147 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

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.

Well the only consequence of becoming a noble is your sibling runs away/dies/is captured/becomes a Warden. And every last one of those are left out of the player's control and Hawke only ever sees the sibling in cameos from then on.

The Arishok requesting Hawke has nothing to do with Hawke being a noble. Hawke impresses the Arishok regardless thanks to a mandatory quest. The Arishok does not care for the titles bas give themselves. Hawke is proven resourceful and honorable, and thus the Arishok would call for Hawke even if Hawke was a homeless thief.

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

It makes sense. BioWare's used to making the player a Baalspawn, Jedi, Spirit Warrior, Grey Warden, Spectre, Cerberus Operative, etc. The title and the organization always provided the goal. Being given an honorific title with no authority or responsibilities does not infer a goal or motivation. It's a new kind of problem for BioWare.

[Gongsun Zan]

brightblueink wrote...

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.

The central conflict of act one is hawke trying to get ich, not hstability of krkwall. just because a consequence affects the next conflict does not make it united. if return of the jedi ended with a 45 min sequence depicting the effects of debris wrecking the ecological balance on endor, people would have been pissed, even though it would have been a possible consequence of the battle.

And a documentary is a straitforward telling of events/facts. a story requires more than just that. the more story elements you add into a doc, it starts to become more of a character study or something else.

Lastly there are fictional documenteries, or "mockumentaries". but think to pursue this argument further would just take us way off topic.

[Fast Jimmy]

Gongsun Zan wrote...
Lastly there are fictional documenteries, or "mockumentaries". but think to pursue this argument further would just take us way off topic.

I thought about bringing up "This Is Spinal Tap" when the discussion of documentaries HAVING to be true came up, but yes... I agree that it only pushes the original topic way off the agenda.

My problem with DA2 is that each act could have been its own DLC with the playable character being a different person every time. That everything that happened could take place over the course of one year, as opposed to seven. That everything plot wise that the game tried to achieve was great... but that it fell short in implementing it. I think Bioware has a concept of how the game was supposed to be in their minds that many of us gamers can see glimpses of, but which requires us as the character to make leaps or jumps from actual gameplay to what we imagine in our heads.

I can imagine an amazing plot of political intrigue and military valor to playing a game of checkers, because I gave my pieces motivation and character... but that doesn't make checkers a plot-intense game. It just makes me an imaginative person who can see the intended conflict the game brings up and can put more personal value on it.

[jcp234]

brightblueink wrote...

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.

Nothing about what I communicated challenged or questioned anyone enjoying the game. So I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your response. I enjoyed the game for what it is, but it's an obviously rushed and average game.

Reading some of these comments, I find it hard to believe others played the same game I played. But I respect everyone's preference even if I don't agree with it. The game lacks polish,focus, depth, a cohesive story, and character development.

That is all.

[txgoldrush]

Furtled wrote...

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

No, I understand the difference between goals and motives....

goals...get power and influence by helping the city.

motive...given by the player... Hawke can do this out of the kindness of her heart, or do it just for power, for example. in some moments you can explain why you are pursuing your goals.

Its just like Geralt where is goal was to get back the Witcher's secrets...his motives however is up to the player. Same with Hawke.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 18 avril 2011 - 03:42 .

[Foolsfolly]

goals...get power and influence by helping the city.

When is that a goal? It's a goal to get money so you can move out of your uncle's house. After that there is no goal to get power or influence. Alistair asks you to help the city, but that's weird why a king of another country would care. And who is Alistair to Hawke? Unless your Hawke loves Ferelden, which is totally possible.

motive...given by the player... Hawke can do this out of the kindness of her heart, or do it just for power, for example.

Motive is vaguer than that. The player has no finical incentive to resolve the Qunari problem, nor an incentive to enter into the Mage/Templar argument. Even the Act 3 opener seems to have Hawke just walk by (it is in front of Hawke's house) and then Orsino pulls Hawke into the argument. Then the game forces Hawke to work with Meredith and possibly Orsino regardless of motivation.

The only motive to do the Qunari or Mage storyline is if your Hawke is a saint who wants to help people without any other motivation. Because the game does not offer any other reason to do them.

Its just like Geralt where is goal was to get back the Witcher's secrets...his motives however is up to the player. Same with Hawke.

That's an establish game long goal, Hawke has none.

[txgoldrush]

Foolsfolly wrote...

goals...get power and influence by helping the city.

When is that a goal? It's a goal to get money so you can move out of your uncle's house. After that there is no goal to get power or influence. Alistair asks you to help the city, but that's weird why a king of another country would care. And who is Alistair to Hawke? Unless your Hawke loves Ferelden, which is totally possible.

motive...given by the player... Hawke can do this out of the kindness of her heart, or do it just for power, for example.

Motive is vaguer than that. The player has no finical incentive to resolve the Qunari problem, nor an incentive to enter into the Mage/Templar argument. Even the Act 3 opener seems to have Hawke just walk by (it is in front of Hawke's house) and then Orsino pulls Hawke into the argument. Then the game forces Hawke to work with Meredith and possibly Orsino regardless of motivation.

The only motive to do the Qunari or Mage storyline is if your Hawke is a saint who wants to help people without any other motivation. Because the game does not offer any other reason to do them.

Its just like Geralt where is goal was to get back the Witcher's secrets...his motives however is up to the player. Same with Hawke.

That's an establish game long goal, Hawke has none.

Look at Isabela's questioning beliefs, especially the rivalry version in Act II, its there...you can state your motives there!!!

And how would he refuse to deal with the Qunari, in fact, if the Qunari took the city and she did nothing, she would no longer have power and influence, or  maybe even no home as well. its in her best interests do deal with the problem.

And basically if she did not join Meredith, she would be branded as an enemy. She couldn't stay neutral.

[Foolsfolly]

Look at Isabela's questioning beliefs, especially the rivalry version in Act II, its there...you can state your motives there!!!

Never saw it. There is one for Varric though. "I thought you'd leave" thing where you can state what you want. You do not ever act on anything for it though. If you say "I want to enter politics, Kirkwall needs to change." 4 years later Hawke hasn't done step one to entering politics. If you say, "I'm here for my family." You do not do anything to gather your family together or help them. Your mom dies and your sibling is otherwise absent for various reasons.

It's lipservice. Not giving motivation. I can't believe I have to explain this. Hawke does nothing for Hawke, Hawke does missions because the game forces Hawke to. But there's no reason for the character to do it. So it's just like a check list that you mark off each quest. Hardly motivation.

And how would he refuse to deal with the Qunari, in fact, if the Qunari took the city and she did nothing, she would no longer have power and influence, or maybe even no home as well. its in her best interests do deal with the problem.

No. If the Qunari attacked then Hawke has every motivation in the world to stop them. Hawke gains nothing (and in fact looses much if Hawke's a mage) under the Qun. But before the attack there's not one reason to do anything. It's not Hawke's business.

Even you ask the Viscount for money to do his job the Viscount doesn't pay. Says something about how the city'll need the money if Hawke fails. So there's no gain nor reason prior to the attack, in fact there's more motivation to help the Qunari since they're constantly under attack. Even the straw that breaks the camel's back is Aveline's pig-headedness. She has to prove that she's not ignorable and demands two elves come with her.

Elves who did nothing wrong and in fact acted much like Hawke acts throughout the game without any guardsman showing to arrest them.

But lo and behold, you can't side with Qunari! There's motivation (they're being robbed and murdered left and right) but the game says, "Nah, that's not the path we wanted you to take." And takes away the option to have a motive of your own. You just do the quests the game requires because the game requires it.

And basically if she did not join Meredith, she would be branded as an enemy. She couldn't stay neutral.

As opposed to all the other Kirkwallers who do nothing? Why is this Hawke's fight? Why does Hawke have to do Meredith's job? Or even swear loyalty to her? And you can't be neutral anyway because the game doesn't allow it.

Also if you side against her you're not an enemy. She still gives you a mission to track down escaped mages! The only time you're an enemy is in the final mission. Which is a mess in many other ways.

[Boiny Bunny]

doloreg wrote...

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

If that is your 'plot' summary for DA:O, the equivalent plot summary for DA2 would be:

"You're a hobo.  Get rich or die trying"

The main focus of DA:O (when I say main focus, I mean 90% of the game's plot) had very little to do with the Archdemon or the Blight.  They simply provided a context for everything else that was going on. 

There are plenty of incredible books set during World War 2, that have little to do with the events of the war itself, but rather simply use it as a context for a deep personal story.  Origins isn't identical in execution to this, as your characters do eventually play an important part in stopping the Blight - but it is a fair example nonetheless.

Origins is about far more than the Blight, just as DA2 is about far more than Hawke rising to power.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 18 avril 2011 - 04:29 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

All I know is about half-way through I was wondering why Hawke continues to stay in a city that holds no love for her. If given the choice I would have left Kirkwall. Place was full of jerks to begin with. Nearly everyone betrays you, even your own companions. No one listens to your voice of reason. It was a cruddy way to spend the game in all honesty.

[Roxlimn]

Boiny Bunny:

There's a heckuvlot of exposition in DAO, but the main thrust of the plot has always been about the Blight and the Warden's actions to end it.

Your summary of DA2 is not valid because it covers virtually nothing that made the story what it was. It just covers one of Hawke's main motivations.

[Roxlimn]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

All I know is about half-way through I was wondering why Hawke continues to stay in a city that holds no love for her. If given the choice I would have left Kirkwall. Place was full of jerks to begin with. Nearly everyone betrays you, even your own companions. No one listens to your voice of reason. It was a cruddy way to spend the game in all honesty.

I gather that Hawke stays in Kirkwall because her mother likes staying there, and afterwards because the bulk of her power, money, and influence are in Kirkwall.  That makes some kind of difference to the decision making of an adult in her situation.

[Gongsun Zan]

One of the main problems with hawkes motivations is that he's forever getting involved in kirkwalls business for no good reason, when he was perfectly happy to let ferelden fall to the blight. The hawke as a saint explanation feels a bit silly if you consider that.

As for the witcher, Geralts motivations are clear...he has to recover the witcher's secrets because he's a witcher. Its pretty established that he begins the game with a strong pro-witcher stance. One of the central conflicts of the witcher is him dealing with that neutral monster-slaying posistion in a world where the lines between man and monster are increasingly blurred, and everyone wants to drag him into their business. The choices in the game reflect that. DA2 tries to pull something similar off, but fails to achieve anything like that.

[Foolsfolly]

One of the main problems with hawkes motivations is that he's forever getting involved in kirkwalls business for no good reason, when he was perfectly happy to let ferelden fall to the blight. The hawke as a saint explanation feels a bit silly if you consider that.

Wow. I never even considered that. Hawke fled the Blight and went AWOL. I wonder if that's a crime in Ferelden. Apparently, Aveline went AWOL too since she was listed among the dead.

[Boiny Bunny]

Roxlimn wrote...

Boiny Bunny:

There's a heckuvlot of exposition in DAO, but the main thrust of the plot has always been about the Blight and the Warden's actions to end it.

Your summary of DA2 is not valid because it covers virtually nothing that made the story what it was. It just covers one of Hawke's main motivations.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Origins had a main 'thrust' in its plot, which was the Blight.  DA2 has 3 main 'thrusts' in its plot - one for each Act.

With that said, 90% of the actual plot presented and played through in Origins has little to do with the Blight.  Likewise, much of the things you find yourself doing in DA2 are not related to any of the main 3 plot arcs.

I think that at the simplest level, you can indeed summarise the plots of the two games as:

"You're a hero.  Kill a dragon"

"You're a hobo.  Get rich or die trying"

Indeed, the entire plot of DA2 is really about Hawke rising to power, and getting into a few bits of trouble along the way.

But lets be honest.  Neither of those descriptions are fair on the games in any way.

If I were to extend those descriptions slightly we might have something like:

"You're a Grey Warden with one of 6 backgrounds.  Go unite the races/factions of Ferelden, stop a mad tyrant attempting to seize the throne, and then stop an evil invasion by slaying an Archdemon"

"You're a refugee fleeing from the Blight.  Get rich, then attempt to maintain peace between the Viscount/Arishok then Mages/Templar, fail miserably, but clean up the mess in both situations"

Or I could go further?

This is pointless.  Having 3 mini plot arcs (the first of which actually has no plot at all) with a different one driving each act is not very different from having 1 driving the whole game.  It just means they can really focus on that plot arc, instead of doing half-baked jobs of each one.

[Foolsfolly]

"You're a Grey Warden with one of 6 backgrounds. Go unite the races/factions of Ferelden, stop a mad tyrant attempting to seize the throne, and then stop an evil invasion by slaying an Archdemon"

Actually, stopping Loghain can also be filed under "unite Ferelden" if you think about it. The whole game is about rallying Ferelden to withstand and defeat the Blight.

[Boiny Bunny]

Foolsfolly wrote...

"You're a Grey Warden with one of 6 backgrounds. Go unite the races/factions of Ferelden, stop a mad tyrant attempting to seize the throne, and then stop an evil invasion by slaying an Archdemon"

Actually, stopping Loghain can also be filed under "unite Ferelden" if you think about it. The whole game is about rallying Ferelden to withstand and defeat the Blight.

I wouldn't categorise them as being the exact same thing anymore than I would categorise keeping the peace between the Viscount/Arishok and Orsino/Meredith as being the exact same thing.  They are similar, have the same goal in mind, but are distinctly different phases of the game, with completely different plot emphasis.

[Foolsfolly]

Yeah, but setting Orzammar and the Circle are very different things but they're the same.

If I really had to sum up Origins it would be: "Travel around Ferelden to unite and prepare them for defeating the Blight." Every stop the Warden made was one to prepare, gather, or settle things for the Blight.

I see the Loghain plot as the Denerim plot, like Bhelen is Orzammar's, or Uldred is the Circle's. Every place as its problem that needs to be solved before they can support the Warden against the Blight.

Loghain is just more personal to each Warden than the other non-origin place (obviously Orzammar has a different feel and importance if you're a dwarf or not, same with the Circle for a Mage, etc.).

The Viscount/Arishok and Orsino/Meredith things are two different stories all together. But I see the Landsmeet as Denerim's storyline before you can the Ferelden army's support against the Blight.

[Boiny Bunny]

^ Well to each their own.

I see the Viscount/Arishok plot as being almost identical to the Orsino/Meredith plot at its core.

If you really wanted to jam it into one sentance as you have the DA:O plot, you could write something along the lines of "Attempt to keep the peace in the politically unstable Kirkwall and fail miserably, twice".

[Foolsfolly]

Well, if I had to sum up DA2 it'd be what I said earlier in the thread.

"Create four ripples that will have consequences in later games" basically. (Flemeth, Primeval Thiag, Qunari coming back, and Mage War in order of appearance).

I don't see a central plot and nothing even gets resolved other than the Qunari storyline. But even then the Arishok promises the qunari will be back.

[Boiny Bunny]

^ And perhaps the DA2 choices will have large impacts in DA3. Or perhaps not. Or the choices in DA:O could have large impacts in DA3 (there are certainly a heck of a lot more of them). Or perhaps not.

Most of the plot in DA2 felt unresolved IMO.

[Foolsfolly]

I don't think choices will have a large impact. You can't choose to not resurrect Flemeth. Handing over Isabela still has the Arishok say the Qunari will return. You cannot not go to the Primeval. And the Mage War starts regardless of choice.

The restriction on choices also leads to be to believe it'll be easier to import into the next game. So the whole game feels like a stepping stone for me. It doesn't wrap anything up because it was never designed to.

It's why I wish there was a central plot focused on Hawke. Where Hawke had to fight to become Champion, had to earn it, had people against it. Then Hawke's story at least would have wrapped up in DA2 and everything else still be in the air for the next game.

It feels cheap like it is. It feels like BioWare's ransoming resolution via DLC, ya know.

[Giltspur]

I'm not sure that it matters that Meredith was mostly held off until Act III.  I think the problem is that once she was revealed in Act III, she and Orsino were both underdeveloped before the game was over.

I'm perfectly fine with the somewhat disconnected nature Act I, II and III.  What I'm not fine with is the abrupt, underdeveloped nature of Act III.  In short, the antagonist of Act I is probably poverty.  And your goal is the money from the expedition.  And you know poverty can be a good antagonist.  But you never really feel like it's much of a threat to you in Act I.  You don't feel like you're on the run from the templars.  You don't feel in danger living in Lowtown.  Your life, in other words, doesn't feel like crap.  Which is what it should feel like if your character is set on escaping poverty. Despite that I still liked Act I.  I liked meeting the characters.  I liked doing their quests.  I liked the Deep Roads. But looking back, I do sort of wonder what work it was supposed to be doing other than getting the idol (which to me doesn't pay off in any satisfying way in DA2) or meeting the Qunari (which does pay off in Act II).

Act II is very cool.  Your poorness caused Petrice to try and manipulate you late in Act I, as she thought you'd be disposable.  Your general competence in Act I quests that intersect with the Qunari caused the Arishok to elevate you by requesting your presence via the Viscount.  More than anything else, it's the Arishok that elevates Hawke with his respect for Hawke.  And this is what puts Hawke in a position to kill the Arishok and become Champion.  And the Arishok is a consistently compelling character that comes out in the interactions you have with him.  Those conversations with the Arishok are, for me, the highlight of Dragon Age II. 

And Meredith and Orsino lack that.  They lack the compelling perspective that the Arishok had.  And Act III suffers for it.  So my problem isn't that Meredith wasn't built up the whole game.  The Arishok was built up just fine within Act II (and for part of Act I).  Meredith and Orsino did not get the same sympathetic treatment in Act III.  There just wasn't enough about them in Act III.

I still think that if you fix Act III by making Meredith and Orsino more compelling Dragone Age II would have flaws.  Namely, the framed narrative in Dragon Age II doesn't work like Kvothe's framed narrative in Name of the Wind. In that one, he has a driving goal but constantly gets detoured while aiming for it.  But the detours are Kvothe's own dumb fault.  But you can empathize with him.  You can see how it would happen to him, given how he is. His mistakes, his setbacks bring his character out.  The setbacks aren't just detours you need to read past.  They matter because they're about the main character and they are real obstacles to what he wants.

DA2 doesn't really bring Hawke's character out in a way that tells you about his mind.  We don't talk about the decisions Hawke made and how that told us about the truth behind the legend.  We talk about whether we had Sarcastic Hawke or Polite Hawke or Aggressive Hawke.  And that's a problem if your goal was to bring the gamer closer to the man behind the myth.

Modifié par Giltspur, 18 avril 2011 - 09:29 .