LobselVith8 wrote...
I think criticism can help explain why people weren't satisfied. Personally, I'd like to see DLC allow Hawke to be proactive instead of reactive, and I would like to see choice have an impact, rather than having to follow a linear progression where choices don't seem to carry any weight when it all leads down the same road. Hawke spent several years in Kirkwall, but I feel like he had less of an impact than The Warden did, and he didn't spend nearly as long in the societies he irrevocably changed with his involvement.
I have to agree with this... all of it even, I think.
Pro-active instead of reactive. Society in general is more reactive than proactive these days, and I can *see* the appeal of reactive in a game because there tends to be more emotion involved, so it will illicit more angst and traumatic bang for the buck... BUT the sense of satisfaction when you can act pro-actively can't be beat. Using cunning, planning, deep thought and even your wiles to means that you anticipate a problem, and work ahead of time to prevent that problem from ever coming to light or having it change the path you are on, or the approach of people to you based on your actions? Rich! In my lofty what-if dreams, I wonder what would have happened if we could have enlisted Ketojan based on actions in a previous quest-line, the cumulation of respect in qunari quests enabling the siding with the Qunari in Act 2, and having weighted influence points with varying people/factions enabling different endings, maybe even a secret ending where a group you helped the most (almost like alignment) comes back to assist. Being able to catch your mothers killer etc.
That ties in with having your
actions really mean something. The thing that dissapointed me the most wasn't the reused maps, the different "feel" of the game ( even though I do think that the style of menu's etc did in effect have a different style, almost "branding" differently than the era of the game...but I digress...) or even some of the commonly used criticisms you see on the board here. For me, it was this feeling that I really didn't exist in the game world... hear me out, I know it sounds strange. lol I mean, I was IN it, but I may as well not have been. All the words about me being a Champion felt like mere lip-service. Political posturing for the gamers ego and not based on the reality of my characters effect on the world they exist in. My choices didn't seem to make a difference to the ending. No matter WHAT I chose, Anders did his thing. No matter what I said, <blank> happened. I always had to fight both camps at the end. Etc. There was less illusion of choice. And less effect to my cause.
Does this make it a bad game? No, no... I don't think it does. Does it make it a bad RPG? I am not an expert enough on what an RPG is to say. What it *does* do is make it feel a bit more like you are playing out the character in someone else's story, where in DAO there was more of a feeling that *you* had a role in creating that story. I do know it is part illusion, the magic of perceived choice. In that respect, DAO did it better for me personally. There are many things that DA2 did equally well, and some areas it did much better.
I am quite solidly in the "on the fence" camp. I enjoyed the game for many things, and though I take breaks, I have happily played through several times to explore more of the story (and to experience it differently). Still, there is a sense of "almost" with the game for me personally. First: I almost hated it. Then: I almost loved it. I like some and dislike some. *shrug*
Modifié par shantisands, 12 mai 2011 - 11:24 .
Retour en haut
Doesn't mean the dude didn't have a huge head on too long of a neck, but those are details and not the cause of your perceptions. 
