147 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Not sure if people are serious. It is probably sarcasm, but anyway.

Dealing with the werewolves helped recruiting an army. Because to get to the Archdemon you first had to go through the Darkspawn Horde. Same with Orzammar and the Mages Circle. Not to mention Redcliffe. It wouldn't have helped much if the Warden would have went straight for the Archdemon with only his/her party. 'They would have perished.' as Flemeth would probably put it.

If anything then the DLCs were not necessary as well as many Chantry Board, Mage Collective, Blackstone Irregulars, etc. etc. quests. But side quests happen in this game and I tend to regard them as 'unrelated random encounters that happen on the way'.

However, Hawke's motivations are never clear. At first there is the family theme. Keeping the family save, getting away from Lowtown. Makes sense. But then somehow Hawke is supposed to be some sort of hero even though it is never really explained why. What makes him/her a hero? Boredom? Bloodlust? Or is Hawke just a meddler? Who knows.

The Warden didn't have choice. There is the Blight and being a Warden means to kill as many Darkspawn as possible before you die. In the best case even an Archdemon. Being a Jedi Knight automatically puts you on the side of the Republic against any Sith Lords. Same with spirit monks, bhaal spawns, immortal tormented souls, etc, etc.

With Hawke they didn't want to do that. They wanted Hawke just be some guy/gal who got drawn into the events. But they never really explain how or why. I mean it is sort of refreshing to have a hero who is not bound by some sort of destiny from start, but then putting him in the same story concept of a 'destined hero' and expecting people to accept that Hawke, while having no motivation, still playing the hero is nothing more than ... "nice try, but no."

That's why it has been a half-arsed story/plot. If you tell the story of a hero, at least explain why he/she becomes a hero.

[txgoldrush]

AlexXIV wrote...

Not sure if people are serious. It is probably sarcasm, but anyway.

Dealing with the werewolves helped recruiting an army. Because to get to the Archdemon you first had to go through the Darkspawn Horde. Same with Orzammar and the Mages Circle. Not to mention Redcliffe. It wouldn't have helped much if the Warden would have went straight for the Archdemon with only his/her party. 'They would have perished.' as Flemeth would probably put it.

If anything then the DLCs were not necessary as well as many Chantry Board, Mage Collective, Blackstone Irregulars, etc. etc. quests. But side quests happen in this game and I tend to regard them as 'unrelated random encounters that happen on the way'.

However, Hawke's motivations are never clear. At first there is the family theme. Keeping the family save, getting away from Lowtown. Makes sense. But then somehow Hawke is supposed to be some sort of hero even though it is never really explained why. What makes him/her a hero? Boredom? Bloodlust? Or is Hawke just a meddler? Who knows.

The Warden didn't have choice. There is the Blight and being a Warden means to kill as many Darkspawn as possible before you die. In the best case even an Archdemon. Being a Jedi Knight automatically puts you on the side of the Republic against any Sith Lords. Same with spirit monks, bhaal spawns, immortal tormented souls, etc, etc.

With Hawke they didn't want to do that. They wanted Hawke just be some guy/gal who got drawn into the events. But they never really explain how or why. I mean it is sort of refreshing to have a hero who is not bound by some sort of destiny from start, but then putting him in the same story concept of a 'destined hero' and expecting people to accept that Hawke, while having no motivation, still playing the hero is nothing more than ... "nice try, but no."

That's why it has been a half-arsed story/plot. If you tell the story of a hero, at least explain why he/she becomes a hero.

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!! In many points in the game, you can be asked to give your views on why you do things, or your opinion of the situation. Isabela's "Questioning Beliefs" in Act II is a good example...do I tell her "Helping people gives me power and influence", which is a selfish goal, or do I say "Helping people is its won reward"...a selfless motive. The game answers "How?" but you answer "Why?"

The Witchers "Identity" quest was no different.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Identity

Modifié par txgoldrush, 16 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[txgoldrush]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

boraxalmighty wrote...

Or they don't get to the Deep Roads quickly enough because they don't find a partner to come up with my money for the expidition and since Hawke and his crew aren't there they don't have the muscle to push toward the ancient thaig and the idol is never found.

Hawke does not engage the qunari and doesn't help Isabella so the qunari besiege the city and convert/kill everyone in the city. If that happens Act 3 does not.

See what I did there?

Yes, I did...

I don't know how they couldn't get to the Deep Roads "quickly" enough to recover an idol that is roughly a 1000 years old.

The Warden killed a 100 qunari on his way to save Ferelden from the Blight. We see Meredith and Orsino already on their way to drive out the qunari forces. Without their cannons and gunpowder, just holed up in the Viscount's palace, they would have stood no long term chance of survival. Also, without Hawke's help to Isabella, the Qunari could very well have recovered the artifact and not had any incident.

And you didn't even touch on the so-called "climax" of the story, the Mage/Templar fight. Which, at the end of the day, is the source of most people's gripes.

Not trying to be a negative Nancy here, but I'm getting a little irked at people trying to explain the concept of plot and narrative structure on these boards like we all haven't taken middle school English Composition and saying their understanding of literary devices makes the fact that the majority of people who played DA2 did not enjoy the plot somehow a deficiency in their ability to recognize good story telling. The majority's preference does not always make right, but when the same people can play one game (DA:O), enjoy it immensely, and play a second game based on the same principles and made by the same people but have a significantly lower response, something is wrong.

I personally told every gamer I know to go out and buy DA:O when it came out. I haven't told a single person to go buy DA2. And I think sales reflect that.

The problem is that the second game is NOT based on the same principles and the lovers of the first cannot accept that. Breaking free of strict WRPG dogma is a great thing, or else the genre will stagnate, just like JRPGs not developed by Atlus.

Another problem is that many gamers are not used to unconventional tales with no main antagonist (as a character). So its automatically "bad" when they have no one villian to fight or one force.

The mage and templar conflict is the climax, but its not the main conflict. The main conflict is between Hawke and the dark sides of the human condition that fuels the conflicts and the problems. Its more complex than a "man vs man" story like 99% of video games. Here its "man vs nature".

In fact, DAO does nothing new and does not advance or revolutionize the genre. A superior dark fantasy game The Witcher did, and in fact looks like to have influenced Dragon Age. I find DAO one of the most overrated RPGs in recent memory.

[nightscrawl]

txgoldrush wrote...

You put WAY too much focus on the Mage vs Templar conflict and not the big picture.

... the Mage vs Templar conflict is just one piece of it.

Yep. Mike Laidlaw said it's "a story of how heroes are made, not born," so you have to keep this in mind while playing. It is supposed be about how Hawke rises through Kirkwall, and the templar/mage conflict, while mentioned in all 3 parts (but has it's final conclusion in part 3) is just one aspect of it.

You can also look at it in reverse order: templar/mage conflict is in all 3 parts, Qunari conflict is in 2 parts, and Deep Roads expedition is in the first part. The problems with the Qunari and templars/mages are specifically designed so that you can see the stressors being built over time and then the one thing happens that sends it over the edge, taking Hawke along for the ride.

[FedericoV]

Honestly, I don't think that the problem is a lack of focus. The mage vs. templar theme is present during the entire course of the game, from act.1 to act. 3. 75% of the most important quest are related to the conflict and even playing a completitionist game as I've done on my first playthrough there were many side quest that have some element of connection to the main theme (even the bone pit massacre and the awergian scroll, just to make an example of very optional content, are connected to the mage/templar issue).

So, I've not seen problems of focus. They did a great work to connect the side quests to the main plot. Personally, I believe that there is a lack of interaction, motivations and proper roleplaying with the main theme but that's another problem. You have no power to change the course of events in any way. The only meaningfull decisions you make are about your party members and that's all you can do to alter the main storyline. There is no Sacred Urn, no Werewolves vs. Dalish, no Connor, no Anvil of the Void and no King od the Dwarves along the way. That's what missing. The result is that at the end you could feel apathetic about the main conflict since it appears to be a question of territorial pissing between misguided and crazy individuals that you cannot stop in any way and that at the end does not belong to you.

Was it for me, I would have lived Krikwall to its destiny after killing Anders.

That lack of motivations is particularly evident in the rushed and driven nature of Act. 3 wich is the main cause of unsatisfaction from players. The "Anders" decision is not a good substitute for the Dark Ritual and the fact that you have to fight both parties no matter what is depressing. Not to mention that the "fall of Orsino" is not developed well in terms of storytelling and looked too forced and abrupt, even if you could have doubts about the nature of his relationship with Quentin.

Modifié par FedericoV, 16 avril 2011 - 10:48 .

[nightscrawl]

Gongsun Zan wrote...

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.

I think the main problem that many people are having right now is that they are taking the whole of the game at face value without giving thought to the potential for new story material that will (hopefully) be added down the line with DLC or expansion.

I think the main flaw in how the DA2 story was handled is that "follow along with Hawke as he does things" is not compelling enough. Someone above pointed out that the main conflict of DAO was the Blight, which was true. Gathering armies (dwarves, mages, elves, Redcliffe side quests) using the Warden treaties is the first step, going to the Landsmeet to stop the civil war which will hinder the darkspawn war effort is the next step, and doing the final conflict with the darkspawn is the final step. Throughout you are working toward the final goal of defeating the darkspawn and ending the Blight.

There is no such goal in DA2, at least there isn't one yet.

If this were a stand alone game without the existence of DAO or the preceding novels, I don't know that I would be too pleased with it. But it's not. It's a part of the tale of an entire created universe. I think your assessment is mostly right, and perhaps it reflects poorly on Bioware's overall plan for the Dragon Age franchise.


I do like the game though, and I've played it 5 times now. The main reason I play however, is for the character interactions, which I think were pretty well done/entertaining.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 16 avril 2011 - 10:55 .

[In Exile]

Foolsfolly wrote...

But solving these other problems, like the Circle or Werewolves or collecting pieces of a Star Map, or an amulet or anything were all steps towards something. It was like stops on a story path.

When they decided to break away from their established path (and BioWare games really had a paint-by-numbers way of doing things) they kept the unfocused element of their previous games. And without that goal, stopping here to help people while gathering what you need for the plot, the game's lack of focus snaps into focus.

I would continue, but it's starting to storm badly here. I'll be back later.

The thing is, look at those stories (say if you wanted to make a feature film): you could skip the starmaps entirely in KoTOR (you could find the Dantoine one and it leads you straight there); you could cut any of the DA:O plots and just make Eamon healthy and head straight to the landsmeet because the other armies are 100% irrelevant, all that matters is that Grey Wardens are the only one that can kill the Archdemon, and in Awakening you could find the mother/Architect in one go.

Bioware always adds unfocused fluff but for whatever reason people think slapping on an antagonist at the end makes it worthwhile. ME2 was the biggest show of just slaping an antagonist at the end. In DA2, Bioware removed that and suddenly here we are.

[Furtled]

Foolsfolly wrote...

But, as I said before this post, if the plot had been more about Hawke and Hawke having a journey while these things happened (Qunari, Flemeth, Mage War, what-have-you) and the game wrapped up with Hawke achieving a goal or failing to achieve that goal (which ever), then the game would feel complete.

Instead it's missing that central plot. It's missing that point for all these actions. It doesn't have to be Mages, but if it's not Mages then it has to be about Hawke. And they didn't do enough with Hawke's rise or journey.

Agree with you completely, if for example, the conversation with Varric in Act 2 (the what are you going to do now one) had led to Hawke starting to petition for a title as suggested by Aveline, or there'd been more made of Hawke working with the Vicount and aquiring power in readiness to attempt to take control in Act 3, that would give the player a clear goal to work towards while the greater mage/Templar conflict plot moved on.

Something like that would also have allowed the PC to interact more with both Meredith and Orsino and given a sense of connection to Kirkwall beyond a place they ran to, especially towards the end when it's entirely possible the PC has no family ties left and possibly no romantic ones either.

To me the game is about Cassandra getting to the truth and the mage/Templar war kicking off, but as a game, as an active form of story-telling/entertainment, there also needed to be a clear goal for Hawke (and through them the player) to focus on.

[AlexXIV]

txgoldrush wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Not sure if people are serious. It is probably sarcasm, but anyway.

Dealing with the werewolves helped recruiting an army. Because to get to the Archdemon you first had to go through the Darkspawn Horde. Same with Orzammar and the Mages Circle. Not to mention Redcliffe. It wouldn't have helped much if the Warden would have went straight for the Archdemon with only his/her party. 'They would have perished.' as Flemeth would probably put it.

If anything then the DLCs were not necessary as well as many Chantry Board, Mage Collective, Blackstone Irregulars, etc. etc. quests. But side quests happen in this game and I tend to regard them as 'unrelated random encounters that happen on the way'.

However, Hawke's motivations are never clear. At first there is the family theme. Keeping the family save, getting away from Lowtown. Makes sense. But then somehow Hawke is supposed to be some sort of hero even though it is never really explained why. What makes him/her a hero? Boredom? Bloodlust? Or is Hawke just a meddler? Who knows.

The Warden didn't have choice. There is the Blight and being a Warden means to kill as many Darkspawn as possible before you die. In the best case even an Archdemon. Being a Jedi Knight automatically puts you on the side of the Republic against any Sith Lords. Same with spirit monks, bhaal spawns, immortal tormented souls, etc, etc.

With Hawke they didn't want to do that. They wanted Hawke just be some guy/gal who got drawn into the events. But they never really explain how or why. I mean it is sort of refreshing to have a hero who is not bound by some sort of destiny from start, but then putting him in the same story concept of a 'destined hero' and expecting people to accept that Hawke, while having no motivation, still playing the hero is nothing more than ... "nice try, but no."

That's why it has been a half-arsed story/plot. If you tell the story of a hero, at least explain why he/she becomes a hero.

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!! In many points in the game, you can be asked to give your views on why you do things, or your opinion of the situation. Isabela's "Questioning Beliefs" in Act II is a good example...do I tell her "Helping people gives me power and influence", which is a selfish goal, or do I say "Helping people is its won reward"...a selfless motive. The game answers "How?" but you answer "Why?"

The Witchers "Identity" quest was no different.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Identity

I give Hawke motivation? When the Qunari razed the town I thought let them, Kirkwall probably deserves it. Yet I somehow ended up saving Kirkwall. When the mages and templars went crazy at each other I thought let them kill each other if they love it so much, but somehow I had to pick a side. My motivation? Well I could turn off the comp or keep playing. The only real motivation of DA2.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 avril 2011 - 02:32 .

[Furtled]

txgoldrush wrote...

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!! In many points in the game, you can be asked to give your views on why you do things, or your opinion of the situation. Isabela's "Questioning Beliefs" in Act II is a good example...do I tell her "Helping people gives me power and influence", which is a selfish goal, or do I say "Helping people is its won reward"...a selfless motive. The game answers "How?" but you answer "Why?"

I agree that they're clear motives, and it's all well and good for Hawke to have those conversations, but this is a game and not a book or film, in a game the player needs some sort of active goal to work towards that reflects their PCs motives, or at least a personal goal to keep the PC moving forward through the plot while they do good/bad. Just ambling through the game doing good deeds (as noble an intention as it is and perfectly acceptable in real life) doesn't really work as a motivator.

Yes, the player gives the 'why?' through dialogue, but (in my personal opionion) the game's way of handling the 'how?' is too weak gameplay wise to provide focus for the player and lacks a goal for them to work towards as they play, especially in later acts.

In Origins that goal is defeating the archdemon and ending the blight, the character may be motivated by noble intentions, they may be doing it for personal gain/glory, or simply because they've nothing else left to do, but that core goal is always there. In 2 it's not, the PC doesn't necessarily have a personal investment in the outcome of the mage/Templar conflict, we're told by the game that we're a champion but we're never shown what that means on any real level, it's all too wooly to provide any kind of clear goal for the player to work towards.

Modifié par Furtled, 16 avril 2011 - 02:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

The thing is, look at those stories (say if you wanted to make a feature film): you could skip the starmaps entirely in KoTOR (you could find the Dantoine one and it leads you straight there); you could cut any of the DA:O plots and just make Eamon healthy and head straight to the landsmeet because the other armies are 100% irrelevant, all that matters is that Grey Wardens are the only one that can kill the Archdemon, and in Awakening you could find the mother/Architect in one go.

Bioware always adds unfocused fluff but for whatever reason people think slapping on an antagonist at the end makes it worthwhile. ME2 was the biggest show of just slaping an antagonist at the end. In DA2, Bioware removed that and suddenly here we are.

Okay, I concede this point with no argument. However, making the plot line more direct without any side quests would have turned DA2 from a game that required 25 hours to do mostly everything (short by video game standards) to 10, at most. It would be like going to a movie, paying $10 for a ticket and only seeing a trailer.

But regardless, fluff in the form of side quests should, in theory, be more than random oddjobs, but chances to more deeply immerse and explore the world the game puts you in. Bioware put a lot of the fluff they usually do in their games, but left out slapping on the antagonist.

That doesn't make it ground-breaking, innovative or somehow "higher art" at story telling... it just means they removed a component of a tried and true formula. If the fluff of side quests and background was cut out, there would be no Companion quests, no options to do anything aside from main plot quests... but I still think it would be a better game than DA2 if they removed the fluff and did a better job with the overall main plot.

However, would the same people be defending the lack of side or Companion quests on the forums, saying Bioware was trying to be ground-breaking and innovative by removing non-essential interaction? As is, I think the most common consensus for DA2 appeal is character interaction and getting to like the characters.

Again, removing an antagonist for a video game can be done, if Bioware wanted to break ground... but it must be replaced by soemthing else. Someone above said that you, as the player, give Hawke the motivation to be the Champion. Funny... because that doesn't give me the motivation to attempt even a quarter the number of playthroughs in DA2 that I did in DA:O, which had, the supposed, "weaker" plot.

[hundreds and millions]

The whole story is varric telling cassandra the build up to the begining of the end of the chantry. the prologue is all about hawkes begining and how sthey got there, and how that made them who they were (In my case, the year of being a mercenary toughened her up and made her strong enough to deal with kirkwall, after having the rest of her life living in a huge house and fine dining). In act 1 you are searching for the cash you need to go on the expidition, and in an atempt to make money go on quests for people. This is where hawke starts to make their desiny, where they make their decision and really question what they are about, and these things may come back to them in regret.

then in act 2 we see hawke change, once again a noble, and as they have done some good deeds in the past for kirkwall, including some dealings with the qunari, they are called to help the diplomatic situation. However, They just makes things worse, setting them off like a firework. They then save the entire city and its nobles from them, becoming the chamon of kirkwall, a well deserved title.

Now that hawke is a champion of kirkwall they are seen an important figure all over kirkwall, and as something big is going on they are one of the people to watch and wonder about. sure, there wasn't too much focus on the whole thing at hand, but it wasn't so bad 10 years ago, only when the viscount was killed, and if you hadn't had became champion, nobody would care what you would say or did, you would just be another noble supporting orosino/meredith, and if you never went on the deeproads you would just be some thug and not even a noble.

Modifié par hundreds and millions, 16 avril 2011 - 04:00 .

[jcp234]

After playing DA2 I'm quite baffled that there are defenders of this game. Sure, for entertainment purposes DA2 helps to pass time, but it's average at best. Uninteresting story, unfocused plot, and poorly developed relationships. In my opinion, Dragon Age: Origins is a masterpiece in comparison to DA2.

Many posters have pointed out the obvious flaws...Bioware needs to step its game up. Pure and simple.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Okay, I concede this point with no argument. However, making the plot line more direct without any side quests would have turned DA2 from a game that required 25 hours to do mostly everything (short by video game standards) to 10, at most. It would be like going to a movie, paying $10 for a ticket and only seeing a trailer. 

And you could do the same to DA:O. The origins don't need to be played through, Ostagar doesn't need you to get darskapwn blood for the Joining (the treaties are also a macguffin), and you can have a beeline to Redcliffe and then the Landsmeet where you confront Loghain and use the Redcliffe army + you & Alistair to defeat the Archdemon. Depending on how linear your level design is you coul easily make a 15-20 hr game.

It's not the length but the overarching nature of the plot that DA:O had (even if I didn't buy into the plot) versus DA2. In DA:O, good or not, you always had the same answer to ''Why am I doing this'' whereas in DA2 you either have a different answer or no answer at all.

But regardless, fluff in the form of side quests should, in theory, be more than random oddjobs, but chances to more deeply immerse and explore the world the game puts you in. Bioware put a lot of the fluff they usually do in their games, but left out slapping on the antagonist.

I'm saying the main quests in both games are largely irrelevant to the plot.

That doesn't make it ground-breaking, innovative or somehow "higher art" at story telling... it just means they removed a component of a tried and true formula. If the fluff of side quests and background was cut out, there would be no Companion quests, no options to do anything aside from main plot quests... but I still think it would be a better game than DA2 if they removed the fluff and did a better job with the overall main plot.

However, would the same people be defending the lack of side or Companion quests on the forums, saying Bioware was trying to be ground-breaking and innovative by removing non-essential interaction? As is, I think the most common consensus for DA2 appeal is character interaction and getting to like the characters.

What Bioware should have done (and IMO claimed to have done) was to make it about your rise to power; had they done what that meant (i.e. a very non-linear plot in terms of quests resolution and choices) so a 40 hr game that had 80 hours of unique content, then we would all be praising DA2 as brilliant.

That said, DA2 had too little going on and Act III was too much of a mess to ever feel like there was a point to all of it. I loved the journey moreso than DA:O because I can't care for a kidnapping old man and a military order I was never even introduced to (and the game repeatedly trying to slap me in the face with the Grey Warden identity didn't help matters) but DA:O was simply the better executed game.

Again, removing an antagonist for a video game can be done, if Bioware wanted to break ground... but it must be replaced by soemthing else. Someone above said that you, as the player, give Hawke the motivation to be the Champion. Funny... because that doesn't give me the motivation to attempt even a quarter the number of playthroughs in DA2 that I did in DA:O, which had, the supposed, "weaker" plot.

I like DA2 better than DA:O because I feel Hawke is much more connected to the story than the Warden ever was, and I like it when my character is the centre of the story, but DA:O was the better executed product. DA2 just lacked direction and failed to follow up on Act II. Honestly, if they dropped mages v. templars to the background and made Act III about a qunari invasion, then DA2 would have had a brilliant plot. That's even what they hyped it up as in the trailer.

[Gongsun Zan]

 an antagonist doesnt is not the same as a villain. an antagonist is whatever force that exists to oppose the protagonist in his goals. it could be a person, a force of nature, or the protagonist himself. if the plot is about hawkes rise to power, then the antagonist should be something opposing his rise.  simply following hawke around does not make a story, just a fictional documentary of sorts. (Sorry for **** formatting, the bioware boards are not mobile friendly )

[Gongsun Zan]

To sum it up, ask yourself this: what is the central *conflict* in this story. Without a central focus, this story is unfocused, simple as that. And we're not even picking apart the individual flaws of Act 3.

And games without a pprmary villain are nothing new. look at  mask of the betrayer or torment. im sorry, but this game has not broken new ground, and its not even done that right.

Modifié par Gongsun Zan, 16 avril 2011 - 05:16 .

[Foolsfolly]

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!!

Then the plot has to be mages. Like I said before:

Instead it's missing that central plot. It's missing that point for all these actions. It doesn't have to be Mages, but if it's not Mages then it has to be about Hawke. And they didn't do enough with Hawke's rise or journey.

You can say that Hawke's supposed to be a blank character for the player to project onto, that's fine. RPGs have done that since the first RPG. But if Hawke's meant to be a player avatar then the plot should have been Mages.

Attempting to leave Hawke as blank as possible and have that rise be the main plot left both empty.

Either they focus on Hawke and we play their Hawke or we have a central plot about mages. There needs to be a central pillar of plot to hold it together. Otherwise we have this disjointed mess.

Yep. Mike Laidlaw said it's "a story of how heroes are made, not born," so you have to keep this in mind while playing. It is supposed be about how Hawke rises through Kirkwall, and the templar/mage conflict, while mentioned in all 3 parts (but has it's final conclusion in part 3) is just one aspect of it.

Then they failed.

Nothing stands between Hawke's way to rise. Opposition creates tension, tension creates plot. Hawke rises without wanting to, needing to, or the player picking anything. You become a noble off camera. You become Champion in one sentence and there's no difference between Noble Hawke and Champion Hawke. And worst of the bunch is becoming Viscount, it's one sentence by Varric.

Because there's no conflict, because there's no goal to rise, there's no stakes, and thus it's not interesting. If that's the point of the game, I cannot believe how badly BioWare handed it.

To me the game is about Cassandra getting to the truth and the mage/Templar war kicking off, but as a game, as an active form of story-telling/entertainment, there also needed to be a clear goal for Hawke (and through them the player) to focus on.

It's poor motivation for a game. You spend what? 8-10 minutes with Cassandra and 40 hours with Hawke? Yes, Cassandra got her answer "Hawke really didn't do anything to start the war." But there's no resolution for the player. If anything all it did was say, "Hey, you didn't play a major role in this story! TWIST ENDING!"

There's probably a discussion here somewhere about why it worked for 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' and why it didn't work for DA2. I think, just think, it's because Hawke is a super capable video game protagonist able to kill High Dragons and duel Arishoks. Whereas Stewart's character in Valance was a weak, incapable man who believed in justice and order.

Plus a larger percentage of the story took place after the shooting and we saw the effects of the legend over the truth.

Also one's a passive entertainment and the other's an active entertainment. But I'm sure you could get a Liberty Valance like story to work in games, it's just not this game.

Again, removing an antagonist for a video game can be done, if Bioware wanted to break ground... but it must be replaced by soemthing else.

Half-Life 1 had no central villain. The point of the game was to survive, escape, and when that failed to stop the invasion. In the end you fight a boss fight but the Nihlith had nothing to do with the plot, which was survive and contain.

After playing DA2 I'm quite baffled that there are defenders of this game. Sure, for entertainment purposes DA2 helps to pass time, but it's average at best. Uninteresting story, unfocused plot, and poorly developed relationships. In my opinion, Dragon Age: Origins is a masterpiece in comparison to DA2.

It is not a bad game. But yes, it is an average one. There's no point to it, no drive, no emotional core, no over-arching plotline. It's like Pulp Fiction the game, only if all the little stories didn't have a theme of Redemption tying them together.

an antagonist doesnt is not the same as a villain. an antagonist is whatever force that exists to oppose the protagonist in his goals. it could be a person, a force of nature, or the protagonist himself. if the plot is about hawkes rise to power, then the antagonist should be something opposing his rise. simply following hawke around does not make a story, just a fictional documentary of sorts

True. And you're right, it is sort of a Hawke documentary. How odd.

[brightblueink]

jcp234 wrote...

After playing DA2 I'm quite baffled that there are defenders of this game.[etc].

I'm baffled that people are baffled that people might like playing games they didn't enjoy. It's not like people having different tastes is a new concept.

Gongsun Zan wrote...

To sum it up, ask yourself this: what is the central *conflict* in this story.

In the parts you play? The instability of Kirkwall. The overall plot? Discovering the events that lead to the Chantry being threatened.

It's honestly not as hard to figure it out as you guys are making it seem.

Modifié par brightblueink, 16 avril 2011 - 07:56 .

[Gongsun Zan]

I have nothing wrong with saying that you like the game, or whether you liked the story. The discussion here is whether the story is unfocused and poorly plotted, which can be measured agaisnt a rasonable, objective standard of good storytelling.

Also the Deep Roads expedition has nothing to do with the stability issue in kirkwall. Again, simply watching Kirkwall fall apart simply makes the game a documentary, not a story.

[txgoldrush]

AlexXIV wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Not sure if people are serious. It is probably sarcasm, but anyway.

Dealing with the werewolves helped recruiting an army. Because to get to the Archdemon you first had to go through the Darkspawn Horde. Same with Orzammar and the Mages Circle. Not to mention Redcliffe. It wouldn't have helped much if the Warden would have went straight for the Archdemon with only his/her party. 'They would have perished.' as Flemeth would probably put it.

If anything then the DLCs were not necessary as well as many Chantry Board, Mage Collective, Blackstone Irregulars, etc. etc. quests. But side quests happen in this game and I tend to regard them as 'unrelated random encounters that happen on the way'.

However, Hawke's motivations are never clear. At first there is the family theme. Keeping the family save, getting away from Lowtown. Makes sense. But then somehow Hawke is supposed to be some sort of hero even though it is never really explained why. What makes him/her a hero? Boredom? Bloodlust? Or is Hawke just a meddler? Who knows.

The Warden didn't have choice. There is the Blight and being a Warden means to kill as many Darkspawn as possible before you die. In the best case even an Archdemon. Being a Jedi Knight automatically puts you on the side of the Republic against any Sith Lords. Same with spirit monks, bhaal spawns, immortal tormented souls, etc, etc.

With Hawke they didn't want to do that. They wanted Hawke just be some guy/gal who got drawn into the events. But they never really explain how or why. I mean it is sort of refreshing to have a hero who is not bound by some sort of destiny from start, but then putting him in the same story concept of a 'destined hero' and expecting people to accept that Hawke, while having no motivation, still playing the hero is nothing more than ... "nice try, but no."

That's why it has been a half-arsed story/plot. If you tell the story of a hero, at least explain why he/she becomes a hero.

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!! In many points in the game, you can be asked to give your views on why you do things, or your opinion of the situation. Isabela's "Questioning Beliefs" in Act II is a good example...do I tell her "Helping people gives me power and influence", which is a selfish goal, or do I say "Helping people is its won reward"...a selfless motive. The game answers "How?" but you answer "Why?"

The Witchers "Identity" quest was no different.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Identity

I give Hawke motivation? When the Qunari razed the town I thought let them, Kirkwall probably deserves it. Yet I somehow ended up saving Kirkwall. When the mages and templars went crazy at each other I thought let them kill each other if they love it so much, but somehow I had to pick a side. My motivation? Well I could turn off the comp or keep playing. The only real motivation of DA2.

Its all in the script, its just like the Witcher. Geralt has to recover his order's secrets however, the question why? is up to the player. Its just like DAII...

Its not like you had a choice against teh Qunari, they turn on you and Aveline.

[txgoldrush]

Furtled wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Hawke's motives ARE clear....you give Hawke her motives!!!!! In many points in the game, you can be asked to give your views on why you do things, or your opinion of the situation. Isabela's "Questioning Beliefs" in Act II is a good example...do I tell her "Helping people gives me power and influence", which is a selfish goal, or do I say "Helping people is its won reward"...a selfless motive. The game answers "How?" but you answer "Why?"

I agree that they're clear motives, and it's all well and good for Hawke to have those conversations, but this is a game and not a book or film, in a game the player needs some sort of active goal to work towards that reflects their PCs motives, or at least a personal goal to keep the PC moving forward through the plot while they do good/bad. Just ambling through the game doing good deeds (as noble an intention as it is and perfectly acceptable in real life) doesn't really work as a motivator.

Yes, the player gives the 'why?' through dialogue, but (in my personal opionion) the game's way of handling the 'how?' is too weak gameplay wise to provide focus for the player and lacks a goal for them to work towards as they play, especially in later acts.

In Origins that goal is defeating the archdemon and ending the blight, the character may be motivated by noble intentions, they may be doing it for personal gain/glory, or simply because they've nothing else left to do, but that core goal is always there. In 2 it's not, the PC doesn't necessarily have a personal investment in the outcome of the mage/Templar conflict, we're told by the game that we're a champion but we're never shown what that means on any real level, it's all too wooly to provide any kind of clear goal for the player to work towards.

There are GOALS...there is just no central one. It changes with the plot. And Hawke's goal was to gain her home back and her family name, and manage the consquences that come with it. But why? is up to the player.

Hell, the great Chrono Trigger did not have a central goal until the end.

In fact, having a central goal way too early in an RPG can lead to lack of focus as well, in which DAO does, especially if the missions do not relate to the main plot well. Rockstar games like GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption are very notorious for this. There is no focus for most of the story.

[brightblueink]

Gongsun Zan wrote...

Also the Deep Roads expedition has nothing to do with the stability issue in kirkwall. Again, simply watching Kirkwall fall apart simply makes the game a documentary, not a story.

Yes it does. The idol gets into Meredith's hands, which furthers her paranoia about blood mages, which escalates the conflict between the mages and templars.

Also, documentaries can be stories. DA2, however, can't be a documentary because it isn't true.

[Fast Jimmy]

txgoldrush wrote...
Hell, the great Chrono Trigger did not have a central goal until the end.

Stopping Lavos and preventing the destruction of the human race is PRETTY well defined early on in the game after your first trip to the future, before you even get Robo as a character.

Sorry, I've nothing more to add to the actual original discussion, but pray to the Maker you don't go making fun of the plot of Crono Trigger, which had 10+ endings on a 16 bit system, while DA2, on consoles over a decade the SNES' younger, only manages to give you 1 and a half (I don't consider the one sentence change in dialogue by Varric to count as an entirely different ending).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[AlexXIV]

txgoldrush wrote...
Its all in the script, its just like the Witcher. Geralt has to recover his order's secrets however, the question why? is up to the player. Its just like DAII...

Its not like you had a choice against teh Qunari, they turn on you and Aveline.

I don't know if you are just stubborn or can't see what people are talking about. The point is after Hawke got the money from the deep roads and the estate in hightown the motivation ends. Family is save, heritage is secured. End of story.

But then Hawke gets bored and walks through the street where everyone and their mom ask Hawke to help with something. And of course Hawke does help because there is nothing else to do. If you play, don't you ever think from Hawke's perspective "Why am I doing this?". You should, just start dialogues and think what you really would answer. There is no good reason to stick your head out for others without personal gain unless you are some saint or something. Hell even Ghandi wanted freedom from his people's oppressors. I mean we are not talking about charity or something. I wouldn't be bothered if Hawke gave some of his/her wealth to the poor etc. But really getting in one fight after the other to fix other people's problems? Why for example are you accepting mother Petrice's quest with the Saarebas? Right, because it is a main quest and the plot demands it. Or why do you even go to the Qunari and talk with them or get involved with any Qunari business to begin with? Because it is a 'main quest'. That's why.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 avril 2011 - 10:41 .

[Furtled]

txgoldrush wrote...

There are GOALS...there is just no central one. It changes with the plot. And Hawke's goal was to gain her home back and her family name, and manage the consquences that come with it. But why? is up to the player.

I'm only taking a guess here (and I could be entirely wrong) but I think you're getting goals and motives mixed up, they can be (and often are) two seperate things. For example: lets say my goal is to be an astro engineer, that's a goal, there's lots of mini-goals on the way to it (like exams, qualifications etc.) but that's my goal. Now my motives are another thing entirely; do I have that goal because I love space? or because I want to work for NASA?, or because a parent or mentor was one?, or have I simply watched one too many episodes of Star Trek?

Hawke's initial goals are as you say, and I'll not argue with you on their motives (or that those motives are driven by the player); but once the initial goal of restoring the family and securing the estate is attained there's no more goals available. You say the goal at that point is to manage the consequences, which I don't really understand as to me that means do nothing, and as I said before, having no goal after securing the estate isn't right for DA2, even if it ultimately means nothing as the events of the overarching plot take over.

Doing nothing doesn't drive the player through the plot or give them something to work towards, if Hawke had a conversation where they said 'ohh I think I'll just rest on my laurels for a while and enjoy the peace and quiet' that'd at least give the player an idea of what's to come. Hawke's been an active protagonist throughout the game so the sudden about face with nothing to aim for doesn't work in the context of the story.

Hope that makes sense

Modifié par Furtled, 17 avril 2011 - 12:57 .