667 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

@ Shadow of Light  Dragon (gosh, that's a mouthful) and Bob

May I respectfully request that the two of you get the heck out of my head?
But I thank you both nevertheless for saving me a whole lot of typing.

[In Exile]

Cybermortis wrote...
Except there was nothing in DAO that even hinted that you had any choise over the overall story - that is you had to deal with Logain and the Blight and this was very clear as soon as you'd done Ostogar. Your choises in DAO related to how you dealt with them, and how far or what you were willing to do to get the allies you needed.

I'm not denying this, but DA2 was the same way. Again, it's clear which game was better done; I just don't think double standards are good.

DA2 has no clear 'you must do this' story, which sounds great right until you start to realise that the only way the dev's could get Hawke to follow the plot was to prevent you from making what should have been logical choices.

DA:O is much the same way; you can't not pursue a crazy woman's belief that a religious artefact would save her husband, for example.

For an DAO example, In Ozamar you have to side with one of the two contenders for the throne, you can pick which one but you have no option not to get involved. This, however, is not a problem storywise since you need the Dwarven army and putting someone on the throne is the only way to get that army. In order to put someone on the throne you have to go into the Deep Roads.

The Urn isn't good at all; but DA:O deserves credit that it will give you the option to say **** it, unlike DA2. And that's what makes it the better executed product.

But in terms of how decisions are handled, there's not much difference from DA2 because they're not followed up on. The major diffference is that DA2 is in effect its own sequel (because of the year by year gaps) and as a result it feels like you should see consequences. Bioware just doesn't do this and uses smoke and mirrors, and for whatever reason people bought into it in DA:O and ME but not in DA2.

In DA2 there is no reason given for Hawke to do all the quests in act one, then go into the Deep Roads - in fact Hawke will point out that if they had the money to go down there he/she wouldn't need to go down there...but then seems to forget this two seconds later. Heck, there is no reason why Hawke has to stay in Kirkwall after the first year and every reason to leave.

In DA:O there's no reason that you'd insanely try to save Ferelden by yourself instead of go to Orlais to raise an actual army. The plot demands it, though, so there you are.

I've noted in other posts that the problem with DA2's story is that there is nothing or no one you are attempting to overcome throughout the game. Basically the game needed an end goal to focus on, which in turn would help to explain why Hawke is doing things that have no clear logic behind them.

Not really. Like with DA:O (or any other Bioware game) they expected you to make up your own reason to justify the plot. Just this one time, they avoided the secret warrior order. But it seems people need that.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 avril 2011 - 02:36 .

[Obadiah]

The problem is DA2's plot doesn't gel together into one complete fleshed out narrative, or even three narratives, whereas the plots of DAO and ME do.

There are also specific conversations that explain why the surviving Wardens in DAO do what it is they do, it was not necessary to the "make up your own reason to justify the plot."

In Exile wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...
Except there was nothing in DAO that even hinted that you had any choise over the overall story - that is you had to deal with Logain and the Blight and this was very clear as soon as you'd done Ostogar. Your choises in DAO related to how you dealt with them, and how far or what you were willing to do to get the allies you needed.

I'm not denying this, but DA2 was the same way. Again, it's clear which game was better done; I just don't think double standards are good.

The difference is that when you accomplished a goal in DAO, there were different reprocussions depending on how you accomplished that. In DA2 when the player accomplished a goal there weren't any reprocussions, and the outcome couldn't really be affected much.

But taking the discussion in a direction which requires references to plot points is not really good for a "NO Spoiler" thread.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 avril 2011 - 03:36 .

[In Exile]

Obadiah wrote...

The problem is DA2's plot doesn't gel together into one complete fleshed out narrative, or even three narratives, whereas the plots of DAO and ME do.

Absolutely agree.

There are also specific conversations that explain why the surviving Wardens in DAO do what it is they do, it was not necessary to the "make up your own reason to justify the plot."

No, there aren't. The game does not give a reason why a Cousland would not search the wilds for Fergus versus go along with Alistair or otherwise flee to Orlais to rally the Wardens (which, according to Gaidner, is what Duncan would have done had he lived).

There is no reason for a kidnapped Dalish elf to care about Ferelden instead of tracking down his own people. A Mage could flee as an apostate - freedom is finally in sight and only Alistair might be in the way. A City elf could return to Denerim to flee with the family, away from the Blight.

Lots and lots of reasons which are never addressed under the call of heroism. You get very few generic dialogues after Ostagar, and from then you put on your Grey Warden hat and go off to fight the blight. That's just the buy-in of an RPG, though - joint the party and complete the quest. You have to buy into being an adventurer for the game to work, because anyone normal would just stay home.

The difference is that when you accomplished a goal in DAO, there were different reprocussions depending on how you accomplished that. In DA2 when the player accomplished a goal there weren't any reprocussions, and the outcome couldn't really be affected much.

But taking the discussion in a direction which requires references to plot points is not really good for a "NO Spoiler" thread.

It would be. The outcome isn't affected at all in DA:O except for very small changes in the end game; otherwise all events are handled in-game as with the Act of Mercy Quest.

DA2 fails to the consequences we'd expect from a game spanning years, but what the failure of DA2 to show consequences really shows is a failure of Bioware's design. They removed enough of their original framework that the smoke and mirror that made people feel as if their choice had depth is gone.

[Cyberfrog81]

Some people still seem confused. I don't know if it's the marketing or the game's visuals or what. But this is no action game.

I probably wouldn't even have minded a genre change if DA2 had actually been a good action game. If that's the direction they want to go in with the gameplay, then they need to commit to it as hard as they committed to the new dialog system with the voiced protagonist.

But if they're still in the business of making great RPGs, remembered for their fantastic, immersive stories... DA2 is probably, unfortunately, "doing it wrong".

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 26 avril 2011 - 01:35 .

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
There are also specific conversations that explain why the surviving Wardens in DAO do what it is they do, it was not necessary to the "make up your own reason to justify the plot."

No, there aren't. The game does not give a reason why a Cousland would not search the wilds for Fergus versus go along with Alistair or otherwise flee to Orlais to rally the Wardens (which, according to Gaidner, is what Duncan would have done had he lived).

There is no reason for a kidnapped Dalish elf to care about Ferelden instead of tracking down his own people. A Mage could flee as an apostate - freedom is finally in sight and only Alistair might be in the way. A City elf could return to Denerim to flee with the family, away from the Blight.

It does, but in addition, you are assuming the PC to be a selfish character to want to do those other things.

In Exile wrote...

The difference is that when you accomplished a goal in DAO, there were different reprocussions depending on how you accomplished that. In DA2 when the player accomplished a goal there weren't any reprocussions, and the outcome couldn't really be affected much.

But taking the discussion in a direction which requires references to plot points is not really good for a "NO Spoiler" thread.

It would be. The outcome isn't affected at all in DA:O except for very small changes in the end game; otherwise all events are handled in-game as with the Act of Mercy Quest.

DA2 fails to the consequences we'd expect from a game spanning years, but what the failure of DA2 to show consequences really shows is a failure of Bioware's design. They removed enough of their original framework that the smoke and mirror that made people feel as if their choice had depth is gone.

Depending on how the player achieved the goals, I dont think the differences in outcomes are small at all. While saving Ferelden, the PC essentially shaped the nation in some very big ways. There is nothing like that in DA2.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 avril 2011 - 05:20 .

[In Exile]

Obadiah wrote...
It does, but in addition, you are assuming the PC to be selfish character to want to do those things.

But if we assume a noble an heroic Hawke, you've got a motivation for every quest in the game in DA2 as well. 

Depending on how the player achieved the goals, I dont think the differences in outcomes are small at all. While saving Ferelden, the PC essentially shaped the nation in some very big ways. There is nothing like that in DA2.

I have to disagree. The only major decision is in Orzammar. I'd actually argue that the Ruler of Ferelden choice isn't significant, but that would be spoiler heavy. Your choice at the Circle tower is irrelvant, and so too in the Brecilian forest (it doesn't even really concern Ferelden atlll). In terms of impact, the outcome of the Act III quest for Meril is comparable to the Brecilian forest, honestly. As well as other quests like Night Terrors or the end choice of Act II.

What DA2 suffers from is Bioware losing their ability to keep their smoke & mirrors going. I agree that DA2 failed to support much choice, but I think DA:O failed to do the same.

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...
But if we assume a noble an heroic Hawke, you've got a motivation for every quest in the game in DA2 as well. 

I didn't assume that about the Warden, and it is not necessary to assume that to have the Warden decide to fight the Blight or save Ferelden. Among other reasons it can be done purely out of self preservation, out of a need for vengenance, or out of a lack of alternative viable options.

In Exile wrote...
...
I have to disagree. The only major decision is in Orzammar.
...

Those other decisions you mentioned in DAO are pretty significant. One has to go about actually minimizing them in order to make them not so. If they ever fix Merril's quest in DA2 it may actually be as interesting.

In Exile wrote...
What DA2 suffers from is Bioware losing their ability to keep their smoke & mirrors going. I agree that DA2 failed to support much choice, but I think DA:O failed to do the same.

One may call it that - I call it a lack of an engrossing compelling narrative where your decisions have no (or minimal) impact on the outcome.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 avril 2011 - 05:59 .

[In Exile]

Obadiah wrote...
I didn't assume that about the Warden, and it is not necessary to assume that to have the Warden decide to fight the Blight or save Ferelden. Among other reasons it can be done purely out of self preservation, out of a need for vengenance, or out of a lack of alternative viable options.

That doesn't make sense. The Warden faces abominations alone, trecks into the deep roads, challenges demons and gets involved in a civil war, all culminating in a massive battle (outnumbered, no less!) in Denerim.

Self-preservation is in the other direction.

You can throw all of these reasons for why you would take these quests in DA2. My point is that the game always requires you to come up with a justification, and DA:O was particularly bad because your character is forced into the Grey Wardens (so you don't need to bring in wanting to be a Warden as part of your character concept) and DA:O does nothing to make you identify with the Wardens.

]
Those other decisions you mentioned in DAO are pretty significant. One has to go about actually minimizing them in order to make them not so. If they ever fix Merril's quest in DA2 it may actually be as interesting.

With who rules Ferelden... think about the consequences of the taint, and what accusations are put foward against Anora. Then ask yourself, regardless of who rules, who will be heir after? The answer is actually the same for all of them, hence why the significance of this choice is overstated greatly.

The same with the Tower. It's an insitutition that has to exist. Whether or not it is made up of the same people at the start of the game.

One may call it that - I call it a lack of an engrossing compelling narrative where your decisions have no (or minimal) impact on the outcome.

Just like DA:O.

ETA:

Don't get me wrong - in DA:O, you had to make these choices, and the devs didn't go out of their way to tell you that 3 years later none of them mattered, so DA:O isn't on par with DA2 in terms of the smoke and mirror being thrown at you. It just didn't have the same choice design as, for example, Alpha Protocol. That is a game that changes rather drastically based on your choices as you play it.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 avril 2011 - 08:05 .

[Cybermortis]

DA:O is much the same way; you can't not pursue a crazy woman's belief that a religious artefact would save her husband, for example.

It is explained, at least twice, that they tried everything they could think of to cure Arl Eamon. The Ashes were the last hope - also noted at least twice.

It is also fairly clear as to WHY you needed to look for them - you need Eamon on your side because he is the only noble who has the political power, respect and forces you need to deal with Logain AND fight the Blight.

All of this is put before you before you even before you get the ashes quest.

In DA:O there's no reason that you'd insanely try to save Ferelden by yourself instead of go to Orlais to raise an actual army. The plot demands it, though, so there you are.

Not quite.

You can discuss this with Alistair, and he will note that Logain must have taken steps to stop the Wardens from Orlais from entering Ferelden. (Which is later proved to be correct). You can't send an army into another country to fight the blight without permission, unless you want to end up fighting the locals as well as the blight. So you'd have to get rid of Logain anyway - and do so without it appearing as if you are the vanguard for an invasion.

Besides which, Alistair will note that he has no idea how to get in touch with the rest of the Wardens, and that you simply don't have the time to go trekking around the world looking for them.

The game does not give a reason why a Cousland would not search the wilds for Fergus versus go along with Alistair

Yes, it does.

Morrigan will note that A; The wilds is currently filled with Darkspawn. B; You have no idea if Fergus is even alive and C; You haven't got the faintest idea where to start looking anyway.

There is no reason for a kidnapped Dalish elf to care about Ferelden instead of tracking down his own people. A Mage could flee as an apostate - freedom is finally in sight and only Alistair might be in the way. A City elf could return to Denerim to flee with the family, away from the Blight.

'I'm surprised your and Elf/Dwarf. But I guess Elves/Dwarves must want the blight stopped as much as humans, no?' - Lillianna to a none-human Warden.

'Its a pity they took my phylactey (sp?) to Denerim' - Mage origin.

You have to buy into being an adventurer for the game to work, because anyone normal would just stay home.

I'm trying to think of a single warden origin story that leaves the warden with a home to go back too.

[In Exile]

Cybermortis wrote...
It is explained, at least twice, that they tried everything they could think of to cure Arl Eamon. The Ashes were the last hope - also noted at least twice.

It is also fairly clear as to WHY you needed to look for them - you need Eamon on your side because he is the only noble who has the political power, respect and forces you need to deal with Logain AND fight the Blight.

All of this is put before you before you even before you get the ashes quest.

So you let Eamon die and lead with Arl Teagan, and you hope for the best. The plan is insane no matter what, and you can't complain or move around its insanity. You just have to do it, and worst of all, Sten calls you out on it.

You need Eamon to call the landsmeet. You actually discredit Loghain yourself at the Landsmeet, and even if you lose you can just beat his ass in single combat. Eamon has relevance only in calling the Landsmeet, and the Civil War + Teagan's status as his heir could be enough to move the nobles to Denerim.

In any case, that is preferable to the insane plot to find the magical holy grail in the middle of absolutely nowhere.

Not quite.

You can discuss this with Alistair, and he will note that Logain must have taken steps to stop the Wardens from Orlais from entering Ferelden. (Which is later proved to be correct). You can't send an army into another country to fight the blight without permission, unless you want to end up fighting the locals as well as the blight. So you'd have to get rid of Logain anyway - and do so without it appearing as if you are the vanguard for an invasion.

Besides which, Alistair will note that he has no idea how to get in touch with the rest of the Wardens, and that you simply don't have the time to go trekking around the world looking for them.

You misunderstand. You're assuming my character gives a rotten fig about Ferelden.

Going to Orlais is less insane than relying on centuries old treaties and trecking across half the land.

The game demands that you care to be the lone gunman hero to save Ferelden. This is just Bioware's hook. DA2 wanted the same, but people aren't as willing to buy in.

Yes, it does.

Morrigan will note that A; The wilds is currently filled with Darkspawn. B; You have no idea if Fergus is even alive and C; You haven't got the faintest idea where to start looking anyway.

Right, and that's totally different than the insane plan for 2 Wardens to try to raise an army alone to overthrow the Regen of Ferelden and fight the Blight.

Please, the whole game is predicated on a crazy long-shot after crazy longshot.

'I'm surprised your and Elf/Dwarf. But I guess Elves/Dwarves must want the blight stopped as much as humans, no?' - Lillianna to a none-human Warden.

No. What if I don't care? Then what does the game do?

This is the same stubborn resistence to the DA2 plot. What if Hawke doesn't care about the x part of the plot? Tough luck; you have to. DA:O is the same way.

If you don't buy into I Ferelden/Grey Wardens, you don't have a plot hook in DA:O.

'Its a pity they took my phylactey (sp?) to Denerim' - Mage origin.

Sorry boys, off to the Tevinter. Grey Warden business, you see.

As far as the Circle is concerned, you're a Warden. As far as the Wardens are concerned, you died at Ostagar.

Say it after me: freedooom! (think Mel Gibson voice).

I'm trying to think of a single warden origin story that leaves the warden with a home to go back too.

I meant in general, in RPGs. Actually trying to be a hero is the unreasonable choice. Which discounts just not wanting to die.

In every Bio RPG you're the hero doing heroic things, and then you have your post hoc reason for actually going along the rails left by the plot. DA:O was a brilliant game, but you have to want to be a hero and stop the blight for it to work.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 avril 2011 - 08:15 .

[erynnar]

Pygmali0n wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Pygmali0n wrote...
Let me spell it out for you in simple terms - your long-time fans aren't thick, they are amongst the most intelligent gamers out there - they should be your weather gauge - not your whipping boys for your failure.

Maybe that is the problem ? Stupid people are both less demanding and more numerous, the ideal buyer.

A grimly satisfying explanation - but it's been tried and failed - now Bioware has the justification to make Dragon Age actually awesome, to make real improvements - but stay within the genre - that's the way to entice new people over to your game whilst keeping the old fans - make it irresistable, make them want to spend a little time to learn the controls and tactics.

This^.  Ah, for a game like an interactive book with a little cinematics thrown in and the chance to use my brain other than deciding between ring or ring to equip or sell...

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...
That doesn't make sense. The Warden faces abominations alone, trecks into the deep roads, challenges demons and gets involved in a civil war, all culminating in a massive battle (outnumbered, no less!) in Denerim.

Self-preservation is in the other direction.

It's self preservation because of the Warden's circumstance and other enemies. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that in this forum.

In Exile wrote...
You can throw all of these reasons for why you would take these quests in DA2. My point is that the game always requires you to come up with a justification, and DA:O was particularly bad because your character is forced into the Grey Wardens (so you don't need to bring in wanting to be a Warden as part of your character concept) and DA:O does nothing to make you identify with the Wardens.

I don't think that is really a valid point. I think there is some serious reaching in the assertion that "you have to come up with a justification" to follow the plot. The justifcation is explained at several points in detail, and it made sense to me. I found myself identifying with the Wardens just fine. Maybe you just had a different experience. Dunno.

In Exile wrote...

Those other decisions you mentioned in DAO are pretty significant. One has to go about actually minimizing them in order to make them not so. If they ever fix Merril's quest in DA2 it may actually be as interesting.

With who rules Ferelden... think about the consequences of the taint, and what accusations are put foward against Anora. Then ask yourself, regardless of who rules, who will be heir after? The answer is actually the same for all of them, hence why the significance of this choice is overstated greatly.

Regardless of the heir (which I don't think is a foregone conculsion) you don't think the question of who rules a country for decades is a big deal?

In Exile wrote...


The same with the Tower. It's an insitutition that has to exist. Whether or not it is made up of the same people at the start of the game.

The question is not whether it exists or not, but how it exists and how it affects those people's lives. The assertion that the Warden's decisions at the tower have no lasting effect is somewhat short-sighted.

In Exile wrote...

One may call it that - I call it a lack of an engrossing compelling narrative where your decisions have no (or minimal) impact on the outcome.

Just like DA:O.
ETA:
Don't get me wrong - in DA:O, you had to make these choices, and the devs didn't go out of their way to tell you that 3 years later none of them mattered, so DA:O isn't on par with DA2 in terms of the smoke and mirror being thrown at you. It just didn't have the same choice design as, for example, Alpha Protocol. That is a game that changes rather drastically based on your choices as you play it.

No it's not like DAO. DAO had an engrossing compelling narrative which kept me interested and playing the game. Same with ME. DAO had an epilogue which described the effects of the choices the Warden made. 

DA2 did not. I 'm not speaking of game play or plot changes based on choices (though that would be nice), I'm just speaking of the story. In fact, they appear to have done away with the epilogue just to get players to buy something else.

I was not expecting drastic changes in the gameplay or plot based on the choices in DA2, what I was expecting was some idea of how those choices mattered. To me the "outcome" is not "Warden or player beat monster X", the outcome is the state of the world once the game is complete.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 avril 2011 - 10:33 .

[In Exile]

Obadiah wrote...
It's self preservation because of the Warden's circumstance and other enemies. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that in this forum.

There is a tremendous plothole with one particular enemy that hounds you (which most peg as the main antagonist) through the game, based on having a (a very unjustified) artists rendering of you right after you leave the Wilds.

I don't think that is really a valid point. I think there is some serious reaching in the assertion that "you have to come up with a justification" to follow the plot. The justifcation is explained at several points in detail, and it made sense to me. I found myself identifying with the Wardens just fine. Maybe you just had a different experience. Dunno.

Repeatedly, you are told that Grey Wardens stop the Blight, and that not acting now will allow it to ravage Ferelden. But what if you don't care? The same applies with the quests in DA2, even early on. Do these particualr things for that particular end. You're told this repeatedly. Each act has the same hook Bioware always gives.

I never identified with the Wardens. As a person, and as a consequence the characters I design. If you want, I can take it to PM (to add spoilers) to illustrate why from a narrative standpoint, Bioware used the same formula in DA2 they used in DA:O, they just changed the bait, and people seem to have bought it less.

Personally, I never got on the Wardens or Ferelden bandwagon, so being told that either was at stake was about as engaging as being told the soup will get cold if I don't eat it right away.

In Exile wrote...
Regardless of the heir (which I don't think is a foregone conculsion) you don't think the question of who rules a country for decades is a big deal?

If you think that the same end (but different middle) is a major decision, then Act of Mercy was a quest where you had significant impact. Same with Enemies Among Us.

The scope is smaller, but you can't fault the design for that. The conception of the choice is always what Bioware does, though. DA2 isn't different.

The question is not whether it exists or not, but how it exists and how it affects those people's lives. The assertion that the Warden's decisions at the tower have no lasting effect is somewhat short-sighted.

Then, again, there are several quests where your actions change the lives of people and plausibly the future fate of Thedas. I can list them for you:

Act of Mercy
Enemies Among Us
Following the Qun
The Law Straw
Magistrate's Orders
Night Terrors

If you want to grant that these quests really do offer significant choice, then by virtue of their design, the above quests neccesarily offer the player the same choice.

No it's not like DAO. DAO had an engrossing compelling narrative which kept me interested and playing the game. Same with ME. DAO had an epilogue which described the effects of the choices the Warden made.

DA:O had a very uninteresting narrative that kept me engaged only in virtue of the brilliant characters that I travelled with and the very interesting disconnected stories in each main quest. The blight itself was boring and uninteresting, and Ostagar + the Final Battle were the worst and least satisfying aspects of the game for me.  If we're going to credit subjective experience of the story, then we can't really evaluate DA2.

I thought we were talking about implementation.

I was not expecting drastic changes in the gameplay or plot based on the choices in DA2, what I was expecting was some idea of how those choices mattered. To me the "outcome" is not "Warden or player beat monster X", the outcome is the state of the world once the game is complete.

Well, the state of the world is that maybe only Orzammar mattered. Just like in ME, only 2 choices mattered, and in ME2, apparently only one choice might really matter.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 avril 2011 - 12:00 .

[Lucy Glitter]

devSin wrote...

Abysmal. But justified.

Sums up my thoughts.

I mean. I really like DA2 but it left a lot to be desired in many areas. Which is a big shame.

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...
...
But what if you don't care?
...

If you didn't care that Ferelden would be consumed by the Blight (thus killing friends, family, pretty much everyone you ever knew or cared about) then that's that. I don't really think a developer is obligated to build a game for that perspective.

In Exile wrote...
...
I never identified with the Wardens. As a person, and as a consequence the characters I design. If you want, I can take it to PM (to add spoilers) to illustrate why from a narrative standpoint, Bioware used the same formula in DA2 they used in DA:O, they just changed the bait, and people seem to have bought it less.
...
DA:O had a very uninteresting narrative that kept me engaged only in virtue of the brilliant characters that I travelled with and the very interesting disconnected stories in each main quest. The blight itself was boring and uninteresting, and Ostagar + the Final Battle were the worst and least satisfying aspects of the game for me. 
If we're going to credit subjective experience of the story, then we can't really evaluate DA2.
...
Well, the state of the world is that maybe only Orzammar mattered. Just like in ME, only 2 choices mattered, and in ME2, apparently only one choice might really matter.

If you didn't like DAO's narrative and didn't care about those choices you made, then you didn't like it, but that is not some sort of absolute truth for everyone else to accept.

You've already admitted that it was better executed than DA2. To me, a big part of that was getting feedback on the effects my decisons had on Ferelden. The simple text epilogue in DAO that is missing in DA2 was part of that, but there was also a fair amount of feedback in-game. DA2 had the same multiple-paths-to-goal structure, but very little on it's effects.

The list of quests you gave is a perfect example. Most of those you do, and never hear about, or get minimal feedback on them.

In Exile wrote...
...
I thought we were talking about implementation.
...

Implementation wise, the Champion makes a choice at the end of DA2 and it doesn't matter. I don't think it's a double standard when compared to other Bioware games. The choices at the end of ME1 appeared to matter until ME2 came along (which is why I like ME1 so much). The choices in DAO appear to matter, but may not once a proper sequel comes around. That is why I like DAO more.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 avril 2011 - 02:54 .

[Tommy6860]

Obadiah wrote...

The choices at the end of ME1 appeared to matter until ME2 came along (which is why I like ME1 so much). The choices in DAO appear to matter, but may not once a proper sequel comes around. That is why I like DAO more.

OT for this forum, but....

Why wouldn't the choices you make at the end of ME not have a difference in ME2, they did for me anyway? And how those choices can still play out in the long haul will be interesting, if they include that little subplot in ME3. Don't get me wrong, IMO, ME was definitively the better game, mainly from an RPG experience and the epic-ness that was the story told through the characters. In fact (Ihave said this before here many times), it is the best story I have ever experienced in a game, ever. I thought ME2 was weak until I gave it a thorough 2nd run and really listened to the dialogue. It still wasn't as grand a story as ME, but it certianly turned into a very good game for me.

[Elcariel]

In Exile wrote...

Repeatedly, you are told that Grey Wardens stop the Blight, and that not acting now will allow it to ravage Ferelden. But what if you don't care? The same applies with the quests in DA2, even early on. Do these particualr things for that particular end. You're told this repeatedly. Each act has the same hook Bioware always gives.

I never identified with the Wardens. As a person, and as a consequence the characters I design. If you want, I can take it to PM (to add spoilers) to illustrate why from a narrative standpoint, Bioware used the same formula in DA2 they used in DA:O, they just changed the bait, and people seem to have bought it less.

I didn't particularly identify with the Wardens either. But you're forgetting the taint. It seemed very clear to my character that only the Wardens would know how it was possible to survive with this poison in my blood, and the Archdemon whispering in my thoughts. Everyone else infected turned into a raving lunatic. So going off on my own seemed to be a death sentence. At least with Alistair & Morrigan (and later others) I had company and someone watching my back.

[Obadiah]

Tommy6860 wrote...
...
Why wouldn't the choices you make at the end of ME not have a difference in ME2, they did for me anyway?
...

I thought the choices did matter to the larger ME universe, but not for ME2's story or Shep much.

Tommy6860 wrote...
...
And how those choices can still play out in the long haul will be interesting, if they include that little subplot in ME3. Don't get me wrong, IMO, ME was definitively the better game, mainly from an RPG experience and the epic-ness that was the story told through the characters. In fact (Ihave said this before here many times), it is the best story I have ever experienced in a game, ever. I thought ME2 was weak until I gave it a thorough 2nd run and really listened to the dialogue. It still wasn't as grand a story as ME, but it certianly turned into a very good game for me.

Quite so, quite so. I liked ME2 better the 2nd time as well, but still not as much as ME1.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 avril 2011 - 03:11 .

[In Exile]

Obadiah wrote...
If you didn't care that Ferelden would be consumed by the Blight (thus killing friends, family, pretty much everyone you ever knew or cared about) then that's that. I don't really think a developer is obligated to build a game for that perspective.

I agree completely. But that's the same as DA2. If you don't play a meddlesome Hawke that gets involved, that's that. Bioware's formula is the same; they just underestimated the degree to which people invent plot hooks for themselves.

I don't want to defend DA2, but there are parts about the game that are poor implementation that Bioware always had; people just seem to notice them now, and since they've been pet peev

If you didn't like DAO's narrative and didn't care about those choices you made, then you didn't like it, but that is not some sort of absolute truth for everyone else to accept.

I didn't say I didn't care about the choices. I cared very much about the choices I made; I just think that in the context of DA:O we can demonstrate that the majority are irrelevant fluff; to the story, to the future of Thedas, and to gameplay.

You've already admitted that it was better executed than DA2. To me, a big part of that was getting feedback on the effects my decisons had on Ferelden. The simple text epilogue in DAO that is missing in DA2 was part of that, but there was also a fair amount of feedback in-game. DA2 had the same multiple-paths-to-goal structure, but very little on it's effects.

I can't comment on the subjective value of the epilogue as that was, well, valueless for me.

With regard to the effects, I agree and disagree. I disagree insofar as quests immediately resolved as Bioware always resolves them; with varied outcomes and reactons. I agree, in the sense that the choices were then promptly ignored or overwritten in the subsequent act.

The list of quests you gave is a perfect example. Most of those you do, and never hear about, or get minimal feedback on them.

You get the same feedback you get in-game in DA:O. Once you save the Tower and speak to Irving/Gregoire; that's it. No feedback. Once you pick a King for Orzammar, that's it; no feedback.

The list just goes on.

Implementation wise, the Champion makes a choice at the end of DA2 and it doesn't matter. I don't think it's a double standard when compared to other Bioware games. The choices at the end of ME1 appeared to matter until ME2 came along (which is why I like ME1 so much). The choices in DAO appear to matter, but may not once a proper sequel comes around. That is why I like DAO more.

There were two choices in ME1 that seemed to matter; there are arguably 2 choices in DA2 that seem to matter; and there were arguably 2 choices ( I forgot DR!) that seemed to matter in DA:O.

Choices where, you would think, the entire existence of the world would differ if you had chosen differently.

The double standard is in claiming that DA2 hadled choice differently than other Bioware games in terms of how that choice was presented or in terms of the consequences from it.

The subjective satisfaction is an independent thing, and I agree that the scope of the irrelevant choice was much smaller in DA2 than DA:O.

[In Exile]

Elcariel wrote...
I didn't particularly identify with the Wardens either. But you're forgetting the taint. It seemed very clear to my character that only the Wardens would know how it was possible to survive with this poison in my blood, and the Archdemon whispering in my thoughts. Everyone else infected turned into a raving lunatic. So going off on my own seemed to be a death sentence. At least with Alistair & Morrigan (and later others) I had company and someone watching my back.

You don't know about the taint. You know you drank poison, but you don't know it gives you powers, you don't know it shortens your lifespan, and you don't even know you are tainted. Alistair tells you what the taint is well into your journey.

But all this gives you even more reason to go to Orlais instead of chill with the absolutely ignorant Grey Warden recruit who has no idea what the Joining even is.

What I am saying is that if you abandon a character concept that wants to either be a Warden or save Ferelden for the sake of saving Ferelden, the plot breaks down. DA2 needs a Hawke that wants to be meddlesome or the plot breaks down. Bioware just excepts that kind of buy-in.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 avril 2011 - 08:04 .

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
If you didn't care that Ferelden would be consumed by the Blight (thus killing friends, family, pretty much everyone you ever knew or cared about) then that's that. I don't really think a developer is obligated to build a game for that perspective.

I agree completely. But that's the same as DA2. If you don't play a meddlesome Hawke that gets involved, that's that. Bioware's formula is the same; they just underestimated the degree to which people invent plot hooks for themselves.

I don't want to defend DA2, but there are parts about the game that are poor implementation that Bioware always had; people just seem to notice them now, and since they've been pet peev

The arguement that both games are the same because they give the player a goal and allow a choice of one of multple paths to achieve that goal is to oversimplify the plots to the point of being useless. One might as well say all books are the same because they have covers.

[Edit] I will concede that many Bioware quests have a mechanic of "do-it-something-happens/don't-no-feedback."

It's just not useful to equate a plot to save friends, family, and country (DAO) with a meandering plot to endlessly react to circumstances out of ones control (DA2) . In DAO the Warden has a clear goal for the entire game. In DA2 interesting stuff just sort of happens to Hawke. As for player having to "invent plot hooks," I think the player had a clear reason to follow the plot in DAO, not so much in DA2 (unless they liked the combat and were just looking for the next one).

My expectation of DA2 was a compelling reason to follow a plot. I had that in DAO, and I didn't in DA2.

In Exile wrote...
...
I cared very much about the choices I made; I just think that in the context of DA:O we can demonstrate that the majority are irrelevant fluff; to the story, to the future of Thedas, and to gameplay.
...

In the context of achieving your eventual goal gameplay mechanics-wise one may call it irrelevant (I don't because they can affect your troops and abilities). But I don't think people really play Bioware games for gameplay mechanics, I think it's more for the story, and story-wise the choices are immensely relevant in DAO. They're not really in DA2.

In Exile wrote...
...
You get the same feedback you get in-game in DA:O. Once you save the Tower and speak to Irving/Gregoire; that's it. No feedback. Once you pick a King for Orzammar, that's it; no feedback.

The list just goes on.
...

Characters comment on your choices in game in DAO, they don't really in DA2 unless a quest is directly connected to them, and even then sometimes not. How you resolve the Broken Circle can impact the resolution of other parts of the game. For Orzammar at least 3 other NPCs besides the people involved in that decision comment on your choice, you may end up with extra combat, an extra army, and there is the epilogue.

In Exile wrote...

Implementation wise, the Champion makes a choice at the end of DA2 and it doesn't matter. I don't think it's a double standard when compared to other Bioware games. The choices at the end of ME1 appeared to matter until ME2 came along (which is why I like ME1 so much). The choices in DAO appear to matter, but may not once a proper sequel comes around. That is why I like DAO more.

There were two choices in ME1 that seemed to matter; there are arguably 2 choices in DA2 that seem to matter; and there were arguably 2 choices ( I forgot DR!) that seemed to matter in DA:O.

Choices where, you would think, the entire existence of the world would differ if you had chosen differently.

The double standard is in claiming that DA2 hadled choice differently than other Bioware games in terms of how that choice was presented or in terms of the consequences from it.
...

First, there are way more than 2 choices in DAO that matter in the shaping of Ferelden. I won't list them here, and anyway we clearly have different criteria for "big" choices.

Second, here is the difference. When the player makes a choice in DA2, there is very little feedback and it doesn't matter at the end. When the player makes a choice in DAO, there is feedback in game, the choices impact the climax, and there is an epilogue describing the impact of choices into the future. This is how the choices are handled differently.

That may mean "DAO and DA2 handled choices the same" to some, but not to me.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 avril 2011 - 02:53 .

[DSGrant]

ejoslin wrote...

I hope DA2 is profitable enough that there is a DA3. And I hope they take what people seem to like about both games and build upon them and make a fantastic game with an engaging story.

I completely agree. I'm not hoping for the franchise to fail, but I do want to see vast improvements over the disappointments of DA2, and I think they can address most of that by essentially taking the best of both games and combining them. I also think an encouraging sign toward that end would be for Mr. Laidlaw to acknowledge the disappointment of a significant portion of his core fanbase instead of seemingly dismissing that in his PR campaign to sell the game, and his personal pride over this "new direction" that apparently pleased him more than it did the players he's supposed to be designing the game for.

That said, I won't be pre-ordering DA3, nor will I buy it until I've read some consistently good player reviews in the weeks following its release. I'll pre-order ME3, and I've already pre-ordered SWTOR, but I'll treat DA3 like radioactive waste until I know it's safe.

[Icinix]

The sales figures themselves aside, what really drives home for me the lower than regular quality..is the fact that such a relatively short amount of time has passed and I have had little to stuff all interest in the game beyond the one play through and a handful of attempted runs.

By the time previous BioWare games hit the 6 / 7 week mark...I was doing more runs, begging for DLC and gobbling up the entire franchise in every way I possibly could.

DA2 is like a distant memory of something I dabbled in, years gone by.

[DSGrant]

Rann wrote...


  But one thing to remember is that DA2 doesn't need to do as well as DA:O.  From a strictly *business* perspective, cranking out games twice as fast is better for the bottom line as long as you move more than 50% of the units than you did before and as long as the price point is much the same.  DA:O may have sold much better, but it was a longer and (presumably) much more expensive product cycle.  For all we know, the target management is hoping for may really be 70% - 75% of previous sales (or whatever), for which they'd probably still come out ahead. 

As a gamer, I'd definitely prefer the one that involved more development, scripting, etc., but as a shareholder I'd much prefer a more frequent shipping cycle with less resources involved (i.e, new areas instead of reused, etc.) even if  the reviews were slightly more negative and/or sales down a bit.  (The combat system question, OTOH, is a different dynamic, certainly more focused on demographics impact on sales rather than resources' impact on profit, although focus there then pulls focus away from other things, leading to more reuse of existing resources, etc.)  And if revenue dips too much, there's always DLC to help.

So, for example, I worry less about whether or not there is a DA3 (which others on this thread have been pondering), and instead wonder if a different balance will be struck between the cost to produce the game (i.e., resources used) vs. the profit made.  I.e., from a business point of view, is the current status "good enough," or is there thought that keeping the needle where it is will result in even more erosion for DA3 and beyond?  Given that the Bioware devs have been very candid about wanting to collect our feedback and have mentioned this a lot in various threads (and I have no reason to doubt what they say, being in the biz myself), I'd say that the position of the "needle" is probably at least being reevaluated.

My argument is admittedly totally moot for people who prefer DA2 anyway -- they are getting the best of both worlds, a compelling game for them as well as a reduced ship cycle for roughly the same cost that they paid before for DA:O.

For more indirect reasons, DA2 did need to do as well or better than DA:O. What you touched on about sales "erosion" is going to be much more impactful on DA3 profitability than you are accounting for with DA2 profitability alone. For the sake of argument, you could attribute approximately 40% of DA2's current sales total to pre-orders. You won't see nearly that many pre-orders for DA3, and you'll see dramatically less sales in the first few weeks or more as the players disappointed by DA2 "wait-n-see" how the reviews go before deciding to buy it. Unfortunately, even if DA3 is everything everyone wants out of the title, the damage is done and its sales are going to be handicapped by DA2. If DA3 does indeed end up rocking our socks off, the sales will pick up as word of mouth gets out about it and it will likely sell more moderately over a more protracted period of time. From a business perspective, companies like EA want to see a return on their investment sooner than later. They'd prefer more sales in the short term over the same number of sales in the long term. For the reasons I've already given, I think DA3 will fall into the latter category. So while DA2 may meet EA/BW expectations, it's comparative lack of success among the fans will affect their profit longevity for the franchise, and the question that we really should be concerned about is will there be a DA4 as a result?

Modifié par DSGrant, 26 avril 2011 - 10:27 .