164 réponses à ce sujet

[Dagiz]

Persephone wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...
That's not true. None of my campnions were killed. He just thought he would be. The game didn't let you reason with him to say otherwise. It should have, his living beyond Meredith's death wouldn't have changed the game at all in any way except you'd have one less "AWESOME" boss fight. *sigh* It was poor writing.

If they wanted the player to kill Orsino, it should have been upon accusing him of helping Quentin kill your mother and the fall out from not stopping Quentin.

Much as I like the game I must agree with this. I sighed very loudly when Orsinio did that. It was like the mages were determined to make me feel like an idiot for supporting them.

On the other hand confronting him about Quentin would have been much better.

It's only made WORSE by the fact that you CAN confront him if you support the templars.

Much as I love DAII, Orsino's Act III reveal was a huge WTF moment.

What I think is missing here though is that the ideas here are what you as individuals would have preferred and would have written yourself if that was a decision you had to make.  Is one the right way?  I don't know.  I don't think there can be just one way to have written that ending.  Consequently it means that there are people that are going to be upset or pissed about the way it ending.

If the finale was going to be that way no matter what, than I would rather have it be quick like that (and this is my own personal preference) than going through endless dialogue choices where in the end, he still does what he does.  I mentioned this in another thread, but I've personally seen this type of conflict where there are two diametrically opposed views that create such anger and hatred that in the end, one person or both do exactly what the other was accusing them of just to give themselves a reason to act violently or justifying their response.  It happens and it appears to have happened here.

Now from that perspective and given what and how we knew the game was going to be portrayed (as a story as told by Varric) than in the end, there still would not have been a choice.  They (bioware) knew the beginning, the middle and the end.  It was up to us to get there in a fashion they designed for us.  Certain behaviors led to certain things (the difference in responses whether good, snarky or bad attitude does play out) and that did have some effect on how you were viewed.  Granted, it's not like in DA:O where a companion left.  I think that would have been better.  

With all of that though, I still believe it could have been handled better than it was.  But I am not going to knock them for the direction they chose, just the execution of the direction which to me matters most.  If you want to tell me your story, fine, do that, just make sure that you can tell me the story, and to borrow some one else's words on these forums, don't just "show me the story".

[Cutlass Jack]

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Yeah that would have been neat having an entirely different end boss battle depending on which side you chose. And add to replayability (though most would just reload I guess before the chantry explosion). Suspect some developer got their panties in a twist tho that their end boss wouldn't be fought by some players and they found this "oh so smart" way to have us fight both of them in the same order no matter what the player does even though the "story" of the Mage/Templar war wouldn't have been any different either way (eg, they could have done this and not altered any of Varric's testimony).

[Ohpus]

The way the structured teh end of Act III it was obvious that the set Orsino as the warm up act for the Boss Fight at the end. This was a huge mistake.

I played only as a warrior so far and sided with the mages, so what I say now could be different:

You could have easily had the Meridith fight with Orsino having the "object" and causing that havok. The fight itself was one of the more original ones I have seen and it would have worked with either character.

The warm up fight seems completely pointless and also a rehashes the Boss fight from DA:O's Golems DLC. Except that fight was much much harder. Here you have twice as many overpowered characters.

Mind you, maybe the templars had the right idea, even if their leader was insane. It seemed that every mage I encountered in the game was a Blood mage. It made Fadeshear and the Lio of Orlais shield the default equipment for Aveline.

[_Aine_]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

[AkiKishi]

shantisands wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

It's in New Vegas. High enough speech and you can talk your way out of the boss battle. Then you can talk your way out of what happens after it depending on what you did prior to that.

New Vegas is everything DA2 should have been plot wise with regards to factions.

[Cutlass Jack]

Doh! I did forget New Vegas. The best part of that game was saying: "Hey, Both sides suck, I'm making my own side." ...and the game letting you. Obsidian deserved a cookie for covering that.

I blame Anders and really stupid mage/templar alliances for taking that one off the table in DA2.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 13 avril 2011 - 08:11 .

[marshalleck]

BobSmith101 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

It's in New Vegas. High enough speech and you can talk your way out of the boss battle. Then you can talk your way out of what happens after it depending on what you did prior to that.

New Vegas is everything DA2 should have been plot wise with regards to factions.

New Vegas was my RPG of the year for 2010. It was THAT good. 

[MorrigansLove]

marshalleck wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

It's in New Vegas. High enough speech and you can talk your way out of the boss battle. Then you can talk your way out of what happens after it depending on what you did prior to that.

New Vegas is everything DA2 should have been plot wise with regards to factions.

New Vegas was my RPG of the year for 2010. It was THAT good. 

New vegas was indeed amazing. *sighs* Wouldn't it be wonderful if Obsidian took over Dragon Age?

[AkiKishi]

MorrigansLove wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

It's in New Vegas. High enough speech and you can talk your way out of the boss battle. Then you can talk your way out of what happens after it depending on what you did prior to that.

New Vegas is everything DA2 should have been plot wise with regards to factions.

New Vegas was my RPG of the year for 2010. It was THAT good. 

New vegas was indeed amazing. *sighs* Wouldn't it be wonderful if Obsidian took over Dragon Age?

Definately.

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

But it *should* be.    /signed.

It's in New Vegas. High enough speech and you can talk your way out of the boss battle. Then you can talk your way out of what happens after it depending on what you did prior to that.

New Vegas is everything DA2 should have been plot wise with regards to factions.

New Vegas was my RPG of the year for 2010. It was THAT good. 

New vegas was indeed amazing. *sighs* Wouldn't it be wonderful if Obsidian took over Dragon Age?

Definately.

Have all the bugs been fixed yet?

[Cutlass Jack]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Definately.

See if you feel that way after Dungeon Siege III.

New Vegas was really one of the few times Obsidian got an ending right. So while I give them props for that, I still want to smack them on the head Three Stooges style for the endings of NWN2 and KOTOR2. And Alpha Protocol also fell apart a little at the end. But all three were fun getting to the badly done part.

[fchopin]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well the way I specifically would have chosen was two separate, equally involved boss battles. For example, if you got Templars, your big end fight is with Orsinio. If you go Mages your big end fight is Meredith.

The other of the pair would get resolved more via conversation options than fight. It would make your choice really matter since you'd alter the entire end battle. That would be something I can't recall ever having seen in a game before.

I agree, it's so obvious so i cant understand why the writers could have missed this simple solution.

[AkiKishi]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Definately.

See if you feel that way after Dungeon Siege III.

New Vegas was really one of the few times Obsidian got an ending right. So while I give them props for that, I still want to smack them on the head Three Stooges style for the endings of NWN2 and KOTOR2. And Alpha Protocol also fell apart a little at the end. But all three were fun getting to the badly done part.

Good point, though what I've heard about Dungeon Siege 3 so far with regards multiple endings and characters is encouraging. Alpha Protocol was a buggy clunky mess, but the RP stuff was pretty solid.

[Cutlass Jack]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Good point, though what I've heard about Dungeon Siege 3 so far with regards multiple endings and characters is encouraging. Alpha Protocol was a buggy clunky mess, but the RP stuff was pretty solid.

I loved AP quite a bit. It wasn't perfect, and I wish there was more control over what your Thorton looked like. But yeah I loved the way the game rewarded you based on the playstyle you picked to get through the game.

I was pretty excited about Obsidian doing Dungeon Siege 3 until I found out we couldn't create characters for it. Made me sad. So probably won't go near it unless I hear stellar reviews and there's a demo.

[Dagiz]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Definately.

See if you feel that way after Dungeon Siege III.

New Vegas was really one of the few times Obsidian got an ending right. So while I give them props for that, I still want to smack them on the head Three Stooges style for the endings of NWN2 and KOTOR2. And Alpha Protocol also fell apart a little at the end. But all three were fun getting to the badly done part.

Yeah, have to agree here.   Obsidian has done...alright...until they remember that they need to have an ending.  Honestly, after what happened with KoTOR2 and NWN2, I have been hesitant to get New Vegas.  May have to give it a try though.  

[AkiKishi]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

I was pretty excited about Obsidian doing Dungeon Siege 3 until I found out we couldn't create characters for it. Made me sad. So probably won't go near it unless I hear stellar reviews and there's a demo.

I liked what they did with the characters in Dark Alliance 2. If it's similiar to that I have no objections. In Dungeon Siege most of my characters ended up very similiar because of the system.

Dagiz wrote...
Yeah, have to agree here.   Obsidian has done...alright...until they remember that they need to have an ending.  Honestly, after what happened with KoTOR2 and NWN2, I have been hesitant to get New Vegas.  May have to give it a try though.  

I'll give them a pass on KOTORII. I saw what the original ending was supposed to be and it was too "dark" for LA.
Seeing the effort they are putting into a hack and slash game though, and having enjoyed NV almost as much as the original FO games. I hope they get lucky this time with bugs etc.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 13 avril 2011 - 10:09 .

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

My issue was that I there was no choice in the end, and Bioware could have easily left Orsino or Meredith alive based on your decisions to help them or kill them. The story hit its high note during the Arishok duel and what came next felt tacked on because of the time jumps when nothing happened. The glaring error I see Bioware making is my making the story too linear like the Final Fantasy games, which we know Bioware doesn't think are RPG's because the story is set in stone and the characters not very customizable. I still thinke DA2 was an RPG but it is very close to not being one given the limited customization there is, like not being able to choose your race or background.

[Morroian]

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...

My issue was that I there was no choice in the end, and Bioware could have easily left Orsino or Meredith alive based on your decisions to help them or kill them.

Meredith can't be alive no matter what because she has the idol. Orsino well perhaps although BW probably felt that would demonise 1 side too much. My theory is that some of the problems with Act 3 may well have been due to it being originally written that Orsino would survive if you sided with the mages and then they decided they couldn't do that and had to shoehorn his harvester turn into the mage path as well as the templar path.  

[fchopin]

They could have easily made any of the choices have the idol not just Meredith depending on the side you picked so there is no problem with the theory.

[ms_sunlight]

Raphael diSanto wrote...
You, the player, are obviously playing through Hawke's story. And very true, the events of the game are about Hawke and his companions and family. The end-of-Act 1 main quest obviously has nothing to do with Kirkwall, the city. But the overarching story being told in the game itself is the story of the implosion of Kirkwall. This is the backdrop to Hawke's story, much as the American Civil War is the backdrop to Gone With the Wind. The only difference is that Hawke's more caught up in the events of the Implosion of Kirkwall than Scarlett O'Hara ever was with the Civil War.
, I believe, calls Hawke "the eye of the storm" at one point. I think that's very telling.

Excellent post in general, and this is a really clear way to make the point.  It's just like Gone With The Wind - or A Tale of Two Cities or any number of other books that tell personal stories where people are involved in, even swept away by, events that are ultimately bigger than them and beyond their control.

Sabriana wrote...

ms_sunlight wrote...
Am I
the only one who doesn't get that the fact that it probably would have
all happened anyway is the whole point of the story?

If
it is, then they cleverly concealed that with their ad campaign. I for
one was led to believe that Hawke was a character I (the player) shape
and develop, along with the companions and their individual
relationships.

I agree, the marketing for this game was way off.  It's a much more sophisticated story than all the "rise to power" guff indicated.

Mind you, the EA marketing department has made some notorious slip ups recently.  Remember the vile sexist "commit an act of lust with a booth babe" fiasco?  The juvenile "your mom's gonna hate it" ad?  (That was totally inappropriate for a game meant for adults - and anyway you've never met my mother, her taste in films and novels runs to gruesome crime and horror.  She's seen worse on a screen than your game!)

[jds1bio]

ms_sunlight wrote...

I agree, the marketing for this game was way off.  It's a much more sophisticated story than all the "rise to power" guff indicated.

Mind you, the EA marketing department has made some notorious slip ups recently.  Remember the vile sexist "commit an act of lust with a booth babe" fiasco?  The juvenile "your mom's gonna hate it" ad?  (That was totally inappropriate for a game meant for adults - and anyway you've never met my mother, her taste in films and novels runs to gruesome crime and horror.  She's seen worse on a screen than your game!)

Agreed about the marketing.  But worse, this game didn't trust me to meet its level of sophistication.  The lack of story choice the player gets puts it on par technically with shooter stories and corridor-shaped RPG stories, which tell the story to the player as the player completes gameplay levels.  And then to use a MacGuffin and then blame Hawke for it all is fine for a story, but not for an RPG.  I would have had Hawke do different things to "rise to power" had the game let me.

[Dagiz]

Agreed about the marketing.  But worse, this game didn't trust me to meet its level of sophistication.  The lack of story choice the player gets puts it on par technically with shooter stories and corridor-shaped RPG stories, which tell the story to the player as the player completes gameplay levels.  And then to use a MacGuffin and then blame Hawke for it all is fine for a story, but not for an RPG.  I would have had Hawke do different things to "rise to power" had the game let me.

I would have wanted the Arishok's head mounted above my fire place....



What?   Don't judge me. 


seriously though if the time lapse between picking a side and the ultimate showdown wasn't so close together and there were things added into it, I would have liked it a little more.  But it did seem rushed and too short...almost (think someone else mentioned it) like they were going to finish the game with the Qunari and realized they still needed to add a few hours more game time so they came up with this idea.  I  know it's not entirely true since that is the conflict is the backdrop for most of the game...but that's what it felt like.

[Roxlimn]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...
That's not true. None of my campnions were killed. He just thought he would be. The game didn't let you reason with him to say otherwise. It should have, his living beyond Meredith's death wouldn't have changed the game at all in any way except you'd have one less "AWESOME" boss fight. *sigh* It was poor writing.

If they wanted the player to kill Orsino, it should have been upon accusing him of helping Quentin kill your mother and the fall out from not stopping Quentin.

You have to understand that Orsino supposedly doesn't know that he's a character in a video game and that you're the player character and are thus destined to win.  Most of your companions aren't sure of coming through the battle alive, and it's reasonable for Orsino to view the coming battle as similarly bleak.

You can't reason with him that he'll come out alive without using extreme methods because you HAVE no reason to argue that.  As far as the game world is concerned, Orsino's in the right - the battle is risky, people will die, and one of those people will be him if he gets killed in the battle, or in any case if your side loses the battle.

I don't think many gamers really understand why Orsino and Meredith have to both die by the Champion's hand.  The game ends, Varric makes his narrative, and whatever actually happened in the game doesn't matter anymore because it's Deus Ex Machina every time Varric speaks,a gamer instinct which is sad and depressing.

Varric post-game narrative is less believable if Orsino lives.  If that happened, Meredith will simply be an anomaly, the Mages may not have been seen as quite as oppressed, and no Templar will side against Mages anywhere because the Circle in Kirkwall would have been completely and absolutely in the right.

[Roxlimn]

jds1bio wrote...

ms_sunlight wrote...

I agree, the marketing for this game was way off.  It's a much more sophisticated story than all the "rise to power" guff indicated.

Mind you, the EA marketing department has made some notorious slip ups recently.  Remember the vile sexist "commit an act of lust with a booth babe" fiasco?  The juvenile "your mom's gonna hate it" ad?  (That was totally inappropriate for a game meant for adults - and anyway you've never met my mother, her taste in films and novels runs to gruesome crime and horror.  She's seen worse on a screen than your game!)

Agreed about the marketing.  But worse, this game didn't trust me to meet its level of sophistication.  The lack of story choice the player gets puts it on par technically with shooter stories and corridor-shaped RPG stories, which tell the story to the player as the player completes gameplay levels.  And then to use a MacGuffin and then blame Hawke for it all is fine for a story, but not for an RPG.  I would have had Hawke do different things to "rise to power" had the game let me.

The game was right not to trust you.  The idol does meet the criteria of being a MacGuffin.