843 réponses à ce sujet

[Slayer299]

Roxlimn wrote...
Let's talk about something specific. Many gamers decry the lack of choice in how DA2 arranges its endgame battles. Aside from this actually being virtually identical to the situation in DAO, not having choice at all in the game is actually a fair staple of JRPGs, which aren't universally considered failures just because they're JRPGs.

So why is it an inherent game flaw for a game not to give you choice in how to proceed?

Roxlimn, I think you're missing your on point. DAO was not setup to have multiple endings, it was pretty clear from the get-go; find allies, build army, KILL Archdemon. See...very straight forward, now there were different ways of going about that task, but at no point was it ever made to seem you had an alternative to killing the AD.

Yet, in DA2 we have the exact opposite, from Act 1 - the End it is completely setup for you to choose Side A or Side B, by doing side quests on Act 2 for one side (A) in which you can help them or not and in Act 3 were you are shown the opposite view from Side B. You are given two or three opportunities (2 in the final drama itself) to choose a side and stick with it, that implies (to me) that there are two endings to the game depending on who you choose to aid. Instead we are given the illusion of making a choice and are forced to repeat the same fights in the same order with the exact same ending, which in the end leaves me with the "wtf was the point of that?" feeling.

If there was never to be a real choice between the two it would have been better to have just not bothered with that and set it up as an obvious fait accompli.

[Roxlimn]

Dragoonlordz:

Theres a couple quotes I could reference for this one is Ray saying your choices affect the story and world in DA2. That was in a youtube video with him being interviewed and also Davids interview.

When they post/say comments like that (there are many more examples if willing to backtrack weeks of web history in browser), then you get expectations. Unless they actually say "In act one your choice a) Will have this affect while in You have no choice" then it is impossible to not use interpretations. However it does not require you to reference DAO in order to judge if their statement is true or not and if so how relevant.

Your choices can and do affect the world and the story of DA2. There are just several instances in which your choices don't. This is pointed out as an obvious flaw. Why?

Grovermancer:

Nope, already addressed that. It's a video game. There are still conventions within video games. They're not perfect. A graphical issue has no bearing on this issue whatsoever, and honest debaters know this.

Like I said, I already addressed that, but you ignored it, and continued on with an inapplicable, intellectually dishonest point. Again, the loss of credibility.

If you won't stop calling me a liar just because you can't reason, I'm going to have to stop responding to you.

Designing combat graphics such that collision boxes don't approximate models and combat animations are largely independent is a graphical and stylistic choice. Such an amount of clipping would be seen as negative in a game like Street Fighter.

If you insist on using graphics to say that DAO is "realistic," then you can't turn out and say that those same graphics can't be used to show that it isn't.

No, DA established a world w/ cultures, laws, and even in-universe physics (for example, weapons actually have weight in DAO). DAO's combat intentionally followed this. DA2's combat does not. It could be called "chidlish" because of reasons already given, but to which you ignore, for reasons that are becoming increasingly apparently.

Really? Weapons have weight in Thedas? Show me the codex entries that detail the physics laws in Thedas.

You ignore things even in this very response. And again, you're being intentionally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest right here...

There are ogres in the DA universe. And dragons. And magic. It's a fantasy world, and that's given.

And there was combat within it's world's laws that hearkened to a physical, believable manner of combat, almost similar to real-life combat. A dark, gritty fantasy world, where the combat intentionally reinforced that.

Then DA2's combat came along, and hearkened to God of War or Ninja Gaiden or Power Rangers. (literally)

Those are styles. As I said, if you say that DA2 has a sensibility that's different from DAO, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

Yes, the nature of DA2's combat; the animations, the look and feel and nature of it, especially in comparison to DAO's combat, could be said to be simplistic. Hyper-stylized. Flashy. Unrealistic. Even at times childish.

Elaborate how DA2's combat graphics are simplistic. I'll start. In DAO, Staff Attack animations have one routine. In DA2, they have four. This constitutes an increase in the complexity of graphical representation in terms of animation.

Reminder: I am not being intellectually dishonest. Stop accusing me of it or I will not continue this with you.

Gatt9:

Um...You do realize you're quoting the author of a children's book series, within which one of the primary themes was growing up and letting go of childish things right? 6 kids got booted out of his magical land for being too old to participate.

So your source pretty much confirms everything said here, there's a valid difference between childish and adult, and anyone who is an adult should be easily able to identify childish qualities.

Yup. I have read the entire Narnia series as well as his Perelandra series. My source is CS Lewis. Quote something from him that says that adults should use "childish" as a negative term for criticism.

Tantum Dic Verbo:

Actually, I quoted the exact passage earlier in the thread, but thanks for the more complete quotation.

Slayer299:

Roxlimn, I think you're missing your on point. DAO was not setup to have multiple endings, it was pretty clear from the get-go; find allies, build army, KILL Archdemon. See...very straight forward, now there were different ways of going about that task, but at no point was it ever made to seem you had an alternative to killing the AD.

It was clear to me from the framed narrative that SOMETHING BAD happened and that Varric is being questioned about it by Cassandra. This ending was never in question, and in fact, they hit your face with it from the get go. It's already happened - they're just talking about it. That's DA2.

In DAO, the ending was more in question. The Warden COULD fail, and it was made to appear that this was a plausible ending. But you're never given that story. You either succeed, or you don't complete the game.

[jds1bio]

Slayer299 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Let's talk
about something specific. Many gamers decry the lack of choice in how DA2 arranges its endgame battles. Aside from this actually being virtually identical to the situation in DAO, not having choice at all in the game is actually a fair staple of JRPGs, which aren't universally considered failures just because they're JRPGs.

So why is it an inherent game flaw for a game not to give you choice in how to proceed?

If there was never to be a real choice between the two it would have been better to have just not bothered with that and set it up as an obvious fait accompli.

It was setup as a story waiting to be shaped by the player, masquerading as a fait accompli.  Except that it was just about finished being shaped even before you could select facial presets.  I enjoy playing DA2, but I think that this is its greatest flaw.

A game all about choice mechanics, a rise to power, and the legend of the Champion gave us no story-shaping main-story choices, no actual power to make an impact with the side we chose, and a legend that undoes itself by the end of the game.

But I don't think that this explains the polarized reviews.  Some liked the nature of the story, some liked the companion options, and some just did not like the reused maps, the sameness of the city maps, and the lack of the "epic" story trope.  Most of the reviews, critiques, etc. from the game industry literati were either too blinded by the reused levels and constricted city maps, or too pressed for time to complete the game more than once, to really get to the heart of where the game is weakest.

Modifié par jds1bio, 18 avril 2011 - 04:28 .

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

In DAO, the ending was more in question. The Warden COULD fail, and it was made to appear that this was a plausible ending. But you're never given that story. You either succeed, or you don't complete the game.

Every time the Warden failed, I got a loading screen, not an epilogue stating who might have defeated the blight or who took over and whether they won.  I was never under any impression that failing could lead to a story outcome.  The whole point of having the ballistas and the armies, and casual difficulty, was so that you practically couldn't fail.

[Roxlimn]

jds1bio wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
In DAO, the ending was more in question. The Warden COULD fail, and it was made to appear that this was a plausible ending. But you're never given that story. You either succeed, or you don't complete the game.

Every time the Warden failed, I got a loading screen, not an epilogue stating who might have defeated the blight or who took over and whether they won.  I was never under any impression that failing could lead to a story outcome.  The whole point of having the ballistas and the armies, and casual difficulty, was so that you practically couldn't fail.

I was speaking in narrative terms.  In the game, everyone's all about how killing the Archdemon wasn't a sure thing.  But then the game takes you aside and tells you that it is.  I suppose the "You're going to win," message was heartening and hopeful for many gamers, but it just felt restrictive to me.  Why can't the Warden fail?

The contrast, of course, is the choice in DA2.  In point of fact, choosing either Mages or Templar does have a narrative impact, but this is apparently not a valid difference.  You don't get to choose whether or not the BIG BAD happens, but I don't see where it was given that this was a choice you could make.

[Boiny Bunny]

Roxlimn wrote...

The contrast, of course, is the choice in DA2.  In point of fact, choosing either Mages or Templar does have a narrative impact, but this is apparently not a valid difference.  You don't get to choose whether or not the BIG BAD happens, but I don't see where it was given that this was a choice you could make.

It wasn't given, of course, but that will never stop players from expecting it. 

The problem, the way I see it, is that the narrative divergence, if you would call it that, is only temporary - up to the moment the final boss is slain, from which point onwards, your choice has no further impact.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Roxlimn wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
In DAO, the ending was more in question. The Warden COULD fail, and it was made to appear that this was a plausible ending. But you're never given that story. You either succeed, or you don't complete the game.

Every time the Warden failed, I got a loading screen, not an epilogue stating who might have defeated the blight or who took over and whether they won.  I was never under any impression that failing could lead to a story outcome.  The whole point of having the ballistas and the armies, and casual difficulty, was so that you practically couldn't fail.

I was speaking in narrative terms.  In the game, everyone's all about how killing the Archdemon wasn't a sure thing.  But then the game takes you aside and tells you that it is.  I suppose the "You're going to win," message was heartening and hopeful for many gamers, but it just felt restrictive to me.  Why can't the Warden fail?

The contrast, of course, is the choice in DA2.  In point of fact, choosing either Mages or Templar does have a narrative impact, but this is apparently not a valid difference.  You don't get to choose whether or not the BIG BAD happens, but I don't see where it was given that this was a choice you could make.

The Warden can't fail but he can die. Ultimate sacrifice ring a bell? This is a choice I could make, I could choose to live another 30 years or I could end my story.

There is no such choice for Hawke. I don't decide anything at all.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2011 - 04:58 .

[Roxlimn]

Boiny Bunny:

Er, what? Choosing to side with the Templar ends up with Hawke occupying a position in Kirkwall. Choosing to side with the Mages ends up with Hawke disappearing into the hills. That's a pretty substantive difference.

Sacred_Fantasy:

Anyone can choose to die. Just fall on your sword. At the point where Morrigan makes her proposal, the question changes from dying to save Ferelden or not, so dying to save your values or not. That becomes much less of an "Ultimate Sacrifice" deal.

You can decide to make Hawke, something, in Kirkwall, or side with Mages and exile yourself. That's something is it not? Why is this not a valid difference?

PS: You can't choose to live 30 years more.  At best you can choose to continue living and hope to live as far as you can, but 30 years for a person who's supposedly in continuous active duty at the frontlines in close quarters sword combat is... ...insanely optimistic.  You yourself are not guaranteed 30 years.  You can die.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 18 avril 2011 - 05:07 .

[Halo Quea]

Just as long as you guys don't lump all of us console gamers in the same category. Not all console gamers appreciated Bioware turning this great franchise into a mindless masher complete with cartoon combat, exploding bodies and magic staffs that sound like zapping lasers.

What's the point of tactical combat if EVERY single encounter is an ambush of spawning adversaries? What's the point of choice in dialog if nearly EVERY conversation (Act 3) ends with you killing everything that moves?

I agree with earlier posts, this game's title shouldn't have had the #2 after it. Bioware could have called this game Dragon Age: Hellmouth or The Fall of Kirkwall. Anything BUT Dragon Age 2 because this isn't a sequel to Origins at all. Bioware should have charged $40 USD for this and DA fans would have happily played this game while awaiting the true sequel to Origins.

Ok maybe $30 USD because it honestly feels like we got half a game anyway. 

Modifié par Halo Quea, 18 avril 2011 - 05:08 .

[Jitter]

byzantine horse wrote...

The rest of the points in the OP aside - is it wise to paint the hardcore RPG crowd as the pinnacle of mankind and the average gamer in late teens/early 20s as zombies who are too stupid to realize what is good for them? Just wondering, this has come up many times and it confuses me to no end.

I hope im not insulting , but i think the truth is just easy to please , not stupid. 
The expectation bar is just lower. 

If you are talking old school fans , then you may be talking about me. 

I can remember my parents making me watch one of those old 9pm Sunday night specials , about kids who play D&D
but one kid takes it too serious and believes he is a Wizard or something.... 

Believe it or not D&D was controversial at one point in time

And to play it people would spend hours days weeks , making maps , making loot tables , rolling dice. 
As a kid it was fun to build characters.  No lie back then when early dice rolling games came out , and it was 3 6 sided dice for each stat , with racial bonus to certain , elf = int dwarf = sta or str or both ..etc . 
I would spend an hour speed firing the re roll button trying for the mythical all 18 rolls . 

Christ i can remember hitting the re roll button so fast and often that i would fall into a pattern , and see the all 18's rip by unable to stop myself in time from hitting the re roll ... and be like Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!! 

Managing inventory , managing stats , min maxing the stats to get good odds.... 

Alot of people don't remember the roots of the genre , and therefore don't understand the angst some have for streamlining.   To some it improves the game , to others it removes the game. 

As a guy who in his youth , im 37 btw . Used up countless pads of graph paper making dungeons, or mapping dungeons i was playing , DA2 has little for me . I can map the whole game on one piece of paper. 

Heck i liked not having mini maps , to this day , ill bet i can run to the bottom of an Origins  dungeon on memory . 
Ultima , Questron...whatever ... 

There are elements that are sacred to the genre . 
Inventory management , stat management , character planning , and the opportunity for diverse character builds . 
Without those ...meh ... The cut scenes are just icing on a cake ... i don't want a bowl full of icing with no meal . 

Just like i don't want to drink Red Bull for every meal .
It takes more to impress me in the RPG department than flash and slash .
Just like it takes more than a can of caffeine or sugar to make a meal .

However to a person new to that type of game (DA2) , with no expectation , or perspective of history of the genre, it may appeal , because of a lack of expectation.  And they may see only the good elements the game has to offer. 
Whereas people like me cant see past the gaping holes of what they (I) see as missing elements required to call it a RPG title. 

It's hard not to sound like

"Back in my day we walked to school 5 miles in the snow with no shoes, up hill both ways, and we liked it that way!!"
but heck .... i did 
 

Modifié par Jitter, 18 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[Roxlimn]

Jitter:

I'm 36 and I also love D&D. I think we may belong to the same generation. Be interesting to hear what you think of 4e. I played 3e a lot and did a lot of remodeling of the rules because, well, a lot of them were broken. 4e's close to what we eventually ended up with, after tinkering with things post-Bo9S.

One of the things I like most about DA2 was the combat redesign. BG2 and DAO were too mired in 70s Chainmail tropes to really make a great deal of progress. I like that Bioware shook up DA2 as much as they did.

[Boiny Bunny]

Roxlimn wrote...

Boiny Bunny:

Er, what? Choosing to side with the Templar ends up with Hawke occupying a position in Kirkwall. Choosing to side with the Mages ends up with Hawke disappearing into the hills. That's a pretty substantive difference.

Whether or not you call that a substantial difference is of course subjective. 

It would appear that many disagree with your opinion on the matter, and find that a single line of text in the epilogue explaining what Hawke did with the next year of his/her life (until the first DLC adventure) is not substantial at all.

[Roxlimn]

Exactly. Why not? What are they looking for? Do they want to play a year of paper work minigames to simulate Hawke new administrative position? A hunting game to simulate his exiled status? A cut scene? Is that what it needs? A cut scene?

[erynnar]

Halo Quea wrote...

Just as long as you guys don't lump all of us console gamers in the same category. Not all console gamers appreciated Bioware turning this great franchise into a mindless masher complete with cartoon combat, exploding bodies and magic staffs that sound like zapping lasers.

What's the point of tactical combat if EVERY single encounter is an ambush of spawning adversaries? What's the point of choice in dialog if nearly EVERY conversation (Act 3) ends with you killing everything that moves?

I agree with earlier posts, this game's title shouldn't have had the #2 after it. Bioware could have called this game Dragon Age: Hellmouth or The Fall of Kirkwall. Anything BUT Dragon Age 2 because this isn't a sequel to Origins at all. Bioware should have charged $40 USD for this and DA fans would have happily played this game while awaiting the true sequel to Origins.

Ok maybe $30 USD because it honestly feels like we got half a game anyway. 

I for one don't lump console players (most of my friends have all three platforms and play DAO and DA2 on them).*HUGS*

And yes, if they had called it Dragon Age: The Kirkwall Adventures and charged me $40 dollars I would have considered it money mostly well spent (save some problems). But charging me more than DAO for less content? Um...yeah, not cool.

[DarthSliver]

The problem I have with DA2 is it feels incomplete and not finish. The story doesnt really have an end, after you beat the final boss in Act 3 you feel like "ok whats going to happen next" then it just ends. So i felt the game didnt have a conclusive ending like other titles they have made like both Mass Effect games. But i did like the story besides it not knitting together into an actual story too. Overall i have mix views when it comes to Dragon Age 2, its the only game where i feel a bit bi-polar in the sense of hating it or liking it.
But there is one thing for certain, I wont buy any DLC until the Ultimate edition and I even consider crossing that throught. Only way i would is if they release an expansion like Awakening, nothing else will get me to buy extra content than that before Ultimate edition.

[Roxlimn]

DarthSilver:

Many great stories are actually of the same mold. For instance, Anne of Green Gables ends (spoilers!) ends just as she comes into control of her home estate and embarks on her professional career. Many parts of her life are sort of up in the air when the novel ends. Serious cliffhanger right? Not really. The story is about her transformation from a child into an adult. It ends when she becomes an adult.

Call of the Wild is a story in a similar vein.

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

DarthSilver:

Many great stories are actually of the same mold. For instance, Anne of Green Gables ends (spoilers!) ends just as she comes into control of her home estate and embarks on her professional career. Many parts of her life are sort of up in the air when the novel ends. Serious cliffhanger right? Not really. The story is about her transformation from a child into an adult. It ends when she becomes an adult.

Call of the Wild is a story in a similar vein.

And of course "Gone With the Wind"..."Tomorrow is another day".

Yes, it is a valid literary device, but this one just oozed of "stay tuned and buy our next product".

Modifié par Otterwarden, 18 avril 2011 - 05:50 .

[jds1bio]

Roxlimn wrote...

DarthSilver:

Many great stories are actually of the same mold. For instance, Anne of Green Gables ends (spoilers!) ends just as she comes into control of her home estate and embarks on her professional career. Many parts of her life are sort of up in the air when the novel ends. Serious cliffhanger right? Not really. The story is about her transformation from a child into an adult. It ends when she becomes an adult.

Call of the Wild is a story in a similar vein.

That's ok for stories, but for RPGs that emphasize a choice mechanic, there needs to be  feedback regarding the choices made before or when the game ends.  Otherwise, what's the relationship of the choices to the game?

[jds1bio]

Imagine playing a game where you are unsure of the goal, but the outcome is always the same.  You play it through to the end.  The game tells you at the beginning that the outcome isn't in doubt.  The game proceeds to show you lots of pictures of pineapples and oranges in various situations, and you begin to develop a preference for one over the other, or see value in qualities of both fruits.   The game even asks you which one you like better from time to time.  But then the game says, "I'll ask you a question.  We're at a cruical point!  Do you feel like a pineapple, or feel like an orange?"  You choose one, and then the game forces you to win a round of D&D combat to see the outcome.  The outcome is always a glass of grapefruit juice with either a pineapple or an orange sticker on the glass, depending on what you chose. 

Yes, it's citrus-related to one choice and fruit-related to another choice, but is really not representative of the choice made or the motivations behind it.  The sticker is nice but its effect lasts about 15 seconds before you taste the juice in the glass, and realize you feel neiither like a pineapple nor an orange.

You then realize that the goal was never anything more than simply reaching the outcome.  The included game mechanic of showing two sides in various scenarios, and then asking for you a choice of how you feel about the two, does not add meaning to the goal or the outcome of the game.  Even though you have been making these choices throughout the game, only the D&D combat enforces the goal of reaching the outcome.  The name of the game on this game's disc reads "Dragon Age II".

Modifié par jds1bio, 18 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[AlanC9]

Roxlimn wrote...
I was speaking in narrative terms.  In the game, everyone's all about how killing the Archdemon wasn't a sure thing.  But then the game takes you aside and tells you that it is.  I suppose the "You're going to win," message was heartening and hopeful for many gamers, but it just felt restrictive to me.  Why can't the Warden fail?

To implement this, you need a way for the Warden to fail and yet not die. I don't see a good way to do this at the Landsmeet -- Loghain may be overconfident, but he's not stupid. I suppose the earlier quests could be rewritten so that it's possible to botch them. Botch Redcliffe or Sacred Ashes badly enough so you can't rescue Eamon and you can't even get to the Landsmeet. Or you don't recruit enough allies and you're not strong enough to get to the Archdemon at Denerim.

A few games have done this sort of thing -- the Wing Commander series, while not RPGs unless you're using a very expansive definition of the term, did it very well. I suppose Storm of Zehir might count too, though typically you get a fail state for the Sword Coast but not necessarily the PCs.

[Roxlimn]

Otterwarden:

I didn't get that same feeling. At the end of DA2, Thedas has become a violent and unstable place, but I'm not all that intrigued to know what the Warden and the Champion are up to. In fact, since I suspect that the next story is going to be a save-the-world story again, I'm really not all that excited for it.

jds1bio

That's ok for stories, but for RPGs that emphasize a choice mechanic, there needs to be feedback regarding the choices made before or when the game ends. Otherwise, what's the relationship of the choices to the game?

There is. Varric's end-game epilogue is shaped by how you proceeded through the game. In fact, many of his in-game interludes are also influenced by choices you made in the game. They're just not slapped in your face the way The Witcher does it.

"Hey! I'm the guy you encountered earlier! I'm here because of YOU. What I'm about to do now is because you chose this way earlier! "

It's hamhanded and blunt.

You then realize that the goal was never anything more than simply reaching the outcome. The included game mechanic of showing two sides in various scenarios, and then asking for you a choice of how you feel about the two, does not add meaning to the goal or the outcome of the game. Even though you have been making these choices throughout the game, only the D&D combat enforces the goal of reaching the outcome. The name of the game on this game's disc reads "Dragon Age II".

I highly, highly disagree. If the ending of the game were shown without any context, we wouldn't even understand what the heck was going on. Thus, playing the game and the game's content obviously adds context and meaning to what occurs at the end.

I offer Mass Effect 2 in contrast. At the end, you defeat the Collectors. Nothing about what happens in the interim gives essential context or meaning to that end. Once you know you're up against the Collectors, you can actually skip directly to the suicide mission, and you'll be able to understand most of what's going on.

[Roxlimn]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
I was speaking in narrative terms.  In the game, everyone's all about how killing the Archdemon wasn't a sure thing.  But then the game takes you aside and tells you that it is.  I suppose the "You're going to win," message was heartening and hopeful for many gamers, but it just felt restrictive to me.  Why can't the Warden fail?

To implement this, you need a way for the Warden to fail and yet not die. I don't see a good way to do this at the Landsmeet -- Loghain may be overconfident, but he's not stupid. I suppose the earlier quests could be rewritten so that it's possible to botch them. Botch Redcliffe or Sacred Ashes badly enough so you can't rescue Eamon and you can't even get to the Landsmeet. Or you don't recruit enough allies and you're not strong enough to get to the Archdemon at Denerim.

A few games have done this sort of thing -- the Wing Commander series, while not RPGs unless you're using a very expansive definition of the term, did it very well. I suppose Storm of Zehir might count too, though typically you get a fail state for the Sword Coast but not necessarily the PCs.

Why is it required for the Warden not to die?  Why can't I play a game where the Warden dies, I play Alistair, and the rest of the game involves me trying to save as many of the fleeing refugees as possible while the Archdemon plays Space Invaders with Ferelden?  At the end, the Blight begins, Ferelden is destroyed, and Alistair is a powerless, failed heir to a nonexistent kingdom.

Why can't I play that ending?

[Boiny Bunny]

Roxlimn wrote...

Exactly. Why not? What are they looking for? Do they want to play a year of paper work minigames to simulate Hawke new administrative position? A hunting game to simulate his exiled status? A cut scene? Is that what it needs? A cut scene?

 Your post made me laugh (in a good way).  Though I don't presume to speak for everybody who was dissatistifed with the impact that Hawke's choices had on the ending, I believe that one of the main problems was that it was a single line of text, describing something relatively unimportant, in comparison to the Mage Chantry war.

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll get back to you later with an example.

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

Otterwarden:

I didn't get that same feeling. At the end of DA2, Thedas has become a violent and unstable place, but I'm not all that intrigued to know what the Warden and the Champion are up to. In fact, since I suspect that the next story is going to be a save-the-world story again, I'm really not all that excited for it.

Well, we may actually agree on something, because I could care less what the Champion was up to.  However, I might add that this is no great reflection on an author when I detest their protagonist so much that I literally have no curiosity at the end of the tale.

As for my warden, he's stupidly following Morrigan, and hopefully she won't turn around a pull a preying mantis on him.

[Roxlimn]

Otterwarden:

I'd suggest that it's something of a success for an author to inspire such feeling out of a fictional character. You actually detest Hawke. That suggests that he appears to you to be a character target solid enough to throw detest at.

I'm just kind of "meh." Hawke's interesting, but he's not that interesting. I neither like nor hate him since I didn't feel that he was as much of a character as any of his Companions - though I recognize that this is a necessary weakness because he's supposed to be partially player-driven.

Now Anders - that guy I detest.

On a related note, I do not understand the contradictory statements:

DA2 is obviously a setup, a cliffhanger for the next game.
I'm not interested enough in the series at this point to want the next game.

I mean, if the end is suspenseful enough to obviously be a cliffhanger, then you should be stoked for the next game, right?  If you're not, then it's not much of a cliffhanger.  How is it that some detractors of the game can simultaneously support such contradictory stances?

Modifié par Roxlimn, 18 avril 2011 - 06:19 .