667 réponses à ce sujet

[Pygmali0n]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

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".

A transexual dwarf in a badly fitting pink wig isn't calling me confused is he?  I think we have the same point.

[Pygmali0n]

In Exile wrote...


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.

Depends on your view of people I think - why are games made that predominately feature you being the hero?

I think it's lack of opportunity in people's lives that stop them being heroes.

Think back to WWI and WWII, millions of people volunteered before they were conscripted. Millions behaved like heroes on the battlefield. Even being a conscientious objector, considering the consequences, could be seen to be an heroic stance.

Even though it would be nice to see more cowardice in RPGs, I think heroism is more common.

[Dark83]

Cowardice is easy, heroism is hard. You don't need a game to experience the former.

[Cybermortis]

Obadiah wrote...

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.

They do and they don't.

The decisions you made in ME1 can affect Shepard in ME2. Sometimes by giving you an additional quest (there are two quests in ME2 you can only get if you have finished ME1 in a particular way). Othertimes it affects who you can run into and what is said, and of course there is that fact that if you saved the council in ME1 Shepard can be reinstated as a Spectre - which I would assume will have a major difference in how ME3 pans out.

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. 

Alistair doesn't know HOW to perform the joining, nor why the Wardens are the only ones who can defeat the Archdemon. Being the (formally) newest warden neither is surprising. He probably never bothered to ask, or figured that he'd be told when and if he needed to know.

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. 

But then if you didn't want to battle the blight and save Ferelden you wouldn't be playing the game would you? 


I do get your point though. However practically all games require the protaganist to act the 'hero' rather than stay at home. If they did that it would be a very short game...or a very long and dull one.

The catch is that while games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins require the character to be forced into being the hero. After you accept this there is a definate end goal in sight, and all of the quests you have to do to reach that are justified as a means to get to that point. Even the side quests can be seen in a similar (if indirect) light as they allow you to get more experience/money/better equipment for the end encounters.

In DA2 however there is no end goal, and therefore no reason for Hawke to get involved. In DAO once you have taken the mental jump that you want to stop the blight then the idea that you would stick around in Ferelden makes perfect sense. In DA2 there is no reason given for staying in Kirkwall, or going into the Deep Roads, nor any clear goal you are working towards - and the required 'side-quests' are therefore totally unrelated to what is going on at that time. You are, in essence, having to make a mental jump as to why Hawke is doing 95% of all the quests each and everytime. Rather than just having to make the same jump once.

Note that the end goal doesn't have to be Earth moving or 'epic'. As I noted elsewhere simply having a rival family Hawke wants to outdo or get revenge on would have worked just as well with the overall plot as is. It would have explained a lot, or at least provided some focus/justification for Hawkes actions.

[In Exile]

Cybermortis wrote...
Alistair doesn't know HOW to perform the joining, nor why the Wardens are the only ones who can defeat the Archdemon. Being the (formally) newest warden neither is surprising. He probably never bothered to ask, or figured that he'd be told when and if he needed to know.

Sure - but if your main concern is the taint, then saving Ferelden should actually be even lower on the priority list.

But then if you didn't want to battle the blight and save Ferelden you wouldn't be playing the game would you? 

It's the same with Kirkwall - if you don't want to rise to power in some way for some reason (putting aside whether or not actually doing so was botched) the game doesn't work.

I do get your point though. However practically all games require the protaganist to act the 'hero' rather than stay at home. If they did that it would be a very short game...or a very long and dull one.

I agree.

The catch is that while games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins require the character to be forced into being the hero. After you accept this there is a definate end goal in sight, and all of the quests you have to do to reach that are justified as a means to get to that point. Even the side quests can be seen in a similar (if indirect) light as they allow you to get more experience/money/better equipment for the end encounters.

In Dragon Age you are forced into quests (in character) you might think are insane. The Anvil of the Void and Urn of Sacred Ashes in particular. These are mystical quests that, given the prevalence of magic in our setting, would be like trying to stop WWII by finding the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant.

They're crazy long-shots, and for one of them Sten even calls you out about how crazy the long-shot is. That's my issue - even if you accept you want to end the Blight (or catch Saren) to an extent the plot demands it.

I will say that ME (not ME2, though) is much better written as to give you a reason to investigate every main quest world.

In DA2 however there is no end goal, and therefore no reason for Hawke to get involved. In DAO once you have taken the mental jump that you want to stop the blight then the idea that you would stick around in Ferelden makes perfect sense.

But individual quests don't. Like the Urn or Anvil. Even things like going into the tower yourself instead of simply running off to Denerim to get a faster answer to the Rite of Annulment.

What I am saying is not that DA:O was not well-done in terms of having an umbrella goal - it's that if you dig in yoru heels and say you need a very clear reason for something in DA2, you don't have that in DA:O either. That game has a LOT of faults, but there are certain poor design elements Bioware has always used I'm not fond of, and now that people are less willing to tolerate things in general, I try to remind them of faults Bioware has always had in the hope that even those might be fixed in a future release.

In DA2 there is no reason given for staying in Kirkwall, or going into the Deep Roads, nor any clear goal you are working towards - and the required 'side-quests' are therefore totally unrelated to what is going on at that time. You are, in essence, having to make a mental jump as to why Hawke is doing 95% of all the quests each and everytime. Rather than just having to make the same jump once.

You have to make it, really, for every quest except Arl Eamon and the Landsmeet in DA:O.

Note that the end goal doesn't have to be Earth moving or 'epic'. As I noted elsewhere simply having a rival family Hawke wants to outdo or get revenge on would have worked just as well with the overall plot as is. It would have explained a lot, or at least provided some focus/justification for Hawkes actions.

Get coin and run Kirkwall work just as well. That's the baseline plot, just like in DA:O it is to stop the darkspawn.

[Cybermortis]

In Dragon Age you are forced into quests (in character) you might think are insane. The Anvil of the Void and Urn of Sacred Ashes in particular.

Both are explained in context to the main plot.

The ashes are needed because it is a last desperate gamble to save the one noble in Ferelden who is capable of helping you. Ban Tegan isn't a viable option since he can only assume the title or Arl on his Brothers death - and killing his Brother would hardly make him an ally. Besides which as the younger brother he would not command the same respect as Eamon in the Landsmeet.

Note that the other nobles didn't even respond to his calls for assistance when Redcliffe was being attacked. So it seems unlikely he has many friends or much influence in the Landsmeet.

The Anvil mission is similar, in that in order to get the aid of the dwarves you need a king on the throne. The only way to deal with this situation, and from the look of things stop a civil war, is to break the deadlock. And the only way to do this is to get the aid of a Paragon, which requires a trip into the Deep Roads.


In other words both quests, no matter how daft they may seem, are both reasonable in the overall context of the story and plot.

In DA2 you don't get this. There is no reason to spend time making money to go into the Deep Roads, and even Hawke notes that if they had the money needed to go they wouldn't need to. At least Sten's complaints about the ashes quest in DAO are of someone who can't see the big picture. Rather than comments made by the main character, which eliminates any 'big-picture' logic, and who forgets their own reasoning within five seconds anyway.

It is this lack of a 'big-picture' that shows up the limitations of the storytelling in games, and in DA2 in particular. In DAO if you are willing to assume that the warden has a reason to go along with the overall story then you don't have to ask why they are doing the other quests. In DA2 you are constantly asking why Hawke is doing all these quests because they are not really connected to anything.

Even arguing that Hawke goes into the Deep Roads to get the money to buy the family home and titles doesn't hold up well. The reason being that this justification is given after you agree to do the endless side-quests, and then very much as an after thought - Consider that buying the house back is noted as a possibility AFTER you've agreed to go into the Deep Roads. And then it is noted as a possibility not the primary motivation.

Nor is there any logic behind staying in Kirkwall after the first year, or after act 1. Indeed given that at least one member of your family is an apostate throughout act one, this is a city full of Templar's and you don't have a home as such there is every reason to go somewhere else. (OK, so maybe the local Templars inability to connect the ability to lob fireballs past their noses with unregistered magic users might convince you things aren't quite that dangerous).

Again, while there is logic given as to why you go to Kirkwall and why you were there for a year. There is no logic given for staying after this first year.

[Elcariel]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

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.

A transexual dwarf in a badly fitting pink wig isn't calling me confused is he?  I think we have the same point.

Dude, that's a genderqueer dwarf. Transsexuals shave.

[In Exile]

[quote]Obadiah wrote...
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.[/quote]

That's not the argument. Rather, it is that Bioware gives the same hook, and divorces quests from that hook in the same way.

A 3 Act play that is garbage could be structurally similar to a brilliant 3 Act play, but that doesn't mean we have to treat them as captivating.

[quote]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) .[/quote]

But it is not right to construe the plot in this way, of both games. In DA2 your goal is to help your family; that's what happens for the prologue and then for Act I; and the country bit can justfy your actions in Act II and III.

In DA:O, you're an errand boy that reacts to circumstances just like in DA:O. In both games, you can say that family or country (or city state, really are your motivators.

All that is missing between DA:O and DA2 is the ever pressing danger of the blight. You need the exact same processes to justify your actions. The only difference is that you avoid the umbrella goal of the Blight. So it isn't ''****, the blight! But the Urn quest is dumb. But I have to do with, even if it breaks character. Why?''. Now you just have ''Friends in low places! That quest is dumb. But I have to do it, even if it breaks character. Why?".

[quote] 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).[/quote]

But the goal of the Warden does not justify your plot if you dig in your heels and say that you need a clear reason for each quest. Each quest has a 'why' you ought to do it, but if you don't buy the individual whys in DA2, it's not any diffferent from DA:O.

I know that I must seem ridiculously stubborn, but I'm like that on purpose because my point is that resisting to come up with a post hoc reason for the plot is what Bioware always wants of you.

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

Which is a shame, but says nothing about the plot hooks in either game. It just says something about your reaction.

[quote]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.[quote]

No; story-wise the choices are as irrelevant (or as relevant) in both games. The difference is scope. Each choice is literally irrelevant to the endgame as you can beat the game no matter what. What each choice does is create a slightly different Ferelden to make you feel as if your action did something; DA2 structures quests the same way. It then funnels you by the years instead of by the design.

[quote]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. [quote]

The same happens in really every! quest in DA2. Enemies Amon Us, Act of Mercy, Magistrate's Son... the list is silly. There is at least one companion that interjects in almost every quest.

Fenris and Anders, for example, always comment on quests that relate to their beliefs and characters being present or absent even changes the way the quest goes. For Act of Mercy or Wayward Son, I think almost every party member comments on the quest.

If your standard is commentary by the party. DA2 has DA:O beat. I could say more, but that requires spoilers.

[quote]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.[quote]

Yes. Will it matter is very different for us.

[quote]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.[/quote]

But the choices don't impact the climax (archdemon dies no matter what) and the in-game feedback you mentioned is there for DA2 (re NPC reactions).

I will absolutely grant you the difference in epilogue slides and all roads lead to Rome in DA2... but what I am trying to say is that these are very minor differences that affect the atmopshere of the choice, and the real distinction between DA:O and DA2 is that Bioware failed to keep up the smoke and mirrors.

I don't disagree with you on the last point: I'm just contesting that the last point makes the choices signifiicant in game versus to the player.

[Elite Midget]

Rushing games leads to less overall sales! More at 11!

[Elcariel]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Oh, you know all about the taint -- at least the bad parts. You had to treat and save Dog. All through Ostagar you can hear people talking about drinking darkspawn blood being a death sentence -- and you've heard the insane rambling and screaming of the soldiers it didn't kill. (I don't think you actually know about ghouls unless you're a dwarf, but the hints are there.) You have visions and nightmares of the archdemon right away. Alistair doesn't know about killing the archdemon, but he can tell you about the early changes.

All I'm saying is that during my first playthrough, I wouldn't have abandoned Alistair if I could have -- there was no telling what freaky changes might have happened next that I didn't know how to deal with. By the time I got to Redcliffe (which was on the way to Orlais) I was too enmeshed in the plot to want to leave.

You apparently didn't see it that way, but it seemed very clear to me that looking for the Wardens on your own was more dangerous than following the plot.

[Obadiah]

In Exile wrote...
...
But it is not right to construe the plot in this way, of both games. In DA2 your goal is to help your family; that's what happens for the prologue and then for Act I; and the country bit can justfy your actions in Act II and III.

In DA:O, you're an errand boy that reacts to circumstances just like in DA:O. In both games, you can say that family or country (or city state, really are your motivators.
...

Calling the Warden an "errand boy" is an attempt to disparage a plot that you "subjectively" didn't like. That's fine, but some (like me) may consider building an alliance by solving those allies' problems a bit more pro-active than that just "reacting to circumstances."

Asserting that DAO and DA2 are the same because both games had a "goal" and "motivation" is a somwhat pointless comparison. Clearly that alone doesn't make the quests, stories, or plot equivalent.

In Exile wrote...
...
But the goal of the Warden does not justify your plot if you dig in your heels and say that you need a clear reason for each quest. Each quest has a 'why' you ought to do it, but if you don't buy the individual whys in DA2, it's not any diffferent from DA:O.
...

The quests in DAO do have a clear rationale - that is pretty obvious. If you didn't "buy" it, then that is a subjective reaction. The quests in DA2 do as well, but most of the time the rationale is generally that you're just reacting to events around you.

The problem in DA2 is that Hawke is there for a good portion of the buildup to the various act's climaxes, but can do nothing about them - they just sort of unfold. In DAO, the Warden knew what the climax would eventually be, but could martial forces and prepare. The Warden has a plan, Hawke is winging it. These aren't similar stories simply because Bioware has a plot and the players follow along.

In Exile wrote...
...
But the choices don't impact the climax (archdemon dies no matter what) and the in-game feedback you mentioned is there for DA2 (re NPC reactions).
...

Oh did the Archdemon die? Depending on your choices not even THAT may be true. And as I have mentioned before, beating the Archdemon at the climax is not the sum total of the end of the game. That is a misrepresentation of the ending of DAO. DA2 pretty much ends as everyone has said, the same no matter the choice.

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 avril 2011 - 04:17 .

[Dark83]

Since when was Alistair a "recruit"? He was a lower ranking warden, but he was in charge of protecting the latest crop of recruits, and generally acted as an aide-de-camp to Duncan, the most senior Warden there.

[StingingVelvet]

I wouldn't be surprised if Laidlaw is in some dark corner telling himself that Origins was the sucky game and the low sales of DA2 is people who hated Origins not giving it a chance.

Creators like to lie to themselves like that.

[Cyberfrog81]

Obadiah wrote...

Calling
the Warden an "errand boy" is an attempt to disparage a plot that you
"subjectively" didn't like. That's fine, but some (like me) may consider
building an alliance by solving those allies' problems a bit more
pro-active than that just "reacting to circumstances."

The Warden absolutely was en errand boy. "Oh, you need something done before you'll help? What a surprise. Didn't see that coming at all."

[Obadiah]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Calling the Warden an "errand boy" is an attempt to disparage a plot that you "subjectively" didn't like. That's fine, but some (like me) may consider building an alliance by solving those allies' problems a bit more pro-active than that just "reacting to circumstances."

The Warden absolutely was en errand boy. "Oh, you need something done before you'll help? What a surprise. Didn't see that coming at all."

Seriously? You're in a situation where you have to ask people with more authority than you to do stuff (even when it is in their own interest), and they just do it without asking for something in return? I bow to a superior player in the game of life.

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 avril 2011 - 04:22 .

[Dark83]

Happens to me all the time, I have yet to have my boss go "Oh, just ignore that thing we're supposed to do that you're reminding me of."

[Cyberfrog81]

Oh indeed. It's called being a charming, handsome bastard.

Seriously though. "Pro-active?" The life of the questing RPG protagonist is, "do this, do that, else the plot won't advance". Why do you insist on the Warden being so special? They even make a joke about the cold, hard truth of this choicelessness in ME2:

Shepard: Just once I'd like to ask someone for help and hear them say, "Sure, let's go! Right now! No strings attached!"

Better yet, to try to keep this remotely on topic: Why couldn't being a victim of grand circumstance work just as well as being (allegedly) pro-active? It doesn't completely work, unfortunately, but I think it absolutely could have.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 27 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Obadiah]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...
...
Seriously though. "Pro-active?" The life of the questing RPG protagonist is, "do this, do that, else the plot won't advance". Why do you insist on the Warden being so special?
...

The nature of the quests. In DAO they were interesting, involved, non-trivial, with multiple resolutions.

Cyberfrog81 wrote...
...
Why couldn't being a victim of grand circumstance work just as well as being (allegedly) pro-active? It doesn't completely work, unfortunately, but I think it absolutely could have.
...

Absolutely. DA2's story is a great idea, but it is one that requires a bit more work to properly execute than a save-the-world quest. A truckload more conversations to flesh out the people and areas, some more follow up to actions done over the 10 year time period, some foreshadowing of the acts' climaxes, and the ability to plan for or shape them (rather than just engage) and the game would have been great.

Well, except for the combat.

To me the problem with DA2 isn't just that Hawke endlessly reacts to stuff, it's that the narrative is shallow given that Hawke is present for much of the build-up. In DAO the Warden reacted to events, but it's because he arrived right in the middle of it. Pick any of the major ally plots as an example. In DA2, that is true when Hawke arrives in Kirkwall initially, but for the rest of the game, he's been there for years and should/would have seen or been able to do something about a bunch of those events before they happened.

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 avril 2011 - 07:26 .