
not like the game play and the lack of character interaction you judge the
story. This game has flaws, I agree, I am in no way shape or form saying the
game is great because the story is great.

 

I would like to expand on an idea I brought up before,
characters. I agree I like most of them less then Origins characters, but it is
because I get less time with them. Many have pointed out Morrigan did what she
wanted, BS. Granted she had her own plans, but she always needed you. The Warden
was always the key factor, they could not do sh*t without you. That’s great for
a game dealing with choices, but I’m not talking about choices I am talking
about the story. Characters do attack you depending on what you do, but you
always end up killing them anyway so what they planned was stopped by you, the
Warden. Hawke on the other hand has people backstab him and work around him all
of the time.

 


1.Anders
blows up the chantry, tell me one character that disobeys you that much in
Origins that you can not stop? Like I said sure they turn on you, but none
of them make world changing choices ALONE.

2.Isabella
is with holding the relic. She brought upon the Quin because of what she
did. Did any origins character do anything important relative to the main
story by them selves? Morrigan did not, she suggested a god baby but you
decided if that happened. Alistair was a brother to the king, which is
very important, but if he even becomes king is up to the Warden.

Modifié par RPGrogue, 06 avril 2011 - 08:58 .

[Everwarden]

RPGrogue wrote...
I am arguing the fact Bioware deserves recognition for this story. I believe if
it had been a book or film you all would have loved the story, but since you do
not like the game play and the lack of character interaction you judge the
story. 

No. If it had been a book it would have gotten laughed off of the publishers desk and never seen print. Bioware doesn't deserve any praise for the hot mess that was the narrative of DA2. 

[TJPags]

Everwarden wrote...

RPGrogue wrote...
I am arguing the fact Bioware deserves recognition for this story. I believe if
it had been a book or film you all would have loved the story, but since you do
not like the game play and the lack of character interaction you judge the
story. 

No. If it had been a book it would have gotten laughed off of the publishers desk and never seen print. Bioware doesn't deserve any praise for the hot mess that was the narrative of DA2. 

They get credit from me for trying something new.

It didn't work, though . . . and I gave you reasons why earlier.  The best idea in the world means nothing it its not executed well.