843 réponses à ce sujet

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

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.

What I detest is what jds1bio was getting at, he's ineffectual, he can't help either the pineapples or the oranges.  Useless person to spend countless hours with thinking that he's going to turn out to be a game changer so to speak.

Edit:  Anders I felt empathy for.  Thought it was heartless to make him give away his cherished cat.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 18 avril 2011 - 06:21 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Roxlimn wrote...
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.

Fall on one sword is not an option. Dying other than ultimate sacrifice is not an option. Just like failing to kill the arcdemon isn't an option. The game doesn't allow that. Refusing Morrigan DR is an option. It's presented and it affected the ending. It's either you kill the archdemon and live to continue your Awakening DLC or you kill the archdemon and die for doing so.

Roxlimn wrote...
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?

Nope. There is no such option. I don't see any viable option to exile myself.

Roxlimn wrote...
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.

True, but I don't go purposely fall on my sword to prove I can die before 30 years.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2011 - 06:25 .

[AlanC9]

Roxlimn wrote...
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?

Because nobody thinks it's worth implementing? Because people are attached to their player characters and would simply reload rather than play this ending? I can see getting people to play a failure ending, but to play as a different character?

Come to think of it, why would the Warden being dead cause a fail state at all? Alistair's still a Grey Warden, and still the heir. Unless you'd just arbitrarily force Alistair to give up in that case, which would be really annoying since at that point Alistair would be the PC.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[Roxlimn]

Otterwarden:

Being frustrated with the protagonist's impotence is a valid feeling, and it's a valid feeling for an author to elicit. In fact, I kind of felt that that was kind of the point. One of Hawke's defining characteristics as a protagonist was how ineffectual he often was - something that isn't common in RPG protagonists, who are often hyper-potent.

Sacred_Fantasy:

Fall on one sword is not an option. Dying other than ultimate sacrifice is not an option. Just like failing to kill the arcdemon isn't an option. The game doesn't allow that. Refusing Morrigan DR is an option. It's presented and it affected the ending.

It affected the dialogue scenes after and the text and still.

When you choose to kill the Archdemon without Morrigan's protection, you are choosing to die for the sake of the Warden's personal values, not to "save-the-world."

Nope. There is no such option. I don't see any viable option to choose.

Er... ...it's right there in the game. I suppose I could link you to various End sequences in YouTube and point out how they're different. Would you need that?

True, but I don't go purposely fall on my sword to prove I can die before 30 years.

The point is that you can't choose to live for 30 years. You can only choose to continue living when the choice of death is presented. In the case of the Warden, projecting an expected lifespan of 30 more years in the face of active duty is almost clinically insane. This is one of the reasons why Alistair's feeling of gloom at his "shortened life span" sounded to me like him going crazy. Most people in Thedas get to the age he's talking about, let alone soldiers on continuous active duty on the frontlines in a time of war.

I got news for you Alistair: you don't need to worry about that, really. You will most probably meet your end at the point of a Darkspawn spear before you get to Duncan's age.

[Roxlimn]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
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?

Because nobody thinks it's worth implementing? Because people are attached to their player characters and would simply reload rather than play this ending? I can see getting people to play a failure ending, but to play as a different character?

So cutting out potential choices is valid from a developer standpoint during game development if you really feel that players won't want that ending?

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

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?

"A cliffhanger or cliffhanger ending is a plot device in fiction which features a main character in a precarious or difficult dilemma,  or confronted with a shocking revelation at the end of an episode of serialized fiction. A cliffhanger is hoped to ensure the audience will return to see how the characters resolve the dilemma."

One does not automatically result in the other.  The author hopes that they have created enough interest to ensure return, but there is no guarantee that the device has had the desired effect.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 18 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[AlanC9]

Roxlimn wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Why can't I play that ending?

Because nobody thinks it's worth implementing? Because people are attached to their player characters and would simply reload rather than play this ending? I can see getting people to play a failure ending, but to play as a different character?

So cutting out potential choices is valid from a developer standpoint during game development if you really feel that players won't want that ending?

Sure. What else?

You can't seriously be suggesting that developers are supposed to implement all possible content into the game without any prioritization whatsoever. That would require infinite resources.

[Any0day]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
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?

Because nobody thinks it's worth implementing? Because people are attached to their player characters and would simply reload rather than play this ending? I can see getting people to play a failure ending, but to play as a different character?

I like people who tell me how I should play my RPG -- go you!

Anyway, just like to say that I'm 23 - not some ''old grumpy fart'' and I like deep stories and multiple-ending games far far far better than the cinamatic black ops ones.

[Roxlimn]

Otterwarden:

The charge that DA2 is a cliffhanger fares even worse with that definition. At the end of DA2, Hawke isn't involved in some vital conflict, nor is he in some difficulty or precarious dilemma. In fact, he just solved all dilemma in his personal space. By killing everything.

AlanC9:

Sure. What else?

You can't seriously be suggesting that developers are supposed to implement all possible content into the game without any prioritization whatsoever. That would require infinite resources.

Exactly. The developers enact such availability of choice in their game as they believe will enhance player experience, once the game is released. Therefore, they cannot be expected to explore every choice we personally would have wanted.

[Otterwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

Otterwarden:

The charge that DA2 is a cliffhanger fares even worse with that definition. At the end of DA2, Hawke isn't involved in some vital conflict, nor is he in some difficulty or precarious dilemma. In fact, he just solved all dilemma in his personal space. By killing everything.

Where you even paying attention?  His actions set in motion events that clearly will lead to disaterous conflict.

Edit:  And for a reason that is totally unbelievable to me Cassandra thinks this ineffectual protagonist can stop these events.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 18 avril 2011 - 06:50 .

[Halo Quea]

Otterwarden wrote...

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.

I actually like Morrigan, my Warden is strangely attached to her.  I like Merrill too so I guess that makes me one the guys that falls for "Blood Sugar"  lol.  

I hope my Warden survives following Morrigan, I think he should have a real role in the raising of the "child" .  If we can even call it that.   Merrill has demonstrated that she WILL abandon Hawke for a deal with a demon.  So both relationships seem to carry dangerous risks.    But I won't be purchasing any DLC for DA2 just to find out what happened to Hawke and Merrill.  

[AlanC9]

Any0day wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
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?

Because nobody thinks it's worth implementing? Because people are attached to their player characters and would simply reload rather than play this ending? I can see getting people to play a failure ending, but to play as a different character?

I like people who tell me how I should play my RPG -- go you!

Anyway, just like to say that I'm 23 - not some ''old grumpy fart'' and I like deep stories and multiple-ending games far far far better than the cinamatic black ops ones.

Oh, I get it now. You're the one expecting developers to expend infinite resources, not  Roxlimn.

Yeah, that's probably not what you're saying. But then what are you saying?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 avril 2011 - 06:59 .

[AAHook2]

Back to the original point about Origins vs Kirkwall being a generational gap at play:

I play on a console. I'm not a huge "pure" RPG fan. I've never played Baldur's Gate 2. I've never been involved in old school tabletop RPGs.
I found that such old school fervor was in my younger years, a form of elitism. I remember clearly how one of my neighbors, who was a slightly older kid, would purposely exclude me from his little sessions of Dungeons and Dragons at his house even though he would play Nintendo with me and Street Fighter 2 at the pizza parlor.
It confused me. I thought to myself; Why? Why won't he let me hang out and play this game, when he would happily take my pocket change when we gambled with his personal roulette wheel he got from his dad? Ultimately I deemed him a complete jerk and stopped hanging out with him. My theory is that he felt he was older and hence more intelligent than I was and therefore I wouldn't be able to grasp the complexities of an RPG. In retaliation I found every opportunity to coax the rest of the younger kids on the street to pelt him with pine cones and ambush him with ninja tactics consisting of jumping out of trees and fake assassinations with sticks. Now I know to the sensitive people out there that this seems like classic bullying, except for the fact that I was 10 and he was 12 and had older friends who were even bigger a-holes to me. But anyhow, my point is that it wasn't a thing that had to happen. I wanted to play an RPG with someone who I thought was my friend and he basically rejected me because of his sense of entitlement and purity. I look back on that now and see myself as a dumb kid, but I see parallels to the situation with "hard core" RPG purists and "casual" gamers.
I think back and wonder what if this guy weren't such a little preening brat goon and actually took the time to show me what this RPG business was about. Maybe I would have thought it was boring and immediately lose interest. Maybe I would immediately love it and find a passion for the subculture.
At this point I believe that the more "pure" end of RPGs aren't for everyone. Still, the decision should be made by an individual whether or not they end up on one side or another. I didn't make it through KOTOR when I tried it because I was really only playing it because I was bored and at that time I felt it was taking too long and the gameplay required too much set up and upkeep. As I got older, my tastes started to change. I began to enjoy tactics and strategy. I had more experience, so I knew that success comes from planning and thought of consequence. Depth is about what you put into something. I started to "get" it. I started playing games like Final Fantasy 7 and 8. I was reading the Wheel of Time series. I started picking up games like Dark Alliance and Champions of Norrath. I gave the Fable series a try. Finally I ran into a copy of Origins. It was everything I always wanted in an RPG experience. I made my hero. I set him up on his adventures and lived through them. It was fun. Someone had finally allowed me into the garage and let me play, and it was me.

So then we come to Dragon Age 2. I'm excited to play. If this is anywhere near as good and well crafted as Origins, my money will have been well spent. Except this time, the people running the game realized that they could make a lot of money by selling the genre. So, in their elitist insider minds they thought that all of these dumb noobs need to be sold a product their little console playing minds could actually absorb.
And so it is that once again, the people running the game have decided that I'm too dumb and unsophisticated to grasp the concept of a real RPG. Me and my ilk have to be talked down to like a bunch of 10-year-olds who are learning how to play roulette on some older jerk's dad's makeshift casino set in his dusty den. I wonder why I feel like I'm being cheated out of my pocket change.
The message: Make the game as true to the form as you know how. Maybe I won't like it. But then I'll have the knowledge that this really isn't my thing. The purists will still buy it and probably love it. It' makes them feel exclusive. It makes them feel elite. On the other hand, maybe I'll love it the way it is. I'd get the satisfaction of having played something that is the real deal, and the "true purists" will still have the satisfaction of thinking of me as some noob who never played Baldur's Gate 2 on the PC. And of course they can like the game as well.
You don't improve on the series simply by changing it. You improve on the series by doing EVERYTHING you did in the first game. EVERYTHING. Just more of it. Do that exact same thing, just better. Refine it. You don't just cut out huge components, add others and then paint it up with a different color palate. You improve by adding, not by streamlining. The whole point of streamlining is to make something faster, cheaper, more cost effective. People don't want less for more money. They want MORE. Give them more.
I think it's just crazy to respond to complaints that in Origins the sets looked similar by confining the space even more, and then reuse every single map 6 different times in the game. I think it's crazy to respond to the praise that people heaped on the ability to play several story lines and races and classes, by giving FEWER choices in these regards.
Anyhow to close I would like to paraphrase my 12-year-old nephew regarding popular trends and people who buy in and sell out to them:
"I don't care how popular it is amongst my friends, you're NEVER going to see me wearing skinny jeans or with my hair looking like Justin Beiber. That 'Black and Yellow' song is pretty catchy though. Did you know it's about the Pittsburgh Steelers? I don't even like football."
Love that kid. He played Dark Alliance 2 with me in co-op all the way through, when he was 10. And yes, he prefers Origins to Dragon Age 2.
Sorry for the meandering post. I guess I've been thinking about this a little too much. You've inspired me folks!

[Otterwarden]

Halo Quea wrote...

I hope my Warden survives following Morrigan, I think he should have a real role in the raising of the "child" .  If we can even call it that.   Merrill has demonstrated that she WILL abandon Hawke for a deal with a demon.  So both relationships seem to carry dangerous risks.    But I won't be purchasing any DLC for DA2 just to find out what happened to Hawke and Merrill.  

I let him follow her for the same reason, however, it will not surprise me if she ends up double crossing him.  She's stronger than my warden, in every sense of the word... her storm of the century can make mince meat of him .

[Roxlimn]

Otterwarden:

Where you even paying attention? His actions set in motion events that clearly will lead to disaterous conflict.

True, but for reasons that I think are obvious to all of us, Hawke apparently doesn't want to involve himself in that anymore. So he's not involved. That's why Cassandra is looking for him. For some reason, he's chosen to not involve himself in that conflict and is missing.

That's not a cliffhanger.  That's a conflict that's about to erupt in the world at large, but Hawke's got no dog in it.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 18 avril 2011 - 07:04 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Roxlimn wrote...
The point is that you can't choose to live for 30 years. You can only choose to continue living when the choice of death is presented. In the case of the Warden, projecting an expected lifespan of 30 more years in the face of active duty is almost clinically insane. This is one of the reasons why Alistair's feeling of gloom at his "shortened life span" sounded to me like him going crazy. Most people in Thedas get to the age he's talking about, let alone soldiers on continuous active duty on the frontlines in a time of war.

I got news for you Alistair: you don't need to worry about that, really. You will most probably meet your end at the point of a Darkspawn spear before you get to Duncan's age.

Death from the taint is unavoidable. You'll die no matter what, when the time arrive. Dying due to other unforeseen reason like active duty is not an option presented to you by the game. Instead, the story provide for more option afterwards like continuing the story of Hero of Ferelden in Awakening, Golem of Armgarrak, Witch Hunt...  It's still choices.

I don't get what are you trying to say concerning choices. By your logic, everyone is dead in the end. Either they're young or old. But that don't justify that no one should be born and live or kill themselves.

We still make choices like in real life. If you don't choose to choke yourself to death because you'll die no matter what in the end, you'll still live now to do other things in your life. It's still choice.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2011 - 07:20 .

[Otterwarden]

AAHook2 wrote...

Sorry for the meandering post. I guess I've been thinking about this a little too much. You've inspired me folks!

If it makes you feel better, nobody let me play in their reindeer games either.  My RPG roots are totally PC, no table top games, and it was a little company called BIOWARE who game me my first manual of what was behind the complexities of dice rolls.

[AAHook2]

Is Warden's Keep not canon? I thought Ivernus had discovered the secret for warden's staying alive for a long long time. Also, the Architect seems to have figured out other methods...

[Any0day]

AlanC9 wrote...

Any0day wrote...

I like people who tell me how I should play my RPG -- go you!

Anyway, just like to say that I'm 23 - not some ''old grumpy fart'' and I like deep stories and multiple-ending games far far far better than the cinamatic black ops ones.

Oh, I get it now. You're the one expecting developers to expend infinite resources, not  Roxlimn.

Yeah, that's probably not what you're saying. But then what are you saying?

If your interpretation of my sentence is I'm expecting developers to ''expend infinite resources,'' then you either A) Have never played a complex RPG with multiple endings (I recommend Arcanum - something like 15 different endings with 3 major "good, bad or neutral" ones.) or you are really deluded on what it actually takes to create multiple endings.

From a writer's standpoint - yes - it can be complex, or rather it can appear to be complex; in reality it is somewhat easy.

Let's say for example I give the player the option to kill off a powerful npc in game number 1, and in game number 2 I've made this npc a warlord. Well crap, how do I get out of that little problem? Easy - you replace the NPC. So those of the players that killed that npc will know that the npc who has died is GONE, and those that didn't - will be happily seeing the npc in the coming game. As you can see, no major details were changed -- no ''infinite resources'' needed, a simple swap maintained the illusion of deep complexity. By the way, that example remind you of anyone? Yes - it's Wrex from Mass Effect.

Another method of multiple endings (or persistent changes) is to have them mathematically procedurally generated based on smaller options throughout the story thrown into an equation at the end game. Anyone get the example here? Yes - all the death sequences at the end of Mass Effect 2.

I actually find your argument rather amusing when Bioware themselves go against it by example. Providing multiple endings doesn't require a mass amount of resources, it simply requires a bit of ingenuity on part of the developers to maintain the ''illusion of choice.''

Modifié par Any0day, 18 avril 2011 - 07:29 .

[Roxlimn]

Sacred_Fantasy:

Death from the taint is unavoidable. You'll die no matter what, when the time arrive. Dying due to other unforeseen reason like active duty is not an option presented to you by the game. Instead, the story provide for more option afterwards like continuing the story of Hero of Ferelden in Awakening, Golem of Armgarrak, Witch Hunt... It's still choices.

I don't get what are you trying to say concerning choices. By your logic, everyone is dead in the end. Either they're young or old. But that don't justify that no one should be born and live or kill themselves.

We still make choices like in real life. If you don't choose to choke yourself to death because you'll die no matter what in the end, you'll still live now to do other things in your life. It's still choice.

Death from living is unavoidable. Regardless of what you do you will die. Eventually. This point is totally tangential to my point regarding choice in games and in DA2.

In your case, I was pointing out that once it became possible for the Warden to save himself, his choice was no longer to live and let the Archdemon rampage, or die protecting Ferelden. His choice was to either stand for his morals and die, or stand for another set of morals and live.

[Sabriana]

AAHook2 wrote...

Lots of interesting stuff

I'm sorry to hear that you were excluded from experiencing the D&D table-top games. But then again, so was I. I was (and still am) a girl, which apparently was reason enough to exclude me somehow.  So I too cut my RPG teeth on the PC.

Personally, I feel there is nothing 'elitist' about being a RPG nut. It's simply a genre that I enjoy most. I do play other genres, and hybrids thereof, but I will always come back to the RPG. Although I must admit that some hybrids are simply gag-inducing to me.

I did however, make it challenging for my own kids. Television was restricted, books were only restricted in my decisions about suitability vs. their age/maturity level. I encouraged them to discuss and question. I stretched the importance of being critical in a constructive manner. I also stressed the importance of a debate to never cross into the personal realm. Debate the issue, not the person. They also favor the RPG, simply because it is very involved (or should be) in its nature. They have to pay attention, manage, plan, and interact (or should be allowed to).

Yes, they also play other genres. And they enjoy them. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Roxlimn wrote...
In your case, I was pointing out that once it became possible for the Warden to save himself, his choice was no longer to live and let the Archdemon rampage, or die protecting Ferelden. His choice was to either stand for his morals and die, or stand for another set of morals and live.

And what are the choice for Hawke again?
Side A and go exile. Side B and go exile. Don't side and go exile.

Warden,
Choose DR kill Archdemon and live
Don't choose DR, kill Archdemon and die.

See the difference?

[mdugger12]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
In your case, I was pointing out that once it became possible for the Warden to save himself, his choice was no longer to live and let the Archdemon rampage, or die protecting Ferelden. His choice was to either stand for his morals and die, or stand for another set of morals and live.

And what are the choice for Hawke again?
Side A and go exile. Side B and go exile. Don't side and go exile.

Warden,
Choose DR kill Archdemon and live
Don't choose DR, kill Archdemon and die.

See the difference?

The only difference is how you're wording your statement. All I really see is

DA:O Kill archdemon
DA:2 Go into exile

Since you're oversimplifying whats your point?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

mdugger12 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
In your case, I was pointing out that once it became possible for the Warden to save himself, his choice was no longer to live and let the Archdemon rampage, or die protecting Ferelden. His choice was to either stand for his morals and die, or stand for another set of morals and live.

And what are the choice for Hawke again?
Side A and go exile. Side B and go exile. Don't side and go exile.

Warden,
Choose DR kill Archdemon and live
Don't choose DR, kill Archdemon and die.

See the difference?

The only difference is how you're wording your statement. All I really see is

DA:O Kill archdemon
DA:2 Go into exile

Since you're oversimplifying whats your point?

I'm not oversimplifying with end result like killing archdemon vs going into exile. I'm referring to choices. Choose Side A/B vs choose DR or not and the implication of such choices.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 avril 2011 - 07:59 .

[Roxlimn]

Sacred_Fantasy:

And what are the choice for Hawke again?
Side A and go exile. Side B and go exile. Don't side and go exile.

Warden,
Choose DR kill Archdemon and live
Don't choose DR, kill Archdemon and die.

See the difference?

Yes. There is a difference. You're not playing the same DA2 that I am.

When you side with the Templar, they er... ...give you an administrative position. You DON'T go into exile. By the time Varric and Cassandra are talking, Hawke is no longer in his administrative position, but that's not because he was exiled, or because he went into exile.