147 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

Why is it that everyone complains about the absence of a primary antagonist for most of the game and say how it was a fatal flaw, but seemingly nobody complained about The Witchers lack of a primary antagonist and how jacques de aldersberg wasn't introduced until the final act? It was simply put a great source of speculation from the community as a result regarding on how he got Alvin's amulet (he was so alvin btw)

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 15 avril 2011 - 09:55 .

[Ksandor]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Why is it that everyone complains about the absence of a primary antagonist for most of the game and say how it was a fatal flaw, but seemingly nobody complained about The Witchers lack of a primary antagonist and how jacques de aldersberg wasn't introduced until the final act? It was simply put a great source of speculation from the community as a result regarding on how he got Alvin's amulet (he was so alvin btw)

If that is wrong let me say this: 2 wrongs won't make it right.

[Gongsun Zan]

doloreg wrote...

You, my good and logical sir, are wrong. The conflict between the two sides is the theme that runs through the game.
A good story teller never shows the unimportant parts of the story. You wouldn't read LotR if it had 200 scenes in which they do nothing but eat and walk.
In da2 it's handled rather well.

Act1:
You go into the deep roads, (your reasons for this are unimportant in case of the theme, but quite important in case of the story) and find the Idol.
Firstly it seems like a minor plot element, but it's Chekhov's gun, being the reason behind Meredith's downfall.
The expedition also secures your position in Kirkwall, making you somebody, which will be important later on.

Act2:
The qunari issue is more connected than you might think.
You get nticed by the ruling class because of the expedition, and you get caught in the political maelstorm
It has two points:
-You become champion, making you actually influential, which plays a role in act3

-The Viscount is killed. And that's the main point. The Viscount was the peacekeeper in Kirkwall, ruling both templars and mages. While his grip was far from firm, he managed to handle the situation and keep the two parties quiet. With him gone, there's no peace, no third party, and no ruuler.
This is the very thing that allowed act3 to happen.

act3:
Without someone to whatch over them the two opposing parties are raging hard.
There's no chance for real peace, only some compromise.
You are the champion, and people listen to you, so your opinion is important.
You still are able to support neither to a certain degree, but it's just avoiding the inevitable.
When Janders kills the Grand Cleric, all chance of compromise is lost.
You have to choose a side and support freedom or order.

Without showing how you become influental, how the third party is lost, or how you're forced to choose a side, the story ould make no sense. These are all essential parts. The story is not mages vs. templars, it's the mirth of a champion and the start of a revolution.

Even if you disagree with how it was handled, it's much better than "You're the hero, kill a dragon".

All you've done is outline a linear progression of events, each of which leads into the other. A good story is not simply: A happens, which causes B, which leads to C! A good story should have its climax and ending rooted firmly in it's beginning (Act I). Act 2 should feature the hero struggling to overcome the challenged posed in Act II, and Act III sees the resolution of that problem. Of course, there are variations, but that's the general gist of things.

LOTR starts with Frodo being sent on a quest to destroy the ring. The story ends once the ring is destroyed (minus the gazillion epilogues).

Mask of the Betrayer starts with you being cursed with a hunger for spirits. The game ends with you lifting the curse or conquering the hunger.

Bulletstorm starts with you being stranded on a planet with everything trying to kill you. It ends with you killing everything and escaping the planet.

DA2 starts with your family running away from their home in Lothering. It ends with a Mage Templar war. Also thrown in is Hawke's rise to power, and the whole Qunari issue.

Basically, DA2 is three seperate narratives arranged in an episodic fashion, not a single narrative in a three act structure. It is NOT about Hawke's rise to power, because at no point in the story is his rise to power ever actually threatened (as the game itself points out, 'he's always right'). It is NOT about the Qunari, because that's resolved mid-game. It is NOT about the Mage/Templar conflict, because Act 2 isn't even about them.

It's not a problem new to Bioware, except they usually don't make much of an effort to hide it. In games like DA:O, KOTOR, BG2, they're so used to setting up anthologies of stories inside that of a larger framing plot, they seem to have forgotten that putting them in a linear fashion and calling it a three-act play does not actually work that way.

Modifié par Gongsun Zan, 15 avril 2011 - 12:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Gongsun Zan wrote...

Basically, DA2 is three seperate narratives arranged in an episodic fashion, not a single narrative in a three act structure.

This, sir, is exactly correct.

This was claimed to be about Hawke's rise to power... but it really has nothing to do with either.

Act 1 is a little tedious, but neccessary to get us acquainted with Kirkwall.

Act 2 revolves around the Quanari, and the Chantry's plot to start a war with them because they threaten their followers. Hawke doesn't need to have gone into the Deep Roads for this to happen. Hawke's status as a noble after the Deep Roads expedition doesn't play into this at all... The Viscount tells Hawke to go because the Arishok requested Hawke personally. So if Hawke skipped the Deep Roads expedition and most of the actions happening in Act 1, Act 2 could still function fine.

Act 3 revolves around the Mage/Templar conflict. As Champion, the two sides consult Hawke as to what side they agree with. Yet really, it does not matter. So if Hawke was not the champion (and we could ignore the events of Act 1 and 2) as a happy-go-lucky adventurer, he would hear about the fighting breaking out at the Gallows (most likely from a letter sent to his house, still in Low Town), show up, kill red-eyed, idol possessed Meredith and flesh Golem Orsino, making the end game the exact same. And the idol would have been recovered by Varric and Bartrand in their expedition wihtout Hawke there.

In this bare-bones narrative, Hawke does not need almost any events from previous Acts for the same end-game to still happen. In fact, imagine it this way... DA:O could have had these as Origins stories.

"Your family is poor, so you must go to the Deep Roads to earn cash, where you encounter darkspawn and are infected with the taint, and undergo the Rite of Conscription..."

"The Quanari and Chantry break out in battle after tensions have rose. After displaying your prowess in battle and to avoid an international incident after killing the Arishok, Duncan has you undergo the Rite of Conscription..."

"The Knight Commander and the First Enchanter become embroiled after an abomination attacks and kills innocents. After the dust settles, both lie dead at your hand. Duncan, impressed with your ability in battle and also not wanting to see the Chantry kill you, has you undergo the Rite of Conscription..."

Narrative structure is more than just theme. You can say "the theme is the dark side of humanity" and it still can mean that the narrative structure is incredibly poor and doesn't convey connection to your story. Trying to sound highbrow and that players "just didn't get it" doesn't dismiss the fact that the narrative structure was flimsy.

[doloreg]

Gongsun Zan wrote...


All you've done is outline a linear progression of events, each of which leads into the other. A good story is not simply: A happens, which causes B, which leads to C! A good story should have its climax and ending rooted firmly in it's beginning (Act I). Act 2 should feature the hero struggling to overcome the challenged posed in Act II, and Act III sees the resolution of that problem. Of course, there are variations, but that's the general gist of things.

LOTR starts with Frodo being sent on a quest to destroy the ring. The story ends once the ring is destroyed (minus the gazillion epilogues).

Mask of the Betrayer starts with you being cursed with a hunger for spirits. The game ends with you lifting the curse or conquering the hunger.

Bulletstorm starts with you being stranded on a planet with everything trying to kill you. It ends with you killing everything and escaping the planet.

DA2 starts with your family running away from their home in Lothering. It ends with a Mage Templar war. Also thrown in is Hawke's rise to power, and the whole Qunari issue.

Basically, DA2 is three seperate narratives arranged in an episodic fashion, not a single narrative in a three act structure. It is NOT about Hawke's rise to power, because at no point in the story is his rise to power ever actually threatened (as the game itself points out, 'he's always right'). It is NOT about the Qunari, because that's resolved mid-game. It is NOT about the Mage/Templar conflict, because Act 2 isn't even about them.

It's not a problem new to Bioware, except they usually don't make much of an effort to hide it. In games like DA:O, KOTOR, BG2, they're so used to setting up anthologies of stories inside that of a larger framing plot, they seem to have forgotten that putting them in a linear fashion and calling it a three-act play does not actually work that way.

No, if th goal is set in the first minutes without twists and questioning the plot, when they tell you what you have to do and you do it, then it's a predictable story. Saying that someone is evil, and he is, that there's only one way to stop him, and they tell you the correct way, saying that only the chosen one can win this war, and you are the chosen one, well, then it's bad strorytelling.
DA:O is pretty much this. Dragon=evil, You=good->go kill the dragon. Then you kill the dragon, no questions asked. Completely black and white.

In the morally grey world of da2, you are unsure about your place and wheter you're right, or wrong.
It's a battle of opinions that can be both supported and opposed, freedom with the chance of chaos, or order with the chance of abuse of power, as opposed to the plain old battle of good and evil.
Setting such a direct goal would clash with the whole idea, because in the real-er world, you cannot be sure from day 1.

And I've done much more than simply telling what happened, i've connected them, pointed out the importance of the acts, and showed that it's more then "stuff happens".

-Without act one, the viscount would never have cared about you, and Meredith wouldn't have gone insane.
-Without act two the viscount would be still alive, and the templars wouldn't be allowed to rule the city. Order would be held.
-Without act three the revolution would never have started, and Cassandra wouldn't search for Varric.

This is not an epic about a hero fighting evil, it's a complicated story of a refugee whose actions led to the start of the mage revolution.
And yes, the story is not *about* his rrise to power, but it plays an important role, because it's what makes Hawke important, what makes the other characters care about him.
It's not about the qunari, the qunari are a plot element to kill the viscount, they play a huge role in your rise to power but also in Meredith's, because it's the Arishok's fault that the Citystate is without a ruler, it's the opportunity meredith takes by seizing power. I've never said that it's about the qunari.
And it's not about Mages vs. Templars? Of course it is... In a way.
That's not the main point of act 2, but it's the theme runing through the game. And without act 2 the revolution, the fruit of events could not have happened.
You are free to disagree with the way it was handled. You are free to say that the Viscount should've died of a heart attack, but he *had* to die.

If you know the plot and look back at it, it all makes sense, like you've said.
act1 paints the problem-templars are opressing mages, it's not that important, but it's there
act2 makes the problem inevitable-by the time the viscount dies, you pretty much know that things can't be resolved peacefully
act3 you resolve the problem

It fits the standard platform, but it's less obvious, less blatant. Given that you can say that a subtheme is destiny.
As Flemeth asks herself,  "Is it fate or chance, i can never decide", you can view it as an opportunist who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, trying to survive, making it more of a real life, casual story of an ordinary person, or you can view it as the destiny of Hawke, who was meant to do what he had to.
The clues are there, you just have to pick them up.

As a conclusion, i think that the story of DA2 is superb, one that questions the morals of the world, and fits the expected course of events, but only under the guise of three ordinary stories.

[txgoldrush]

Ksandor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The true main conflict of the story is not Mage vs Templar...its Hawke vs the dark side of human nature. Even in Act I, this theme holds true. if Gamlen did not stupidily gamble all his money away, ther emay not have been a need to go to the Deep Roads. The murder of Hawke's mother REALLY brings the theme out.

Even Hawke can fall and do inhumane and greedy actions, as much of Hawke's motives are determined by the player. And he doesn't win, he loses. And he can be corrupted by the city and the zealotry as much as anyone else or he can attempt to rise above it and try to play peacemaker.

Not only that, both Meredith and Orsino are killed because of their character flaws, her zealotry and his despair. Which also fits the theme I presented.

This has never occured to me. And I do not consider myself a casual player. But maybe it never occured to me because there was no focus and story was not told as it should be. If they say we made an innovation but you silly people don't get it maybe this is because they do not tell the story as it should be. If you had said that the Bioware had great ideas for DA II story then I would agree. But you also say that they tell a great story in DA II, and that their narrative is great. I disagree. But we are all entitled to our opinion.

BTW to further my analogy... DAO's ideas were not great. DAO did not have an original story. Bannorn vs Loghain conflict, the United States inspired Ferelden politics and government was far more original than the LOTR type Darkspawn and "We Americans or Canadians or whatever DO love our dogs (Mabari hounds)" story. But DAO told a great story. For goodness sake just look at Battle of Ostagar and see how Cailan dies. See how cinematic and dramatic it is. And look at DA II prologue where super hero Hawke pulls amazing stunts to slaughter the Darkspawn in amazing Matrix ways and just think again how this makes DA II's narrative superior to DAO? Obviously we have different tastes. I will make it plain. I prefer Dragon Age Origins and Baldur's Gate if a game does not focus on story or at least the narrative to compensate for the lack of focus - even if Bioware had great ideas for DA II I would dismiss the game for its lack of focus AND inferior narrative.

ME 2 lacked focus too. But ME 2's narrative, drama, humor, cinematics and character development are far more superior to DA II. So although I don't like games which lack focus I adore ME2. It is an excellent space opera. ME2 told a great story. Overcoming bad side of the human nature? Well look at Zaed, Overlord, Samara and other people. Then look back to DA II. DA II does not appeal to me. And because of that some people dislike DA II and think it as an inferior product. What is DAII anyway? Which category does this game belong? To its own category?

Well in that case abominations are fascinating too in their "What the hell is wrong with you people kind of way"; in their unfocused, formless, corrupted and twisted semi human (uncomplete freaky game) way...

Ummm...no DAII's characters develop FAR better than their Mass Effect 2 crew. Really, the only members of ME2 to get full development are romance options when romanced. Other than that, wait for ME3. DAII characters develop through the years and all characters devlop through the friendship or rivalry paths. These characters can develop in two to three different ways. In fact DAII is a warning to ME3 in that area.....it will be a huge step down if ME3's companions do not show the comradrie that DAII companions showed.

DAII's plotline is superior to DAO. Why? It uses its substance much more effectively. DAO didn't. It was disconnected to the main story. DAO's greatest moment was the "Nature of the Beast" quest. Its too bad the only connection to the main plot was summoning elves or werewolves in the finale.

[Foolsfolly]

@ doloreg:

You, my good and logical sir, are wrong.

Fair enough.

A good story teller never shows the unimportant parts of the story.

Agreed. And I think BioWare spent a lot of time on the unimportant parts of this story. It doesn't really get rolling until the end of the game. The entire first act is great at setting a small stage...but lousy at setting the issue, players, and how this will have a global reach. The global reach thing was half-heartily tossed into the Sebastian DLC as Leliana said everyone's watching Kirkwall...but never on why they're watching Kirkwall. Why is this veil thinned decaying city so important to the rest of the world? Act 1 should have introduced more to the general plot. Same with Act 2, although that pains me to say because Act 2's story is by far the best thing about the game.

You go into the deep roads, (your reasons for this are unimportant in case of the theme, but quite important in case of the story) and find the Idol.

But the Idol is lazy and stupid. It's brought in to make a human conflict inhuman and unpersonal. Meredith's actions are now firmly blamed on some ancient evil, something I could have sworn wasn't going to be in this game. It's not her fault anymore. Her actions from Act 2 on are now to be blamed on an exterior force.

The only reason the Idol even exists (because I have firm faith in BioWare that if they wanted to they could have written a Meredith who's in control of her own life) is for DLC and/or DA3. It's a plot point for another story and completely alien to this story.

-You become champion, making you actually influential, which plays a role in act3

I can agree with this. Maybe because it's the best thing of the game or not. But I agree. If the story's about a refugee then that refugee has to get noticed somehow. And saving a bunch of nobles and dueling the Arishok in single combat is a pretty epic way to get noticed.

But I don't think the Champion position is that influenced. No one ever listens to Hawke, they see Hawke as a tool no better than a guardsman. It's a ceremonial position, only marginally higher than Ms Kirkwall; although I'm assuming Ms Kirkwall gets more dates out of her position.

But Act 3 is a mess. A mage supporter still gets attacked by Grace and her lackies (if your argument here is that Grace is insane then it would have been great if she wanted to fight and everyone else declined). There's nothing new added to the argument, it's like BW ran out of things to say about the issue that's the whole point of the game.

Nothing you do matters ever. And even when the Chantry's a ruined husk of a building there's a chance for compromise....you know hold the guilty responsible. Meredith's hatred (and thus the idol since it fanned it beyond reason) is what makes compromise unavailable. Well that and the game railroads here.

It's like blaming the Elves because Anders blew up the Chantry. The Circle Mages may be guilty of a few things but not destroying the Chantry!

But fine, perhaps the story is about the rise of Hawke. I guess it is then. Hawke's a nothing and becomes something. Sure, why not.

Maybe DA3 will be about something interesting then because Hawke's rise to power was boring. You do this one mission, then off camera you're risen to nobility, and then you fight this one guy and then someone just calls you a name, and then later if you side with the Templars you become Viscount for a whole sentence and then still run off and can't be found.

It's not exactly a tale that inspires but Hawke does rise to power.

Even if you disagree with how it was handled, it's much better than "You're the hero, kill a dragon".

That's a weird couple of games. The first one had the most generic BioWare/RPG story you can imagine, and yet it felt focused, personal, and epic in its scale. The second one focuses on characters and yet it lacks focus, feels impersonal, and is really low in scale.

The ideas for the second game are great, they just didn't pull it off.

[Ksandor]

Actually I said DAO told a great story. I did not say the plot was better than DA II. I also said that DA II has some great plot ideas but DA II does not tell a great story.

As for ME II characters.... Well I just look at Merril (sp?) and her lines and Varric and his chest hair and... well. ME2 characters look like real people that you can relate, except Grunt. They are like grown up, mature people. DA II characters are shallow and reek of teenage boy hormons and badly told network TV show commercial cliche.

DA II characters do not appeal to me but aside from personal distate I don't think they are told well or develop well in the course of the game. That is my opinion. I know it is not universal but shared by many people.

Look I do not expect Bioware to come up with any great ideas to discover Americas AGAIN. I do not expect them to redefine the art, literature and human culture in general. I do not expect an artistic revolution. I mean Tolstoy, Kafka, Hugo, Dante's Inferno, Petrarca, Boccaccio, Decameron, Montaigne, Hemingway and even Robert Jordan and Salvatore and Troy Denning are there.

But that does not excuse them of doing a lousy job. Because you know Baldur's Gate is also there.

I think discussing this further is pointless. In the sense that Bioware just chose another target audience for their games and they will never satisfy people like me in future. I consider myself outside of the main demographic from now on and will look other companies for better games. Sadly I don't think that other companies could do better even than DA II.

I think the whole gaming industry is corrupt with profit. Maybe online games can do better. To preserve the periodic subscriptions I mean.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[Foolsfolly]

DAO's greatest moment was the "Nature of the Beast" quest

I disagree, my be-Tali'd peer. The best moments in Origins are either A) The Sacred Ashes plot or Everything After Eamon Arrives in Denerim (Elves, Howe, Landsmeet, Morrigan's Ritual, the Finale).

Before Eamon arrives in Denerim it is your standard BioWare story. You go around doing events for wherever you are and then go to the point of no return. I guess to those unfamiliar with BioWare games it is unfocused, but I've been playing BioWare games for years and that story didn't feel unfocused to me. In fact, after each event the game went back to Loghain to remind you the story was still going. Felt like Malak in KOTOR to me, even down to the hiring of an assassin.

But DA2 left that kind of storytelling behind. And as Gongsun Zan said:

It's not a problem new to Bioware, except they usually don't make much of an effort to hide it. In games like DA:O, KOTOR, BG2, they're so used to setting up anthologies of stories inside that of a larger framing plot, they seem to have forgotten that putting them in a linear fashion and calling it a three-act play does not actually work that way.

Also I'd say the character work in ME2 and DA2 are about even. You barely talk to any of them but they're all well written three dimensional characters.

[Foolsfolly]

As for ME II characters.... Well I just look at Merril (sp?) and her lines and Varric and his chest hair and... well. ME2 characters look like real people that you can relate, except Grunt. They are like grown up, mature people. DA II characters are shallow and reek of teenage boy hormons and badly told network TV show commercial cliche.

I think that's close to it. Dragon Age: Origins had a lot of characters that felt like Whedon inspired characters (Merrill is definately a Whedon-like character, for example). The Mass Effect characters always felt more inspired by old sci-fi and pulp characters to me.

Wrex, for example, is a lot like a Space Conan the Barbarian. He's a mercenary who has many great adventures, isn't afraid of a fight, and eventually becomes a noble king of his people.

But Mass Effect is also the tale of focused and driven people up against an impossible enemy, with little or no chance to survive. Any immature or unfocused character would not be going up against the Reapers. It's like the plot automatically filters them out.

Sadly I don't think that other companies could do better even than DA II.

Depends on what you're looking for. Blizzard owns RTSs. Modern Warfare is the current king of FPSs. If you want platforming games then you can't find much better than Uncharted. Sandbox games should only come in Rockstar varieties (Cannot wait for L.A. Noire).

But RPGs? Obsidian always felt like the poor-man's BioWare to me. They do good games, albeit never polished and usually a little on the bland-side character-wise (except for Keira from KOTOR2 which was amazing).

Bethesda do ok RPGs with great lore, terrible voice acting, and bland characters.

But yeah, BioWare currently owns RPGs. And for pure-RPG fans it must be so disheartening since BioWare seemingly no longer wants to be the best RPG makers in the industry. They want to branch out into other markets.

Personally, I can play just about anything as long as it's not sports or racing. As long as it's well done, of course.

[Fast Jimmy]

At the risk of being pugilistic on the body of a deceased equine, I think the reason DA2 failed in my many people's minds was due to a rushed development timeline, but I don't believe this is a "corrupt" act on the part of Bioware. It was not their intention to release a lackluster product, but unfortunately they did. Extending the product line an extra six months would have competed with themselves when Mass Effect 3 came out, without argument the more important of the two releases.

So their only choice (logically) was an early 2011 release or an early 2012 release. Adding another year to the product cycle would have been great for the end product... but it would have resulted in laying off of most of the Dragon Age team in the interim. Bioware's DA team worked their butts off to get DA2 to where it is by this March, requiring a whole team of animators, developers, testers and writers. They would have realized that they had an inferior product for a March 2011 release date only a matter of months before it came out.

So to tell a large division that they must go back to the drawing board on a lot of core concepts of a game, including plot, one of the main gripes, would have instantly put on hold the need for half of the team. It would take months to re-write and record new dialgoue before testers, developers, animators and artists would have anything of true value to add. And they couldn't simply be transferred to Mass Effect or KOTOR, both of these projects have their own entire staff that do not people from other departments dropping in and sucking up their budgets.

So it was a business decision that allowed many of the same employees who worked their butts off to get us DAO to keep their jobs. So, in that light, I consider DA2 to be a good, not GREAT, but good product, that I was happy to invest in to keep the future of the series alive for further products which will be less pressured for time with the end of ME IP after the third release here in November. Then Dragon Age and the world of Thedas will be the only kid left at home for the parents to dote on, so to speak. Which is good for everyone.

[Ksandor]

Foolsfolly wrote...

As for ME II characters.... Well I just look at Merril (sp?) and her lines and Varric and his chest hair and... well. ME2 characters look like real people that you can relate, except Grunt. They are like grown up, mature people. DA II characters are shallow and reek of teenage boy hormons and badly told network TV show commercial cliche.

I think that's close to it. Dragon Age: Origins had a lot of characters that felt like Whedon inspired characters (Merrill is definately a Whedon-like character, for example). The Mass Effect characters always felt more inspired by old sci-fi and pulp characters to me.

Wrex, for example, is a lot like a Space Conan the Barbarian. He's a mercenary who has many great adventures, isn't afraid of a fight, and eventually becomes a noble king of his people.

But Mass Effect is also the tale of focused and driven people up against an impossible enemy, with little or no chance to survive. Any immature or unfocused character would not be going up against the Reapers. It's like the plot automatically filters them out.

Sadly I don't think that other companies could do better even than DA II.

Depends on what you're looking for. Blizzard owns RTSs. Modern Warfare is the current king of FPSs. If you want platforming games then you can't find much better than Uncharted. Sandbox games should only come in Rockstar varieties (Cannot wait for L.A. Noire).

But RPGs? Obsidian always felt like the poor-man's BioWare to me. They do good games, albeit never polished and usually a little on the bland-side character-wise (except for Keira from KOTOR2 which was amazing).

Bethesda do ok RPGs with great lore, terrible voice acting, and bland characters.

But yeah, BioWare currently owns RPGs. And for pure-RPG fans it must be so disheartening since BioWare seemingly no longer wants to be the best RPG makers in the industry. They want to branch out into other markets.

Personally, I can play just about anything as long as it's not sports or racing. As long as it's well done, of course.

Yes as long as they are well made. Like Might and Magic VI from 1997. No focus on the character or companions. But it told a great story. You felt like you are the main part of it. It made you the Man, and you felt like a hero and voicing without a single line.... I played that game at least 5 times. I also agree with the rest of your post.

[Ksandor]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

At the risk of being pugilistic on the body of a deceased equine, I think the reason DA2 failed in my many people's minds was due to a rushed development timeline, but I don't believe this is a "corrupt" act on the part of Bioware. It was not their intention to release a lackluster product, but unfortunately they did. Extending the product line an extra six months would have competed with themselves when Mass Effect 3 came out, without argument the more important of the two releases.

So their only choice (logically) was an early 2011 release or an early 2012 release. Adding another year to the product cycle would have been great for the end product... but it would have resulted in laying off of most of the Dragon Age team in the interim. Bioware's DA team worked their butts off to get DA2 to where it is by this March, requiring a whole team of animators, developers, testers and writers. They would have realized that they had an inferior product for a March 2011 release date only a matter of months before it came out.

So to tell a large division that they must go back to the drawing board on a lot of core concepts of a game, including plot, one of the main gripes, would have instantly put on hold the need for half of the team. It would take months to re-write and record new dialgoue before testers, developers, animators and artists would have anything of true value to add. And they couldn't simply be transferred to Mass Effect or KOTOR, both of these projects have their own entire staff that do not people from other departments dropping in and sucking up their budgets.

So it was a business decision that allowed many of the same employees who worked their butts off to get us DAO to keep their jobs. So, in that light, I consider DA2 to be a good, not GREAT, but good product, that I was happy to invest in to keep the future of the series alive for further products which will be less pressured for time with the end of ME IP after the third release here in November. Then Dragon Age and the world of Thedas will be the only kid left at home for the parents to dote on, so to speak. Which is good for everyone.

I agree that if they had the time they could do better. But judging their response to criticism they were planning to dumb down the game to appeal the masses anyway. And if this game will sell do not expect the 3rd will be better. It will be an even more watered down version.

[Foolsfolly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

At the risk of being pugilistic on the body of a deceased equine, I think the reason DA2 failed in my many people's minds was due to a rushed development timeline, but I don't believe this is a "corrupt" act on the part of Bioware. It was not their intention to release a lackluster product, but unfortunately they did. Extending the product line an extra six months would have competed with themselves when Mass Effect 3 came out, without argument the more important of the two releases.

So their only choice (logically) was an early 2011 release or an early 2012 release. Adding another year to the product cycle would have been great for the end product... but it would have resulted in laying off of most of the Dragon Age team in the interim. Bioware's DA team worked their butts off to get DA2 to where it is by this March, requiring a whole team of animators, developers, testers and writers. They would have realized that they had an inferior product for a March 2011 release date only a matter of months before it came out.

So to tell a large division that they must go back to the drawing board on a lot of core concepts of a game, including plot, one of the main gripes, would have instantly put on hold the need for half of the team. It would take months to re-write and record new dialgoue before testers, developers, animators and artists would have anything of true value to add. And they couldn't simply be transferred to Mass Effect or KOTOR, both of these projects have their own entire staff that do not people from other departments dropping in and sucking up their budgets.

So it was a business decision that allowed many of the same employees who worked their butts off to get us DAO to keep their jobs. So, in that light, I consider DA2 to be a good, not GREAT, but good product, that I was happy to invest in to keep the future of the series alive for further products which will be less pressured for time with the end of ME IP after the third release here in November. Then Dragon Age and the world of Thedas will be the only kid left at home for the parents to dote on, so to speak. Which is good for everyone.

There's a Game Informer interview with Ray and other doctor guy in charge of BioWare. In that interview they talk about the future of Mass Effect after ME3 and said something like "We're not just going to put it on the shelf and leave it there forever."

It's a pretty resounding "There will be a Mass Effect 4, it may not have Commander Shepard in it." So don't expect ME to go anywhere. Frankly, I'm happy because of that. ME's clearly the far and away better fracnhise they have.

Onto the main point of the post....I can agree, understand, and respect that. However, knowing the guy who made your soup has no hands doesn't make a bad tasting soup taste better. Business reasons may have forced a rushed game and while I can sympathize with that it doesn't make the game better.

[Ksandor]

Yes. Because if they will start to use that limited time excuse we will never hear the end of it.

[Torax]

If they do something else with Mass Effect's Universe it will probably just some future or alter change of the Universe. Kind like how Balder's Gate was a forgotten realms kind of deal. Drew K. seemed to want to keep it in the Trilogy. Don't know about the rest though. I just think if they do something it may not be yet another Mass Effect 3rd person shooter type of game.

Modifié par Torax, 15 avril 2011 - 10:37 .

[Foolsfolly]

There's no reason to not do a Mass Effect 4.

Look at the Halo series. HUGH success. Trilogy wrapped up....a few comic books, a novel or two, and instead of doing a sequel in earnest they released two prequel games (both meh and adding nothing to any story because they're prequels) and in a bizarre move made a RTS Halo game which was dreadful.

As such the name "Halo" has diminished greatly since it once ruled the FPS scene in Halo 1 and 2. It only hurt the franchise to not make a true sequel, or start a new story in that universe.

I'd hate to see 6 years of Mass Effect the Flash Game! Mass Effect the RTS! Mass Effect the MMO!

Just do a sequel or start a new IP.

[Ksandor]

Torax wrote...

If they do something else with Mass Effect's Universe it will probably just some future or alter change of the Universe. Kind like how Balder's Gate was a forgotten realms kind of deal. Drew K. seemed to want to keep it in the Trilogy. Don't know about the rest though. I just think if they do something it may not be yet another Mass Effect 3rd person shooter type of game.

I just fear that they may try to reinvent ME3 or ME4 like they did for DA II. I don't think that I would like the results then. But if they keep ME2 formula for future ME games that would be great. With ME they reinvented the industry, I don't think that even they realize that. Do you remember those interactive movies you could play on consoles in game saloons at the beginning of 90s? When I first played ME I thought that instead of using real actors they created the motion capture version of those games. I think the future of video games is to become online interactive novels or movies where hundreds of online players can change even the main story in an ever dynamic environment.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[Ksandor]

Foolsfolly wrote...

There's no reason to not do a Mass Effect 4.

Look at the Halo series. HUGH success. Trilogy wrapped up....a few comic books, a novel or two, and instead of doing a sequel in earnest they released two prequel games (both meh and adding nothing to any story because they're prequels) and in a bizarre move made a RTS Halo game which was dreadful.

As such the name "Halo" has diminished greatly since it once ruled the FPS scene in Halo 1 and 2. It only hurt the franchise to not make a true sequel, or start a new story in that universe.

I'd hate to see 6 years of Mass Effect the Flash Game! Mass Effect the RTS! Mass Effect the MMO!

Just do a sequel or start a new IP.

I wanna ME MMO! "spoiled smirk"

[Foolsfolly]

Ksandor wrote...

Torax wrote...

If they do something else with Mass Effect's Universe it will probably just some future or alter change of the Universe. Kind like how Balder's Gate was a forgotten realms kind of deal. Drew K. seemed to want to keep it in the Trilogy. Don't know about the rest though. I just think if they do something it may not be yet another Mass Effect 3rd person shooter type of game.

I just fear that they may try to reinvent ME3 or ME4 like they did for DA II. I don't think that I would like the results then. But if they keep ME2 formula for future ME games that would be great. With ME they reinvented the industry, I don't think that even they realize that. Do you remember interactive movies you could play on consoles in game saloons at the beginning of 90s? When I first played ME I thought that instead of using real actors they created the motion capture version of those games. I think the future of video games is to become online interactive novels or movies where hundreds of online players can change even the main story in an ever dynamic environment.

There's no way they didn't notice. No way.

The ME series was so damn good that I never thought I'd go back to swords-and-sorcery RPGs again! It felt like the whole company had arrived in a big way with ME2. They were telling a good story, with good characters, with good gameplay (something BioWare games usually lack), and with mass appeal! And then ME2 got a PS3 port opening up even more mass appeal.

It was a game changer of a game for the whole company. I have no illusions that I judge DA2 so harshly because this is the same company that brought us Mass Effect 2.

[Ksandor]

Yes!!! They set the bar so high first... Then I see DA II... I was very disappointed with DA II. But I think they reinvented the whole industry, not only themselves and not with ME2 but with ME1. ME2 only improves on that. Let's hope ME3 won't chew on and consume that. But the revolution came with the first installment. These games play like a movie! Maybe in near future Hollywood will be no more and online interactive movie games will replace the American cinema.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 avril 2011 - 10:58 .

[Torax]

Ksandor wrote...

Yes!!! They set the bar so high first... Then I see DA II... I was very disappointed with DA II. But I think they reinvented the whole industry, not only themselves and not with ME2 but with ME1. ME2 only improves on that. Let's hope ME3 won't chew on and consume that. But the revolution came with the first installment. These games play like a movie! Maybe in near future Hollywood will be no more and online interactive movie games will replace the American cinema.

Oh don't worry. Drew K is still the writer for ME. So you can probably go ahead and hate that story to since YOU could write a better one right?

[Foolsfolly]

I don't get the hate for Drew. Or any of the writers actually. The writers at BioWare write characters who happen to be in video games and not video game characters. You know?

[Torax]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I don't get the hate for Drew. Or any of the writers actually. The writers at BioWare write characters who happen to be in video games and not video game characters. You know?

What I think really would have helped the plot and at times gave us introductions for characters like Meredith and Orsino would be if we got those sort of side plot cinematics like Origins had. But since they are going with a basis that Varric is talking to Cassandra maybe that is why they wanted hawke to be in every scene. Since it's from the standpoint that even if Hawke didn't take Varric along for a part of the story. Hawke would have told him about it later. Meanwhile a private argument or conversation between the Viscount and Meredith or some other characters would not openly share their tales with a dwarf in the Hanged Man.

[TheBlackBaron]

Torax wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Yes!!! They set the bar so high first... Then I see DA II... I was very disappointed with DA II. But I think they reinvented the whole industry, not only themselves and not with ME2 but with ME1. ME2 only improves on that. Let's hope ME3 won't chew on and consume that. But the revolution came with the first installment. These games play like a movie! Maybe in near future Hollywood will be no more and online interactive movie games will replace the American cinema.

Oh don't worry. Drew K is still the writer for ME. So you can probably go ahead and hate that story to since YOU could write a better one right?

Isn't Mac Walters the lead writer for ME2 and ME3? Drew moved down to the Austin to work on TOR, IIRC. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 15 avril 2011 - 11:07 .