263 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

jds1bio wrote...

Ariella wrote...

As much as I'd love to have a game night with Dave Gaider running as GM, that's not going to happen.

I'm not sure I share the love there...as far as this game goes, he had a story and he stuck to it, no matter how my 20d rolled.

As I said, there's a big difference between sitting at a table with a guy, and playing something that by the limits of the tech is somehwhat in stone after the fact. Once I managed to run a session of AD&D where the whole point, unbenownst to the players, was to redeem Strad Von Zarcovich. Afterward, the eldest player, who'd been playing D&D since before the red box, bowed to me. It was a hell of a session, and it took all my creativity to get them to go where they needed. Sometimes table top session are like that, sometimes they cut 10 pages out of the mod you're running with their ingenuity. But unless you're playing a very specific on line mod with friends, you can't do that with a computer game.

Ariella wrote...

It's funny you say this, because my absolute favorite RPG series of the eightes was Quest for Glory.

Yep, I played those too, good times!  Those games, like DA2, were also an attempt at making RPGs more accessible to a different crowd.

Ariella wrote...

Also, there's one other thing, that I honestly believe about the DA universe. The players aren't the shmucky level one adventurers, who have Elminster or D'rizzt kicking around to fix things for us. With the exception of Flemeth, the player is bringing to life the DA versions of those heroes, the core canon of legend for the Dragon Age, which is why it makes sense to end this one on a cliff hanger. I don't see it as an attempt to coerse buying future product any more than cliffhangers in novels, television shows or movies (Empire Strikes Back or Wrath of Khan anyone?) are coersion.

You just reminded me of the one really important thing Hawke did during this game that may actually impact Thedas in future sagas - deliver the amulet to Sundermount.  For those who have already done this, you know why it's important. 

Now that I think about it, had you spent all the time in DA2 becoming Champion, getting through the story, seeing the ending everyone sees, and then as the VERY LAST thing in the game, brought the amulet to Sundermount, the game would have had a better ending.  And a cliffhanger that would be more intriguing.

I don't know. The whole point of this game was Hawke's rise to power, not the amulet. We saw how it happened and how it DIDN'T fit the legend everyone "knew". Hawke kind of stumbled into greatness, rather than being chosen as part of an elite group etc. We see how the story really ended, it just didn't have a slide this time to tell us this part of Hawke's legend is at an end (which we literally did in DAO). Honestly, I'm glad they got rid of the slides. They worked well for BG2, but those slides are what painted Bioware into a corner if anything. It's one of the reasons why JJ Abrams and co decided against an easter egg shot of the Botany Bay at the end of the newest Star Trek movie so they wouldn't be forced into doing that story if they changed their minds between release and developement of the next movie.

[bigSarg]

I kind of like the new combat system and some of the other changes that where made, but the biggest problem I have is that the storyline doesn't make sense, if you played DA:O and DA:A, you would see that Anders didn't become a warden until DA:A, which is after the blight is over, but in DA2 the blight is still happening through half the story but Anders is a warden already, if your going to reuse characters from another game then the story should at least make sense or follow the right timeline. Merrill is a timid little mouse in DA2 which is totally different from DA:O, she was confident and had the personality of a Keepers apprentice, but not in DA2. Isabela maintained the same basic personality and so does Alistair (even though their appreance is a little different). Other than the blatant reuse of maps and the lack of companion interaction were the biggest issues I have with the game. The lack of choices and the impact of those choices kind of makes sense to me because in DA2 its a story that has already happened while in DA:O it is a story that is unfolding at the time of play, so in DA2 choices are going to be limited because they have already been made and effected the outcome of story, your seeing the story unfold through the eyes of Varric and his interpretation of events. This might not be what Bioware intended but its really the only way I can actually play the game and make any sense of it. Another issue that I have is how can you play a mage in DA2 and nobody take notice or question the fact that your throwing spells around like the 4th of july, the only ones that seem to notice are your companions, even when, at certain points in the game your casting spells with Templars around but nothing is even mentioned about it, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. My point is that , to me the storyline and the characters involved are very important to making it all believable and something that you really want to be involved in.

Modifié par bigSarg, 12 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[jds1bio]

Ariella wrote...

I don't know. The whole point of this game was Hawke's rise to power, not the amulet. We saw how it happened and how it DIDN'T fit the legend everyone "knew". Hawke kind of stumbled into greatness, rather than being chosen as part of an elite group etc. We see how the story really ended, it just didn't have a slide this time to tell us this part of Hawke's legend is at an end (which we literally did in DAO).

Then the game missed its own point.  Hawke never really rose to power.  To prominence, yes.  But Hawke had no real power in Kirkwall. Hawke never ran the mercenaries or smugglers, or the Circle or the Chantry or the Templars.  Hawke never became Captain Of the Guard, or Seneschal, or paid them off to take over as viscount, or inspired the citizens to run the city themselves.  Hawke barely dealt with the Qunari.  I can imagine Hawke realizing this at the very end, saying "Well, there's nothing I can do at this point that will change things, so I might as well take control of what I can do, and that is keep a promise I made long ago" and then deliver the amulet.

If the whole goal of the game's "DM" is to get you to answer once and for all the big question of whose side you're on, you can easily skip those 10 pages of mod by answering the question within the first few quests of the game.  That's where for me the main-story role-playing breaks down, because it requires no ingenuity to do so.

But if the game was more like your tabletop session, where unbenownst to the player the goal was to get the amulet to Sundermount so that the larger story of Thedas in the Dragon Age could continue, then things could get interesting.  Imagine selling the amulet early on to pay off the viscount directly for the mansion, and having the game try to steer you towards getting it back somehow.  Or imagine keeping it and having it stolen, or swapping relic for amulet, or finding a Merrill type who is willing to perform the ritual in an unauthorized fashion.   This game would still have plenty of room for all the mages vs. templars quests and Hawke's attainment of the title of Champion.  We might have found ourselves bowing to that game, like the player bowed to you.  We just didn't get to play that game.

Ariella wrote...

Honestly, I'm glad they got rid of the slides. They worked well for BG2, but those slides are what painted Bioware into a corner if anything. It's one of the reasons why JJ Abrams and co decided against an easter egg shot of the Botany Bay at the end of the newest Star Trek movie so they wouldn't be forced into doing that story if they changed their minds between release and developement of the next movie.

I totally get it regarding easter-egg type endings and getting stuck in a corner.  I wouldn't want to put myself there either.  But if I play a game whose results are being imported into a sequel, I am risking putting myself there by making certain decisions.  I just don't want to be unceremoniously dismissed if a game allows me to make certain decisions, but then decides in a sequel that those decisions don't jive with the state of the world and will be overridden.

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 05:55 .

[BundokJon]

jds1bio wrote...

Then the game missed its own point.  Hawke never really rose to power.  To prominence, yes.  But Hawke had no real power in Kirkwall. Hawke never ran the mercenaries or smugglers, or the Circle or the Chantry or the Templars.  Hawke never became Captain Of the Guard, or Seneschal, or paid them off to take over as viscount, or inspired the citizens to run the city themselves.

Do you mean to say you never rise to power or that you don't get to play after that point?  The Hawke I finished with yesterday does become Viscount. I know this is a non-spoiler forum so I won't get into any details about the circumstances, but just to be fair, what you've said here might discourage people from trying.

You don't spend any more time running the day to day operations of Kirkwall then the Cousland Warden does if you become King of Ferelden. There wasn't the traditional "awards ceremony", which I hate. But I'm satisfied that it happened and he earned it.

Good thread, btw.

*edit: For clarity-- I hate awards ceremonies, I liked the narrative frame that replaces it here.

Modifié par BundokJon, 12 avril 2011 - 07:03 .

[jds1bio]

BundokJon wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Then the game missed its own point.  Hawke never really rose to power.

Do you mean to say you never rise to power or that you don't get to play after that point?  The Hawke I finished with yesterday does become Viscount. I know this is a non-spoiler forum so I won't get into any details about the circumstances, but just to be fair, what you've said here might discourage people from trying.

You don't spend any more time running the day to day operations of Kirkwall then the Cousland Warden does if you become King of Ferelden. There wasn't the traditional "awards ceremony", which I hate. But I'm satisfied that it happened and he earned it.

Good thread, btw.

I think there's a difference between saying there's a rise to power vs. a game that sets you up saying "it's your destiny now, go get your allies and do it".  In DA:O once you become a Grey Warden, you essentially have that power.  Your destiny is then handed to you, as the game gives you no one who is really competing for your destiny, not even Loghain. In DA2, you need help just to survive, and you do face off against competitors from time to time, so it's more uncertain how, where, and when the rise to power occurs, until you've played through the game.

Thank you, btw.  And don't get me wrong, in my estimation the game is very good and is worth playing through at least once, and more than once to enjoy the variations in sidequests, companions, dialogue, and companion quests.  (There is more going on with these than just "I can choose option A  or I can choose option B").  There is a marked difference just by having a different sibling along.

Try to like it.  I do, and so do plenty of others.  I've just patched the game so I will be playing it through again.  But some don't like it, and some won't play it again.  So definitely give yourself the chance to experience your own enjoyment or disappointment.

[BundokJon]

I definitely agree about the siblings. I've played through where a veiled threat from Meredith about one of the siblings completely colored my third act in a way that I found really surprising and rewarding.

I'm also tempted to play through with all family and personal ties out of the picture by Act 3 to see what happens. I'll know the final outcome, but the choices and behavior is what I would find compelling.

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



If Bioware want to make "JRPGs" they
should do just that. I'm not investing in a character just to have the
writer dictate that it no longer matters because there will be a fixed
outcome.

I played FFXIII.  I enjoyed the story and presentation.  I enjoyed learning and using the battle system.  But the only two roles I ever thought I played were "Battle Tactician" and "Items Wrangler" (and I never bought, used, or upgraded a single item).  For me, this was a game of battles, not role-playing.  My gameplay had absolutely no effect on the six characters or the game world, other than unlocking the next custscene.  But I still had a good time.

I think a factor in this is what we expect out of "roles" these days.  For me, being an "elf" or "mage", or in FFXIII parlance a "synergist" or "sentinel" just doesn't cut it.  Today they are more indicative of a style of combat gameplay than an actual role.  At least to me "Hawke" has a chance of playing a role.

Your actions have a massive effect on the gameworld. You essentially destroy the world through your actions.

[Haexpane]

The type of "choice" i want isn't

1 Say something snarky for medium reward
2. Say something nice for min reward
3. say something mean for PHAT LEWTs you won't be able to use

The "choice" I want that is meaningful is

Should my Rogue go Archer or Assassin? What type of armor should I put him in? Should I go dual wield? Poison or Bard?

IMO that is RPG in gaming CHOICE.

The ME2 style of choice is just a digital "choose your own adventure" paperback from 1982

[jds1bio]

Haexpane wrote...

The "choice" I want that is meaningful is

Should my Rogue go Archer or Assassin? What type of armor should I put him in? Should I go dual wield? Poison or Bard?

IMO that is RPG in gaming CHOICE.

The ME2 style of choice is just a digital "choose your own adventure" paperback from 1982

Thank you for clarifying your view of RPG choice.  I know many agree with you, and miss some of the flexibility that didn't make it from DA:O to DA2.

Still, going Dual-Dagger Assassin in DA2 was pretty cool, at least for me.  One-hit criticals.  Though the sound effect when you appear out of the "shadows" sounds like something from those old TV witch shows Bewitched and I Dream Of Jeannie.

Remember when you discovered that too many of the Choose Your Own Adventure choices led to the same page?  That's when the magic died.

[Ariella]

[quote]jds1bio wrote...

[quote]Ariella wrote...

I don't know. The whole point of this game was Hawke's rise to power, not the amulet. We saw how it happened and how it DIDN'T fit the legend everyone "knew". Hawke kind of stumbled into greatness, rather than being chosen as part of an elite group etc. We see how the story really ended, it just didn't have a slide this time to tell us this part of Hawke's legend is at an end (which we literally did in DAO).

[/quote]

Then the game missed its own point.  Hawke never really rose to power.  To prominence, yes.  But Hawke had no real power in Kirkwall. Hawke never ran the mercenaries or smugglers, or the Circle or the Chantry or the Templars.  Hawke never became Captain Of the Guard, or Seneschal, or paid them off to take over as viscount, or inspired the citizens to run the city themselves.  Hawke barely dealt with the Qunari.  I can imagine Hawke realizing this at the very end, saying "Well, there's nothing I can do at this point that will change things, so I might as well take control of what I can do, and that is keep a promise I made long ago" and then deliver the amulet.
[/quote]

Aveline characterizes it best at one point: being around Hawke is like being at the center of a hurricane, changing a lot of people's fortunes and not always for the better.

As for the other things, we're getting FAR into spoiler territory, so I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.

[quote]
If the whole goal of the game's "DM" is to get you to answer once and for all the big question of whose side you're on, you can easily skip those 10 pages of mod by answering the question within the first few quests of the game.  That's where for me the main-story role-playing breaks down, because it requires no ingenuity to do so.
[/quote]

I've been referring to table top because there are just certain things one cannot replicate with computer code and in a computer game those choices (yes/no paths in the code) have to be burned into the disk long before the player ever reads the manual, whereas a DM CAN cut out 10 pages on the fly if his players do something that he's not counting on.

Also those first few quests might suggest where one's sympathies lay but the end choice is the irrevocable one. It's the cliff.

[quote]
But if the game was more like your tabletop session, where unbenownst to the player the goal was to get the amulet to Sundermount so that the larger story of Thedas in the Dragon Age could continue, then things could get interesting.  Imagine selling the amulet early on to pay off the viscount directly for the mansion, and having the game try to steer you towards getting it back somehow.  Or imagine keeping it and having it stolen, or swapping relic for amulet, or finding a Merrill type who is willing to perform the ritual in an unauthorized fashion.   This game would still have plenty of room for all the mages vs. templars quests and Hawke's attainment of the title of Champion.  We might have found ourselves bowing to that game, like the player bowed to you.  We just didn't get to play that game.
[/quote]

As nice as that sounds, that's NOT the story that was being told. The amulet was incidental to the story.  A maguffin used to introduce a party member as much as anything. The story was about a Fereldan who manages to go from just another Blight Refugee to Champion to a city that has come to despise its refugee population, and as the story is passed on it gets larger and larger until we have poor Varric correcting the story for the Seekers, because Hawke's story has attained power to change the world. Not like we haven't seen this kind of thing in the real world before: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddah, Mohammad, Charlemagne, Martin Luther, Elizabeth the First, Abraham Lincoln. All those people have stories about them that if they were alive today they'd probably be rollling their eyes, which is part of the point of Hawke's story. Hawke didn't set about to change things, all he or she ever wanted was to keep out of the path of the Blight then maybe get the heck out of Low Town. Just an average person, but that's where every good heroic story starts. And that's the moral of it all.




[quote]Ariella wrote...

Honestly, I'm glad they got rid of the slides. They worked well for BG2, but those slides are what painted Bioware into a corner if anything. It's one of the reasons why JJ Abrams and co decided against an easter egg shot of the Botany Bay at the end of the newest Star Trek movie so they wouldn't be forced into doing that story if they changed their minds between release and developement of the next movie.

[/quote]

I totally get it regarding easter-egg type endings and getting stuck in a corner.  I wouldn't want to put myself there either.  But if I play a game whose results are being imported into a sequel, I am risking putting myself there by making certain decisions.  I just don't want to be unceremoniously dismissed if a game allows me to make certain decisions, but then decides in a sequel that those decisions don't jive with the state of the world and will be overridden.

[/quote]

Until VERY recently, the unceremoniously dismissed happened in pretty much every cRPG. Even BG2 had you travelling with Jaheria and Minsc even if you didn't in the first one, not to mentioned the rewrite on Imoen (can't be resurrected yourself but Imoen can?). Heck it was a revelation when, in the Gold Box games you could import equipment from the last game. And do I even really want to go into the rage with which people filled this forum's elder brother when it was revealed that the Hordes of the Underdark character one either created or imported in would be considered the hero of Unrentide even if you imported your hero from the original OC of Neverwinter Nights. So this whole, continuity from game to game being set by the player is pretty darn new for a CRPG.

[Tommy6860]

jds1bio wrote...

I think there's a difference between saying there's a rise to power vs. a game that sets you up saying "it's your destiny now, go get your allies and do it".  In DA:O once you become a Grey Warden, you essentially have that power.  Your destiny is then handed to you, as the game gives you no one who is really competing for your destiny, not even Loghain. In DA2, you need help just to survive, and you do face off against competitors from time to time, so it's more uncertain how, where, and when the rise to power occurs, until you've played through the game.

I think I missed something in the story of the Champion as I don't get anything to what your experience is. There is no destiny handed to Hawke, Hawke actually has no bearing to near anything the main plot deploys for the story setting in Kirkwall. Hawke is just your character in the setting of a story that you cannot frame or make to your own, you simply just build your character and your companions stats, though that is very limited, and play through tons of irrelevant mini-quest to get to said ends of each act. Only in Act III, do a few of the quests lead up to the finale, and you still have no impact on any change to that end.

In fact, in my playthrough experience, two of the companions I acquire have much more to do with the story than Hawke does. Interesting since that is totally the opposite of Origins where I can just tell most of my companions to get lost and I can still make my own story. All in all, what you describe as getting a "destiny" is no more than an action/adventure game, and the game should have been promoted as such.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 12 avril 2011 - 09:41 .

[jds1bio]

Tommy6860 wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

I think there's a difference between saying there's a rise to power vs. a game that sets you up saying "it's your destiny now, go get your allies and do it".  In DA:O once you become a Grey Warden, you essentially have that power.  Your destiny is then handed to you, as the game gives you no one who is really competing for your destiny, not even Loghain. In DA2, you need help just to survive, and you do face off against competitors from time to time, so it's more uncertain how, where, and when the rise to power occurs, until you've played through the game.

I think I missed something in the story of the Champion as I don't get anything to what your experience is. There is no destiny handed to Hawke, Hawke actually has no bearing to near anything the main plot deploys for the story setting in Kirkwall. Hawke is just your character in the setting of a story that you cannot frame or make to your own, you simply just build your character and your companions stats, though that is very limited, and play through tons of irrelevant mini-quest to get to said ends of each act. Only in Act III, do a few of the quests lead up to the finale, and you still have no impact on any change to that end.

In fact, in my playthrough experience, two of the companions I acquire have much more to do with the story than Hawke does. Interesting since that is totally the opposite of Origins where I can just tell most of my companions to get lost and I can still make my own story. All in all, what you describe as getting a "destiny" is no more than an action/adventure game, and the game should have been promoted as such.

I thought I said that in DA:Origins (not DA2) you are handed a destiny.  If that was not clear, I apologize.

[Tommy6860]

jds1bio wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

I think there's a difference between saying there's a rise to power vs. a game that sets you up saying "it's your destiny now, go get your allies and do it".  In DA:O once you become a Grey Warden, you essentially have that power.  Your destiny is then handed to you, as the game gives you no one who is really competing for your destiny, not even Loghain. In DA2, you need help just to survive, and you do face off against competitors from time to time, so it's more uncertain how, where, and when the rise to power occurs, until you've played through the game.

I think I missed something in the story of the Champion as I don't get anything to what your experience is. There is no destiny handed to Hawke, Hawke actually has no bearing to near anything the main plot deploys for the story setting in Kirkwall. Hawke is just your character in the setting of a story that you cannot frame or make to your own, you simply just build your character and your companions stats, though that is very limited, and play through tons of irrelevant mini-quest to get to said ends of each act. Only in Act III, do a few of the quests lead up to the finale, and you still have no impact on any change to that end.

In fact, in my playthrough experience, two of the companions I acquire have much more to do with the story than Hawke does. Interesting since that is totally the opposite of Origins where I can just tell most of my companions to get lost and I can still make my own story. All in all, what you describe as getting a "destiny" is no more than an action/adventure game, and the game should have been promoted as such.

I thought I said that in DA:Origins (not DA2) you are handed a destiny.  If that was not clear, I apologize.

You're correct and I am wrong, no apologies needed as I am the one who misread what you stated. Just disregard my comment.

[jds1bio]

Ariella wrote...

Aveline characterizes it best at one point: being around Hawke is like being at the center of a hurricane, changing a lot of people's fortunes and not always for the better.

I've been referring to table top because there are just certain things one cannot replicate with computer code and in a computer game those choices (yes/no paths in the code) have to be burned into the disk long before the player ever reads the manual, whereas a DM CAN cut out 10 pages on the fly if his players do something that he's not counting on.

Also those first few quests might suggest where one's sympathies lay but the end choice is the irrevocable one. It's the cliff.

Hawke didn't set about to change things, all he or she ever wanted was to keep out of the path of the Blight then maybe get the heck out of Low Town. Just an average person, but that's where every good heroic story starts. And that's the moral of it all.

I'm totally fine with the story.  I like the story.  Even though a Macguffin is most certainly involved (not the amulet).  I can appreciate the story in the game, especially because it's not the typical fantasy trope of "a hero will rise and save the world".  The characters, companions, and certain aspects of Kirkwall and its inhabitants provide for some sincere role-playing activity with variable outcomes and implications within the circle of characters.  I like the character of Hawke, and the concept of being the center of a hurricane is interesting to weave into a story.

But in this game I watched character after character do something harmful to Kirkwall's well-being, no matter what my Hawke said or did to try and stop it, leaving my Hawke to mop up the mess.  That's fine for a story, but for a role-playing experience taking place over seven years (only three of which is the player actually able to participate), I'm supposed to believe that my Hawke's presence, pleas for tolerance, and janitor duty are responsible for changing the city's fortunes for the worse?

That's just not believable when none of the choices that the computer program allows me to make can affect what these harming characters do, or where the story goes as a result.  Unless the game provides feedback saying how and where my choices added up.  DA2 provides no feedback regarding this, but simply insinuates that your presence on the Deep Roads expedition and your contact with the Qunari led to other things happening.  Believe me, I would have found a different way to buy back the mansion or deal with the Qunari if the game would have let me.

Modifié par jds1bio, 13 avril 2011 - 12:34 .

[Ariella]

[quote]jds1bio wrote...

[quote]Ariella wrote...

Aveline characterizes it best at one point: being around Hawke is like being at the center of a hurricane, changing a lot of people's fortunes and not always for the better.

I've been referring to table top because there are just certain things one cannot replicate with computer code and in a computer game those choices (yes/no paths in the code) have to be burned into the disk long before the player ever reads the manual, whereas a DM CAN cut out 10 pages on the fly if his players do something that he's not counting on.

Also those first few quests might suggest where one's sympathies lay but the end choice is the irrevocable one. It's the cliff.

Hawke didn't set about to change things, all he or she ever wanted was to keep out of the path of the Blight then maybe get the heck out of Low Town. Just an average person, but that's where every good heroic story starts. And that's the moral of it all.

[/quote]

I'm totally fine with the story.  I like the story.  Even though a Macguffin is most certainly involved (not the amulet).  I can appreciate the story in the game, especially because it's not the typical fantasy trope of "a hero will rise and save the world".  The characters, companions, and certain aspects of Kirkwall and its inhabitants provide for some sincere role-playing activity with variable outcomes and implications within the circle of characters.  I like the character of Hawke, and the concept of being the center of a hurricane is interesting to weave into a story.

But in this game I watched character after character do something harmful to Kirkwall's well-being, no matter what my Hawke said or did to try and stop it, leaving my Hawke to mop up the mess.  That's fine for a story, but for a role-playing experience taking place over seven years (only three of which is the player actually able to participate), I'm supposed to believe that my Hawke's presence, pleas for tolerance, and janitor duty are responsible for changing the city's fortunes for the worse?
[/quote]

What do you think people like Batman or Buffy are? I just read a wonderful Batman story called "Made of Wood" which featured the original Green Lantern Alan Scott (who's from Gotham and his weakness was wood not the color yellow like later incarnations). Scott observes that he'd come home after beating one of his foes feeling like he'd accomplished something, but then he'd turn on the radio and hear about all the crimes he missed. It's a common heroic theme, and remember that this is dark fantasy. The hero doesn't always fully win, but it also means he doesn't fully lose either.

Also after reading some of the Codex stuff ESPECIALLY what's in the mine, I'm ready to declare Kirkwall a Hellmouth. I mean it's not a literal path to a hell dimension, but something is not right about Kirkwall. It's almost as if the hundreds of years of persecution of slaves buried itself into the stone and dirt of the place, corrupting it and almost everything living in it.

[/quote]
That's just not believable when none of the choices that the computer program allows me to make can affect what these harming characters do, or where the story goes as a result.  Unless the game provides feedback saying how and where my choices added up.  DA2 provides no feedback regarding this, but simply insinuates that your presence on the Deep Roads expedition and your contact with the Qunari led to other things happening.  Believe me, I would have found a different way to buy back the mansion or deal with the Qunari if the game would have let me.

[/quote]

Again, we're getting into spoiler territory, but by funding the expedition Hawle set in motion a chain of events the affected several characters severely. I don't understand what you mean by feedback, especially considering the chain of events can be followed when you listen to the narration, and if I may point out, the first time one plays the game one doesn't KNOW how the events of the expedition or their long ranging effects will play out.

[Cybermortis]

The paraphrased version of the conversation between Hawke and Varric at the start of act one sets the tone for the entire game;

Varric; Hey, give me 50 gold and I'll let you come on the expedition.

Hawke; Errm, If I had 50 gold I wouldn't need to go on the expedition.

Varric; So we have a deal?

Hawke; Sure.

[erynnar]

And did anyone play where they get the money anyways, even if you spend it all? How is that for ham fisted?

[jds1bio]

Ariella wrote...

What do you think people like Batman or
Buffy are? I just read a wonderful Batman story called "Made of Wood"
which featured the original Green Lantern Alan Scott (who's from Gotham
and his weakness was wood not the color yellow like later incarnations).
Scott observes that he'd come home after beating one of his foes
feeling like he'd accomplished something, but then he'd turn on the
radio and hear about all the crimes he missed. It's a common heroic
theme, and remember that this is dark fantasy. The hero doesn't always
fully win, but it also means he doesn't fully lose either.

Like I've said, I like those types of stories.  The story in DA2 is totally legit.

But with the Batman story, you just read a story.  When you read a story you don't expect to participate in it like you would in an RPG.  Also, Batman and Buffy don't take off from their own story two or three years at a time unless they decide to or they are incapacitated.  DA2 decided for us which years of our "rise to power" were the important ones, and told Hawke to chill out for the rest, even though we weren't incapacitated.  For me, there wasn't enough
participation where the main story was concerned.  I guess that's a good place to leave it at that.

And, I agree, Kirkwall's got some baked-in corruption going on.  Probably because in Darktown it never actually gets dark!

Ariella wrote...

Again,
we're getting into spoiler territory, but by funding the expedition
Hawle set in motion a chain of events the affected several characters
severely. I don't understand what you mean by feedback, especially
considering the chain of events can be followed when you listen to the
narration, and if I may point out, the first time one plays the game one
doesn't KNOW how the events of the expedition or their long ranging
effects will play out.

Ah, true, you can't play games over again for the first time. You can't recapture that feeling.  My reactions to the characters and events in my first playthrough were genuine.  During my second playthrough, I wanted to see the differences that talking differently and taking different actions might provide.  And I found enjoyable variations, in lots and lots of places in the game, except in the main storyline.  That doesn't negate the power of the story the first time.

So what I mean by feedback is this, and I'll try to create a detailed example (this scenario is totally made up though so not a spoiler):

Imagine if a character did what he/she did in the Deep Roads because you used the mean or sarcastic dialogue options a few too many times with the character, and he/she decided that you weren't worth being taken seriously.  If that's revealed to you late in the game, that might be a cool revelation, and you might feel responsible for your Hawke's choice of words depending on the consequences.

Now imagine playing through a 2nd time, this time using mostly nice or helpful dialogue with this character.  And then seeing that they do the exact same thing in the Deep Roads, but receiving a different explanation late in the game than in the first playthrough.  This still could be a cool revelation, if the different explanation makes sense to the characters and the story.  This is what games like The Witcher have done when it comes to choice and consequence in the main story.  It's an effective illusion that doesn't change the main events, but might make you think or feel differently about them.

Now imagine that second playthrough using those nice/helpful dialogue options, but then instead of getting a different explanation late in the game, you get the same explanation as the one you received in the very first
playthrough.  In this case, you realize that your choice of dialogue doesn't matter because the actions taken by the character, and the explanations of those actions, don't ever change.  This might be ok if it happens once or twice in the main story, but this is what DA2 does with too many of its main-story events.

I hope I explained this ok.

Modifié par jds1bio, 13 avril 2011 - 03:02 .

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

And did anyone play where they get the money anyways, even if you spend it all? How is that for ham fisted?

What the hell are they meant to do, stop the game at that point? As I understand the lender does come after his money if you borrow it so there are at least consequences. 

[jds1bio]

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

And did anyone play where they get the money anyways, even if you spend it all? How is that for ham fisted?

What the hell are they meant to do, stop the game at that point? As I understand the lender does come after his money if you borrow it so there are at least consequences. 

Yeah, it's basically an out because some of the cool shop items are a bit expensive early in the game, especially if you want to use them to compete at the higher difficulty levels.  I thought they handled the consequence part of this well, though.  Hawke could still come out ahead.

[Merced652]

i agree combat has its place, and its a significant one. So why are people using the bull**** we got in DA2 as some evidence that bioware is moving in the right direction?

[jds1bio]

Cybermortis wrote...

The paraphrased version of the conversation between Hawke and Varric at the start of act one sets the tone for the entire game;

Varric; Hey, give me 50 gold and I'll let you come on the expedition.

Hawke; Errm, If I had 50 gold I wouldn't need to go on the expedition.

Varric; So we have a deal?

Hawke; Sure.

I think Hawke needed a lot more than 50 gold to get the mansion back from the Viscount. 

But, after a year of indentured servitude, one would think both Hawke and the sibling would have more opportunities to be a ranking member of the mercenaries or the smugglers and make some more money.  Or make her mom try to date the viscount and arrange a rent-to-own plan or something.  You can't make enough money by scrounging for it on the bodies of spiders and animated corpses.

[Ariella]

Cybermortis wrote...

The paraphrased version of the conversation between Hawke and Varric at the start of act one sets the tone for the entire game;

Varric; Hey, give me 50 gold and I'll let you come on the expedition.

Hawke; Errm, If I had 50 gold I wouldn't need to go on the expedition.

Varric; So we have a deal?

Hawke; Sure.

The paraphrased version leaves alot out, Cybermortis, especially if you talk to Bertrand later about WHY the darn thing is so expensive to finance in the first place. But the general gist is if Hawke hadn't come up with the money, the expedition would STILL be sitting in front of the guild.

[Dominator24]

OP you hit the nail in the head.

[Ariella]

jds1bio wrote...

Ariella wrote...

What do you think people like Batman or
Buffy are? I just read a wonderful Batman story called "Made of Wood"
which featured the original Green Lantern Alan Scott (who's from Gotham
and his weakness was wood not the color yellow like later incarnations).
Scott observes that he'd come home after beating one of his foes
feeling like he'd accomplished something, but then he'd turn on the
radio and hear about all the crimes he missed. It's a common heroic
theme, and remember that this is dark fantasy. The hero doesn't always
fully win, but it also means he doesn't fully lose either.

Like I've said, I like those types of stories.  The story in DA2 is totally legit.

But with the Batman story, you just read a story.  When you read a story you don't expect to participate in it like you would in an RPG.  Also, Batman and Buffy don't take off from their own story two or three years at a time unless they decide to or they are incapacitated.  DA2 decided for us which years of our "rise to power" were the important ones, and told Hawke to chill out for the rest, even though we weren't incapacitated.  For me, there wasn't enough
participation where the main story was concerned.  I guess that's a good place to leave it at that.

Actually, Buffy took every summer off, literally. The story comprised the school year and that was it. We have no idea what kind of hunting the Slayer did during summer break most of the time, especially with Giles there to keep informing her Slaying was a full time job.

So your problem seems to be more with the framed narrative style. That I can understand. I'll admit I was kind of hoping to participate in more years of Hawke's life than just what we were given, but considering Varric's situation and his narration, he was trying to get a point across to Cassandra that Hawke wasn't the evil mastermind. Varric just got lucky that Cassandra was a patient audience.

And, I agree, Kirkwall's got some baked-in corruption going on.  Probably because in Darktown it never actually gets dark!

Ariella wrote...

Again,
we're getting into spoiler territory, but by funding the expedition
Hawle set in motion a chain of events the affected several characters
severely. I don't understand what you mean by feedback, especially
considering the chain of events can be followed when you listen to the
narration, and if I may point out, the first time one plays the game one
doesn't KNOW how the events of the expedition or their long ranging
effects will play out.

Ah, true, you can't play games over again for the first time. You can't recapture that feeling.  My reactions to the characters and events in my first playthrough were genuine.  During my second playthrough, I wanted to see the differences that talking differently and taking different actions might provide.  And I found enjoyable variations, in lots and lots of places in the game, except in the main storyline.  That doesn't negate the power of the story the first time.

So what I mean by feedback is this, and I'll try to create a detailed example (this scenario is totally made up though so not a spoiler):

Imagine if a character did what he/she did in the Deep Roads because you used the mean or sarcastic dialogue options a few too many times with the character, and he/she decided that you weren't worth being taken seriously.  If that's revealed to you late in the game, that might be a cool revelation, and you might feel responsible for your Hawke's choice of words depending on the consequences.

Now imagine playing through a 2nd time, this time using mostly nice or helpful dialogue with this character.  And then seeing that they do the exact same thing in the Deep Roads, but receiving a different explanation late in the game than in the first playthrough.  This still could be a cool revelation, if the different explanation makes sense to the characters and the story.  This is what games like The Witcher have done when it comes to choice and consequence in the main story.  It's an effective illusion that doesn't change the main events, but might make you think or feel differently about them.

Now imagine that second playthrough using those nice/helpful dialogue options, but then instead of getting a different explanation late in the game, you get the same explanation as the one you received in the very first
playthrough.  In this case, you realize that your choice of dialogue doesn't matter because the actions taken by the character, and the explanations of those actions, don't ever change.  This might be ok if it happens once or twice in the main story, but this is what DA2 does with too many of its main-story events.

I hope I explained this ok.

Okay, I can get that, I think a better word would be reactivity, which actually does change as one uses dialogue types. Both from other people and from Hawke. Best example is in the prologue, Hawke's reaction about going to Kirkwall is based on vocal choice before hand, as is the discussion about going into the Wilds.

This happens throughout the game, though it is subtle at times.

As for the Witcher, I've tried playing it three times now, and just cannot get through the section inside the city proper and the marsh. Maybe Geralt is more personable in the novels, but I found him as lively as a corpse in the game, and honestly I didn't see much reactivity, except siding with one faction allows you access to one armory and the other faction the other.

You want a game with an ending that really screws with your head and yells "Must buy sequel" try Divinity 2: Ego Draconis. That ending will make anyone who thinks Dragon Age's ending is a cliff hanger cry like a baby. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game and got a great story, but when I got to the end, it made me glad I bought the Dragon Knight edition.