88 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

In DA2 it all matters... for roleplaying. Considering the choices you are presented with demand conclusions, opinions, and some kind of reasoning. Characters react to the way you conduct yourself, so much so that in cases where they fail to - like say, Anders saying you've constantly supported mages even if you're been more neutral or barely supported them at all - is actually quite jarring.  Unless you aren't hooked, but then it's possible to not be hooked by DAO, either.

DA2 doesn't do as good of a job with "set flags regarding different characters and worldstates" as it does as an RPG, though, no.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 02:08 .

[Lord Gremlin]

I feel the same, OP, I really do. I just don't know who's responsible for screwing the game. God, at times Hawke looked like a total idiot to me. I would have never let Petrice get away, even if that means burning the house to conceal her murder.
And stop mentioning CoD audience. I deleted all PSN friends who play CoD and even my friends delete everybody among their friends, spotted playing CoD. Nowadays CoD is like a badge of shame.

Now, Bioware... DAO was great because of choice. I hate to say it aloud, but action in DA2 is **** compared to GoW3 and other such games, graphics and performance sub-par... The only enjoyable parts are writing and gore. And the former is severely diminished by the lack of choice.

[hoorayforicecream]

I find it odd that people feel like they can't really affect anything in DA2, but praise DA:O for allowing so many choices. Ultimately, in DA:O, the warden slays the archdemon and ends the Blight. There's no way around that. In DA2, the templars and mages go to war, and Hawke plays a pivotal role in ushering in the situation.

I wonder how many of these complaints would go away if DA2 just had those little epilogue placards like DA:O?

[Ryzaki]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I find it odd that people feel like they can't really affect anything in DA2, but praise DA:O for allowing so many choices. Ultimately, in DA:O, the warden slays the archdemon and ends the Blight. There's no way around that. In DA2, the templars and mages go to war, and Hawke plays a pivotal role in ushering in the situation.

I wonder how many of these complaints would go away if DA2 just had those little epilogue placards like DA:O?

*points at ME*

I don't think so. 

[Vicious]

No, and it baffles me people thought they could make a difference at all in this game.

The current events are spelled out for you in the first 10 minutes of gameplay. From there, the plot does not move forward, at all.

The whole game is literally just one big flashback.

The only thing you get to decide really is if Hawke sided with the Mages or the Templars.. But it doesn't matter, because Mages use his name as a byword for good/evil regardless. [which is why a legend about Hawke, a very much joe schmoe kind of guy, came about]

[hoorayforicecream]

PurebredCorn wrote...

In Origins you could choose to help the people of Redcliff or leave them. You could choose to slay Connor, have his mother do it, save him, or kill his mother. All those choices had an impact on the game you were playing. And that's just in Redcliff. Think about the choices you could make in Orzammar. Those are the kinds of things I was expecting in DA2 and never found. I miss them because they added to the replayability of the game. 

Not really. Regardless of whether you help Redcliffe, Orzammar, etc. the ending battle is still the same. The only real palpable difference is how much help you get during the battle of Denerim. The archdemon still gets slain and the blight still gets ended, regardless of whom the warden chooses to help (if the warden chooses to help at all). The only real difference made at the end of the game is what the little epilogue placards say.

[Ryzaki]

The end battle still being the same doesn't equal everything leading up to the end battle being nearly exactly the same.

I had far more different outcomes from my DAO games than in my DA2 (and that's disregarding the epilogue bits with both).

I had more places to simply make a decision that didn't boil down to "yes" or "no". 

There's a smidge of that in DA2 (like the Fool's Gold Quest) but in DAO it was to me at least more at the forefront. 

In DAO

Redcliff - Did I let the zombies run over? Did I kill Conner? Did I kill Jowan? Did I kill Isolde? Did I release Jowan?

Circle - Did I do the rite? Did I kill all the mages? Did I tell Gregoir there still might be bloodmages? Did I attack Wynne? 

Orzammar - Who did I make king? Did I betray either of them? Did I save the Anvil? Destroy it? Did I convince Branka to kill herself? Did I bring Shale? Did I fight Shale?

Brecillian Forest - Did I side with the werewolves? Did I kill Zatherian after killing Witherfang? Did I kill Witherfang? Did I convince Zatherian to preform the ritual? Did I side with the oak or the mage? 

Landsmeet - Did I execute Loghain? Did I make Alistair king? Did I marry Alistair and Anora? Did I crown the Warden? Was Alistair hardened at the time? Did I defeat Ser Cautherine the first time? Did I convince her to step aside? How did I escape Fort Drakon? 

I just felt I had more options period in DAO. Wheres in DA2 I felt a lot of the time I did something one way or another instead of having more variations. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[Vicious]

There's no changing anything in DA2. In present times, Mages use "REMEMBER HAWKE!" as their battlecry. Whether Hawke annuls the circle or saves them DOESN'T MATTER, they still use his name [as either a good thing or bad thing] as their byword and battlecry.

And that's why he is 'the most important person in Thedas' not for who he is, or what he did, but what he stood for at the end of the game.

Yeah, playing DA2 is literally a fun waste of time.

[haroldhardluck]

Koyasha wrote...
Kirkwall is actually the biggest city in the Free Marches and actually one of the major metropolises of Thedas, I believe. I think it's even considerably larger than Denerim, though I'm not certain. It is true that it doesn't really feel this way that much, though. Might have been nice to get a few aerials of Kirkwall in a cutscene or something to really give us a sense of what the scale of the city is, like we got with Denerim toward the end of DA:O.

The problem is that in DAO you got an actual map of Denerim so you could see how little of the city you actually visit while in DA2 you got an abstract display of neighborhoods so you have no idea of how big the city really is. The map gives the sense of a large city that the abstraction does not.

Only a few of the places in Denerim you visit are neighborhhoods such as the marketplace and the alienage.  OTOH more of the places you visit in Kirkwall are neighborhoods (Docks, Gallows, Lowtown, HIghtown, Darktown). Then there are the indidvidual buildings and estates such as the Arl of Redcliffe and the Vicount's palace, various alley ways, people's homes, etc. For the games, Kirkwall is the far bigger place. The neighborhoods are larger. There are more of them. There are far more alleyways and small neighborhood sections that you visit for various quests. It does not help that Bioware obviously re-uses its mazes so you do not get the sense of visiting many different places.

Harold

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Well ya get to shank Anders, but that's pretty much it.

in DA 2? how?

Oh, shank... like taking his pants off? that's all I got. 

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 18 avril 2011 - 06:49 .

[Fiskrens]

PurebredCorn wrote...

And I'm saying the ending battle being the same doesn't matter to me. I miss the little choices, the small scale differences that Origins had that are missing in DA2.

Well,

Did Feynriel survive?

Did you support Petrice - and thus let her survive?

Did you hand Isabella to the Qunari?

Did you extinguish the Dalish clan? (not really confirmed, but at least it feels that way when you are forced to fight all of them)

Did you give Anders the knife or not (and maybe make Sebastian go on another vengeance rampage)?

These are some of the small scale differences available in DA2. None of them affect the major outcome - just like in DAO. Some of them seem to be of smaller scale than in the previous game, but then again the whole game is of smaller scale than its predecessor.

I agree that DAO has more re-playability because of the differences the choices make in-game. But when playing DA2 for the first playthrough, the choices felt as tough to make to me. That the game may not offer as much satisfaction in subsequent play-throughs maybe doesn't have to be Biowares primary concern. And they haven't promoted that at all for DA2 as they did for DAO. A simple (but not complete) comparison is that of a "classic" film that holds for several re-runs, and a more "shallow" action movie that won't hold in the long run (but is as much entertaining the first time).

[_Motoki_]

PurebredCorn wrote...

And I'm saying the ending battle being the same doesn't matter to me. I miss the little choices, the small scale differences that Origins had that are missing in DA2.

This. Exactly this.

I guess that I felt like the areas where you did have some little bit of choice in DA2 didn't do much for me or have much impact to me personally as a player. What I wanted were alternate ways of progressing and completing various quests and I didn't get much of it.

I remember in the very beginning when trying to get into Kirkwall and I was presented with the two choices which were pretty much the same I just cringed because I didn't like the idea of being sold into slavery to some scheisty characters but I was left without a choice. In D:AO there would have been another way.

I understand they are telling a more linear story and there were conscessions that had to be made for the drastically reduced development cycle, but then why even bother with the pretense of giving a choice? It's misleading. Pretty much all you do is decide if you want to respond as a smart ass, kiss ass or jerk and then whatever happens happens regardless.

[Nerdage]

Just finished writing this in another thread but it seems more appropriate here so I'll just copy & paste.

Would it have felt more like your choices mattered in DA2 they just knocked up a list of "X did this", "Y did this" like the epilogue in Origins? Would it have felt like you mattered less in Origins if they didn't have the epilogue? More than likely, but there's a difference between your actions having consequences and being given some text at the end of the game in a box marked "consequences". The epilogue was no more real to the gameplay than simply imagining what happens, or waiting to see what happens in the next game, even the most dramatic choices often affected little more than one or two conversations in-game.

Going into an end-game spoiler here, fair warning...
Example: If at the end of DA2 you sided with the mages, all the gameplay's the same as it is now, but after the last boss fight there's an epilogue slide that says: "Because Hawke sided with the mages, they eventually gained popular support and overthrew the chantry, eventually leading to a Thedas ruled by mages and the resurrection of long-fibidden magics" Would you have been sat there thinking "Holy crap, I did that!"? That's basically what Origins did, but in DA2 we don't know what impact we've had yet, that doesn't necessarily mean we had no impact and it's too early to assume we haven't. I guess there are merits to both methods, but if you're planning to carry the story into another game (clearly that's where the mage v templar story's going) it's better not to tell the player how the story ends before it happens.

Basically, does the epilogue (or lack thereof) affect how much impact you felt you had on the game world and does it mean you actually had less impact because there wasn't an epilogue?

Modifié par nerdage, 18 avril 2011 - 09:37 .

[Deified Data]

I'd rather they give me no choices at all than ignore the ones I make when they're imported, ala Origins to DAII.

[Mnemnosyne]

nerdage wrote...

Basically, does the epilogue (or lack thereof) affect how much impact you felt you had on the game world and does it mean you actually had less impact because there wasn't an epilogue?

Yes and no.  I like the epilogue and it does affect how much impact I felt I had on the game.

However, had DA:O ended without the epilogue slides, simply at the end of the post-coronation ceremony, I still would have felt like the Warden had a way bigger effect on Ferelden than Hawke does in Kirkwall, and not just cause the Warden stopped the Blight - I mean the Warden's choices along the way had a bigger effect on Ferelden than Hawke's choices in Kirkwall.

It's not entirely about material impact, but what I feel like at the end of the game.  The post-coronation ceremony itself was a major 'closer' that felt like it was really putting a good cap on the story.  Talking to people like Irving or Shianni or whoever at that ceremony was more than enough, because I felt as though I had an impact on entire communities, not just one or two people.

[hoorayforicecream]

Koyasha wrote...

Yes and no.  I like the epilogue and it does affect how much impact I felt I had on the game.

However, had DA:O ended without the epilogue slides, simply at the end of the post-coronation ceremony, I still would have felt like the Warden had a way bigger effect on Ferelden than Hawke does in Kirkwall, and not just cause the Warden stopped the Blight - I mean the Warden's choices along the way had a bigger effect on Ferelden than Hawke's choices in Kirkwall.

It's not entirely about material impact, but what I feel like at the end of the game.  The post-coronation ceremony itself was a major 'closer' that felt like it was really putting a good cap on the story.  Talking to people like Irving or Shianni or whoever at that ceremony was more than enough, because I felt as though I had an impact on entire communities, not just one or two people.

If there was an epilogue scenario after the battle at the Gallows... let's say at the Viscount's keep (a coronation ceremony for Hawke), or somewhere in the woods (after escaping from the city), where you had a chance to talk to the major players that are left alive and "on your side", would that provide the sort of closure you felt with the coronation in Denerim? Like... you can talk to some of the mages you saved, or to folks like Lia the elf girl who possibly became a guardswoman, etc. as well as your companions, Cullen, etc.

Would that have made the difference?

[Mnemnosyne]

It quite possibly would. I suspect it would have made me feel vastly better about the ending of the game than suddenly cutting to three years later with Varric finishing his story with basically 'everyone split up after a while' immediately after the battle scene.

If a half dozen or so people talked about or showed you how you actually changed their lives significantly by an actual choice you made (not just something you had no choice on, but an actual choice) at least I would have felt as though I made a difference in those people's lives. As it is, I'm not even sure how much of a difference I made in my own companions' lives at the end, especially if we all wind up separating.

[hoorayforicecream]

Well, the Warden ended up separating from most/all of his/her companions in the epilogue plaques too, no? I do agree that it would have been nice to have some sense of closure. I just think that most folks are going about describing it wrong, since there really isn't a whole lot that's different between the results of what happened in DA:O and DA2, but DA:O actually lets you spend a little time talking to folks about it.

[Persephone]

Not in my game you didn't.

My Hawke certainly did.

[Sabariel]

Fiskrens1 wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

And I'm saying the ending battle being the same doesn't matter to me. I miss the little choices, the small scale differences that Origins had that are missing in DA2.

Well,

Did Feynriel survive?

Did you support Petrice - and thus let her survive?

Did you hand Isabella to the Qunari?

Did you extinguish the Dalish clan? (not really confirmed, but at least it feels that way when you are forced to fight all of them)

Did you give Anders the knife or not (and maybe make Sebastian go on another vengeance rampage)?

These are some of the small scale differences available in DA2. None of them affect the major outcome - just like in DAO. Some of them seem to be of smaller scale than in the previous game, but then again the whole game is of smaller scale than its predecessor.

I agree that DAO has more re-playability because of the differences the choices make in-game. But when playing DA2 for the first playthrough, the choices felt as tough to make to me. That the game may not offer as much satisfaction in subsequent play-throughs maybe doesn't have to be Biowares primary concern. And they haven't promoted that at all for DA2 as they did for DAO. A simple (but not complete) comparison is that of a "classic" film that holds for several re-runs, and a more "shallow" action movie that won't hold in the long run (but is as much entertaining the first time).

If you turn Isabela over to the Qunari she just escapes and re-steals the book

[Andronic0s]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I don't expect Bioware games to allow me to radically alter the main plot; I never expected to stop Saren or Irenicus or the Archdemon before the endgame. What I like about Bioware games is that you get to choose between different ways of getting to the endgame, and hopefully have those choices reflected in how the endgame plays out and in any sequels.

Want to make Revan darkside? You can do that. Want to preserve the Anvil of the Void? You can do that too. It allows one to have a feeling of control over the development of the setting.

In DA2, nothing matters. Sent Anders away in Act 2? Doesn't matter. Saved the mages in Acts of Mercy? Doesn't matter. Chose to support Meredith/Orsino? Doesn't matter. I don't even really have a problem with the mage/templar war being inevitable. However, making Anders do what he did no matter what? Invalidating previous quest choices? Having a nonsensical endgame? That I have a problem with.

What disappoints me most about DA2 wasn't that I didn't care about Kirkwall, or that your family is irrelevant halfway through the game, or anything else. It's that they concluded the DA2 story in such a way that the protagonist's involvement felt inconsequential.

Agreed, I don't expect RPGs to allow me to change the plot, but I do expect to be allowed to change how I arrive at the endgame, that is what makes playing the games fun, it is about the journey not the ending, at least to me personally. 

[Perles75]

Hold on hold on: I'm quite critic myself on how Bioware has treated the realm of possibilities in DA2. Even outside the main quest and the forced endgame, they do not give you enough chances to really develop your character (and I'm not speaking about skills, I'm speaking about Hawke's life and interests), and that's the main problem.

However, I cannot really agree that in DAO you had so many more choices like some people say. Frankly, I would get bored in a third playthrough of DAO.