164 réponses à ce sujet

[Pentan]

Eh, I enjoyed it! I knew everyone was as bad as each other before the whole end bit kicked off so I was just (slightly shallowly) happy for MORE FIGHTING! YEEEEEAH BLOOD!

*Carries on nonchalantly with a blood-spattered face* Plus the lines are so blurred throughout the whole game. Remember in one of the rooms in the templar hall, you walk in and there's a circle of mages and templars praying to summon demons? Bonkers...

The mages were almost ALWAYS going "Oh no please, oh please no..don't hurt me I'm innocent....RAAAAAR DEMON," and despite being a mage-loving hippy; this whole blood magic thing, very easy to slip into.

Next time though I plan to play as a hypocrite mage-hating blood-mage and side with the templars just for kicks.

All good middle parts to an epic saga end with total destruction and/or a scattering of characters (see: Empire Strikes Back/Mass Effect 2)

Anyway, I'm happy and I hope they don't take too long with Dragon Age 3 and any other resulting sequels... only because I'm 22 and somewhere between now and 30 I plan to marry and spawn and there's only so much good gaming hours you can get in between husbands and jobs and bawling children. <---- WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO SAY

[Alex109222]

jds1bio wrote...

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?

They are relesing a large patch along with the next DLC, Obsidian are already finished with the DLC, they just want to finish the patch.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Roxlimn 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.

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.

Normally I'd agree with you on the whole "character doesn't know you're the player character destined to win thing" BUT I am "The Champion", I have been to the deep roads and back (hell and back), I've slain High Dragons, I've dealt with a Quanri invasion, slain literal armies of soliders/mercenaries/thugs/templars/bloodmages/demons single handedly --I'm INCREDIBLY POWERFUL in this game world.  So are my many allies. We have never so much as been knocked down in battle and fought much more powerful things than the Knight Commander and her band of Templars (and Orsino doesn't know about the MacGuffin at this point).

With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that you should be able to reason with him that holding off the Templars long enough to escape like so many other mages supposedly did is not unreasonable!

If Hawke has to kill both Meredith and Orsino for the plot to work, which I'm not disagreeing with you about, then as I said, Orsino should have been fingered for helping Quentin which causes us to knifey knife him or battle him or something to do with being a blood mage helper who is responsible for the death of your mother (indirectly).

My thoughts.

[Sabriana]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Normally I'd agree with you on the whole "character doesn't know you're the player character destined to win thing" BUT I am "The Champion", I have been to the deep roads and back (hell and back), I've slain High Dragons, I've dealt with a Quanri invasion, slain literal armies of soliders/mercenaries/thugs/templars/bloodmages/demons single handedly --I'm INCREDIBLY POWERFUL in this game world.  So are my many allies. We have never so much as been knocked down in battle and fought much more powerful things than the Knight Commander and her band of Templars (and Orsino doesn't know about the MacGuffin at this point).

With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that you should be able to reason with him that holding off the Templars long enough to escape like so many other mages supposedly did is not unreasonable!

If Hawke has to kill both Meredith and Orsino for the plot to work, which I'm not disagreeing with you about, then as I said, Orsino should have been fingered for helping Quentin which causes us to knifey knife him or battle him or something to do with being a blood mage helper who is responsible for the death of your mother (indirectly).

My thoughts.

I agree. Hawke *is* supposedly the "Champion". She didn't get the title handed for best dressed, she got it because the people or Kirkwall believe she is their savior. Her little adventures, including the Deep Road, are the stuff of legend, and the Deep Road venture has even been noticed and acted upon by the Grey Wardens.

Have a little faith, Orsino (see what I did there, *grin*)

Nice idea for the end-plot, Kimberly. I've seen several good ideas of yours floating around. You sure you're not in DigSim design? :happy:

[nekhbet]

Sometimes it's more fun to just let go of preconceptions and control and enjoy the ride the devs take you on. DA2 is obviously one stage in the storyline, so I wouldn't go mental about stuff that feels disappointing at this point.

[Sabriana]

Well you see Nekhbet, that's just the point, and the issue many people have.

We (the ones who stated so) don't want to be taken on a ride.

We want to be the ones who drive the car.

Disappointment weighs heavy, and is a negative emotion that lingers. So there really is no "letting go", because it rises up unbidden.

My head might say "get over it, already. What's done is done." but my heart says "I feel let down and made a fool of." In my case, my heart overrules my head. Unfortunately for me.

[nekhbet]

Yeah, and that's understandable. I'm just saying it's worth letting go this time, no matter how hard it feels. If the options are feeling sad and disappointed or taking what enjoyment you can by taking a different approach to the game, I think the latter is always preferred. Saves a lot of headaches.

[Cutlass Jack]

Sabriana wrote...

We (the ones who stated so) don't want to be taken on a ride.

We want to be the ones who drive the car.

That's certainly a valid way to look at it. But when driving a car, you don't get to control the other vehicles on the road. I always felt in control of my Hawke. What I couldn't control were the other drivers. I could only respond to what they were doing and attempt to swerve out of the way.

In some ways Its better than driving in real life because I can't murder knife someone who cuts me off on the highway.

[Kimberly Shaw]

If we're taking the car analogy, my take on it...in DA:O we knew where we were going to end up (arch-demon has to die), we just didn't know what road we were taking to get there. We get to choose. In DA:2, we know where we're going to end up (Mage v Templar war) but we're also only given one highway to get there and we can't get off it. We can change lanes, but that's about our only choice.

[Iehoa0083]

FiachSidhe wrote...

At least at the end of DA:O, you got a nice little epilogue of your influence. Even if they did **** all over it with Awakenings, and then forgot all about it in DA2.

With DA2, it seems EA has taken notice and decided to make it a cash cow at this point. Starting day DLC, bug testing handled by Helen Keller, and an ending that screams "Coming soon...The Ending of Dragon Age 2 $9.99".

I'm worried about how badly these sell outs are going to rape Star Wars.

Same worry here...I trust Bioware, but EA... I'm not so sure...

Modifié par Iehoa0083, 14 avril 2011 - 02:47 .

[Sabriana]

nekhbet wrote...

Yeah, and that's understandable. I'm just saying it's worth letting go this time, no matter how hard it feels. If the options are feeling sad and disappointed or taking what enjoyment you can by taking a different approach to the game, I think the latter is always preferred. Saves a lot of headaches.

That's sensible advice. You are certainly right. But human nature is what it is.

Take the many repetitive complaints for example. We, as humans, are inclined to think that we might get better results the next time we push the button. Who among us hasn't pushed a light switch, and nothing happened, only to push it again, and again in the misplaced hope that it will work the second, third, or fourth time around?

Who hasn't turned the car key several times because it didn't start? Pushed the elevator button over and over again? We always hope that it will work, that things will fix themselves if we only try often enough. It's who we are, simple as that. We do know that no matter how often we complain it won't change things. But still we do it. Perhaps it'll work the next try.

Disappointment is a feeling that will rise over and over. No matter what we say, no matter that we try to be reasonable, it will come and it will fester, at least for a time.

I didn't hate DA 2. It was 'meh' for me. That is not to say that I didn't have fun in some parts. I ploughed through act I, hoping it would get better. It did. In act II. My hopes rose, even though that (IMO) stupid wheel janked me out of the game over and over. When act III rolled around disappointment set in, and it rose and festered until it was "in my face" due the (for me) horrible ending.

It does have its good parts. Unfortunately for me, I saw so much potential utterly wasted. I felt as if I was made a fool of. Mobwaves? Paraphrases? Settings that never changed? Nothing mattered, my PC had little impact and was just a cleaner upper? No companion customization? Interaction only in designated places? A dull and lifeless environment? Exploding baddies if they're stuck with a toothpick? For me the negatives did far, far outweigh the positives.

And that lingers and makes people bitter. At one point we will get over it. Most of the diappointed will not trust again. But we'll get over it.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That's certainly a valid way to look at it. But when driving a car, you
don't get to control the other vehicles on the road. I always felt in
control of my Hawke. What I couldn't control were the other drivers. I
could only respond to what they were doing and attempt to swerve out of
the way.

In some ways Its better than driving in real life because I can't murder knife someone who cuts me off on the highway.

Whot? You forgot to pack your machete. Shame on you.

True, I don't get to control the others, but I can choose the direction I drive toward, the speed I use, and I can take any and all detours I want.

Kimberly Shaw wrote..

If we're taking the car analogy, my take on it...in DA:O we knew where
we were going to end up (arch-demon has to die), we just didn't know
what road we were taking to get there. We get to choose. In DA:2, we
know where we're going to end up (Mage v Templar war) but we're also
only given one highway to get there and we can't get off it. We can
change lanes, but that's about our only choice.

Fitting. And scary.

[Blastback]

My problem with the ending is that it felt like I was ultimatly inconsequential to what happened. The final act wasn't Hawke's story, it was Orsino, Anders and Meridith's. I spent my time as champion runing errands for others, never taking action myself.

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

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.

No?  So the *spoiler* wasn't someting that major characters wanted to covet?  DIdn't drive the plot even though the plot insinuates that Hawke was blamed for everything that happened by releasing it out into the world?  And then the game having me make a choice, and the *spoiler* overriding that choice and telling me to mind my own business about it?

[GammaRayJim]

nekhbet wrote...

Sometimes it's more fun to just let go of preconceptions and control and enjoy the ride the devs take you on. DA2 is obviously one stage in the storyline, so I wouldn't go mental about stuff that feels disappointing at this point.

Isn't this basically God of War or the like to be taken on a ride with no real consequence to our choices. Yes the world changes forever and we are there but definitely not the center of it. We become Champion but that has no effect on the way the story ends so we in effect don't even Rise to Power.

[JaegerBane]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

The point that people are missing is that DA2 is NOT Hawke's story. Sorry, folks, but you are NOT the main character in this story. It's not DAO. It's not about Hawke saving the city, or finding the "good" ending.

DA2 is the story of the City of Kirkwall, the story of the events leading up to the .. well, no spoilers, but the stuff that the Seeker is asking Varric about. It's about Hawke's role in those events, sure. But it's not Hawke's story. It's not an epic "save-the-country/world/universe" story.

It's the story of "what happened in Kirkwall over 10 years to cause the situation we now find ourselves in."

I, personally, absolutely love this story. It's the closest I've ever felt to real roleplaying in a cRPG. Walking the fine line between the factions, helping where I felt it right to help, not where I didn't. It felt much more meaningful than "Here's Darkspawn, go kill them. Oh, look, an archdemon. Go kill that, too."

While I can get the point about the factions and who to support, it's worth pointing out simply stating that it 'isn't Hawke's story' doesn't excuse the fact that it's effectively divorced from the gameplay. If the story has little to no relevance to actions of the player then it begs the question why the developers bothered with it in the first place. I mean, we're getting into the fundamentals of why people play games, here. You may have enjoyed the fact that the story wasn't anything to do with the player character, but ultimately this type of thing isn't really going to appeal to the kind of audience Dragon Age has, nor does it correlate in any way the way the game was described.

And to put it bluntly, representing the entire DA:O storyline as 'kill darkspawn, kill archdemon' indicates that you don't seem like you're actually willing to view the comparison objectively. I mean, your logic would bill such masterpieces of fiction like Empire Strikes Back as 'bad stuff happens to rebels' or Gladiator as 'stab, slash and hallucinate'. Simply glossing over a given storyline doesn't really produce any kind of legitimate point in of itself.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 14 avril 2011 - 10:43 .

[jds1bio]

GammaRayJim wrote...

nekhbet wrote...

Sometimes it's more fun to just let go of preconceptions and control and enjoy the ride the devs take you on. DA2 is obviously one stage in the storyline, so I wouldn't go mental about stuff that feels disappointing at this point.

Isn't this basically God of War or the like to be taken on a ride with no real consequence to our choices. Yes the world changes forever and we are there but definitely not the center of it. We become Champion but that has no effect on the way the story ends so we in effect don't even Rise to Power.

I did let go of preconceptions while playing this game.  And I don't expect to have total control.

But with a story whose climax is a choice (and the game forces you to make one), and you give an answer, and it is rendered irrelevant by something else, and the story blames you for introducing that something else into the story, even though the game gave you no choice of whether to introduce it, you realize you have no power.  Not as Hawke the Champion.  But even worse, as the player.

Ok folks, the ride is over, please watch your step as you exit..."wait...wait a minute...what about my choice?...and what about my other choices before...didn't you hear me...doesn't that count for something...huh?"

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

It's sad that your companions were more of a plot motivator than you were.

[Roxlimn]

jds1bio:

We already know that you don't know what a MacGuffin is. You did not need to demonstrate.

Ok folks, the ride is over, please watch your step as you exit..."wait...wait a minute...what about my choice?...and what about my other choices before...didn't you hear me...doesn't that count for something...huh?"

This quote clearly indicates that you are looking for a power fantasy game.  You don't really want just any kind of narrative content.  You want a hero whose choices manipulate the world in exactly the fashion that you choose.

DA2 is not that kind of game, but not being a specific kind of game doesn't make it bad.  It just makes it not your cup of tea.  Some people (like me) enjoy a more sophisticated experience for a change.

Kimberly Shaw:

Don't mistake game mechanics for narrative content. Regardless of how you play the game, you're supposed to have done everything with the help of friends, and in at least one case, were about to die from a Saarebas ambush when Meredith saves your butt.

So no, even though Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall (do people around here even know what a Free Marches Champion actually is?), it doesn't mean that he or she is necessarily powerful enough to withstand the most powerful military force in Kirkwall.

Furthermore, Orsino is his own person. What he does or does not do is influenced by Hawke, but ultimately, he's an independent actor (like Anders and Merrill, actually). They are not puppets that you get to control in the game. I think gamers have lost sight of the attraction of game characters having their own motivations and acting on their own.

Hawke is special, but he isn't invincible, and if Orsino chooses to focus on despair, Hawke has a limited amount of influence on that (which isn't enough to convince Orsino). Heck, most of Hawke's companions are pretty bleak on the battle, and they've experienced Hawke's awesome prowess firsthand.

Sabriana:

I think the game just isn't the kind of game you were looking for. That doesn't make it bad. I actually liked most of the changes that made you down on the game.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 15 avril 2011 - 04:36 .

[Morroian]

JaegerBane wrote...

While I can get the point about the factions and who to support, it's worth pointing out simply stating that it 'isn't Hawke's story' doesn't excuse the fact that it's effectively divorced from the gameplay. If the story has little to no relevance to actions of the player then it begs the question why the developers bothered with it in the first place. I mean, we're getting into the fundamentals of why people play games, here. 

For pure role playing as in creating, defining and playing a character. Shaping the direction of the story isn't necessarily role playing, its just a trope of crpgs. It can be role playing but I wouldn't say it is fundamental to role playing. If Hawke wasn't voiced and we had full text response choices I reckon there would be far less objection to the lack of choice in shaping Kirkwall and people would just enjoy role playing through kirkwall. But because it is fully voiced and uses paraphrases this is perceived as not truly role playing. I acknowledge the system is more limiting but IMHO one can still role play sufficiently within it, indeed for certain people such as myself the DA2 system is preferable for role playing.

[Roxlimn]

JaegerBane:

I think that gamers are too addicted to power fantasies to really appreciate something along the lines of DA2. What is the point of a forked narrative if it doesn't affect later events?

I'm kind of surprised anyone would even ask such a basic question. Self-evidently, the point of a forked narrative is to experience different narrative content. You get that in DA2, even if the events that occur later are largely the same in gameplay.

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

jds1bio:

We already know that you don't know what a MacGuffin is. You did not need to demonstrate.

Then please enlighten me, by all means.  Shouldn't we, as fellow community members, be exchanging knowledge and understanding?

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

jds1bio:

Ok folks, the ride is over, please watch your step as you exit..."wait...wait a minute...what about my choice?...and what about my other choices before...didn't you hear me...doesn't that count for something...huh?"

This quote clearly indicates that you are looking for a power fantasy game.  You don't really want just any kind of narrative content.  You want a hero whose choices manipulate the world in exactly the fashion that you choose.

DA2 is not that kind of game, but not being a specific kind of game doesn't make it bad.  It just makes it not your cup of tea.  Some people (like me) enjoy a more sophisticated experience for a change.

I like DA2 very much.  I've said so in several threads.  I'm just disappointed that the story's main choice doesn't provide you feedback on how the choice affected the story.

Your assumptions about me are quite direct, and quite incorrect.  I wasn't looking for a power fantasy game.  I was open-minded about DA2.

I keep telling people that I think The Witcher does the choice/feedback illusion thing well in its main story where DA2 doesn't.  Both are not power fantasy games.  And I like both of them.

[Roxlimn]

I stand corrected on your stance on DA2. That said, I still have to take issue with your interpretation of what DA2 has done.

The Witcher is specifically about presenting the player with a choice and then representing the effects of that choice in a quantum manner at some point later in the game. In the sense that having direct, packaged feedback that specifically refers you to a prior action or choice, Witcher is a power fantasy. It makes you feel potent.

DA2 puts Hawke in a position where he can't really choose whether or not to prevent the meltdown that happens in the game's last Act. He can choose sides, and that does affect later events in the epilogue, but that doesn't mean that DA2 is devoid of choice. There are conflicts you can settle with force, or with words. You can affect the fates of your companions most directly, but also other people.

In fact, there are missions that only open depending on how you choose. The entire way Act 2 plays out is different if you choose to side with Petrice. The last encounters in Act 2 can play out differently depending on whether you brought Fenris, how you've treated the Arishok, and whether or not you befriended Isabella enough.

These are not illusionary effects. How the Act unfolds is informed in a complex manner (not quantized) depending on how you acted before.

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

I stand corrected on your stance on DA2. That said, I still have to take issue with your interpretation of what DA2 has done.

The Witcher is specifically about presenting the player with a choice and then representing the effects of that choice in a quantum manner at some point later in the game. In the sense that having direct, packaged feedback that specifically refers you to a prior action or choice, Witcher is a power fantasy. It makes you feel potent.

DA2 puts Hawke in a position where he can't really choose whether or not to prevent the meltdown that happens in the game's last Act. He can choose sides, and that does affect later events in the epilogue, but that doesn't mean that DA2 is devoid of choice. There are conflicts you can settle with force, or with words. You can affect the fates of your companions most directly, but also other people.

In fact, there are missions that only open depending on how you choose. The entire way Act 2 plays out is different if you choose to side with Petrice. The last encounters in Act 2 can play out differently depending on whether you brought Fenris, how you've treated the Arishok, and whether or not you befriended Isabella enough.

These are not illusionary effects. How the Act unfolds is informed in a complex manner (not quantized) depending on how you acted before.

DA2 is definitely not devoid of choice, that's not what I'm really saying.  I've said in several threads (and made a few) sticking up for just how much companion and side-quest choice is in the game.

I know about Act 2, and I've done the Petrice thing also, and yes there's some lee-way as you say (which is why I think people like Act 2 the best).  But that's not the whole story.  Bookending Act 2, you're forced into expedition, no choice (Act 1), and forced into confrontation (Act III) after making a choice that implies being on a side of that confrontation.  Then the meat and potatoes of that confrontation are the same for both choices.  And from a story perspective, it's cool, I like it.  But as an RPG, could they at least tell me how what I chose in the past got me here?  The quests leading up to the finale try to do this somewhat, but they lose it when one particular thing always happens.  For a game that's supposed to be about a "Rise To Power", I didn't feel powerful in this one.

And P.S. we agree to disagree, as an amnesiac I didn't feel potent in the witcher either.  I could barely scrape an identity together.  I couldn't do anything about what certain sides felt or what certain characters did.  It was out of my hands, both as Geralt and as the player, but the game convinced me that my words and sub-quest actions made me partly responsible.  That was very clever.

[Morroian]

jds1bio wrote...

DA2 is definitely not devoid of choice, that's not what I'm really saying.  I've said in several threads (and made a few) sticking up for just how much companion and side-quest choice is in the game.

I know about Act 2, and I've done the Petrice thing also, and yes there's some lee-way as you say (which is why I think people like Act 2 the best).  But that's not the whole story.  Bookending Act 2, you're forced into expedition, no choice (Act 1), 

Almost all rpgs force you to do the main quests.

jds1bio wrote...

and forced into confrontation (Act III) after making a choice that implies being on a side of that confrontation.  Then the meat and potatoes of that confrontation are the same for both choices. 

But the choices have different consequences eg. becoming Viscount.