843 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

BobSmith101 wrote...

He's refering to how certain things are retconned or just ignored by the writers.

Riiight.  Because the writers are going to be able to accomodate every possible endgame state dreamed up by every player.  

Ambiguity is a gift for those with an imagination.

BobSmith101 wrote...

If DA2 was The Usual Suspects. Varric would be Keyser Soze and Hawke would just be the poor shmuck he set up to take the fall.

No.

[Shadowbanner]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Please list these DAO choices that had vast storyline impact.

I've clocked 400 hours in that game, and I don't recall them.

If you've followed this thread someone posted a link on page 12 or 13 to all of them.

If you've followed my posts, I don't give a damn about stuff put in epilogue cards.  

Uhum, ok.

It just shows the amount of branching out options that were in DA:O and which no longer are present in DA2.

It's not only they appear in some random "epilogue card", they are part of the gameplay itself.

[Zeulon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And if you can grasp that nuance of both DAO and ME2's story structure, then I really don't understand what your issues would be with DA2's narrative.

My issue is with the narrativ is, how obvious DA2 story and structure is shaped by the games harshly constrained production.
I am no expert, but my guess is that if you have deadline like DA2 you will avoid interedependent elemnts as much as possible, everything will be largely self contained. The game seems to revolve around some main events that were firmly planned, while the rest is accidental/optional filler material that could be cut if it wasn´t finished and if you loo this way at the game A LOT starts to make sense. The framed narrative itself is nothing more than a cover for this. Am i the only one who got he impression that act 3 was salvaged from something that was supposed to be bigger.

[upsettingshorts]

Shadowbanner wrote...

It just shows the amount of branching out options that were in DA:O and which no longer are present in DA2.

The choices are there, there are no epilogue cards to spoon feed you which outcomes had which consequences.  Bioware failed to predict how many people would fail to understand this. 

And there is no "branching"  there is simply an either-or choice at several ultimately unrelated locations.

[upsettingshorts]

Zeulon wrote...

The framed narrative itself is nothing more than a cover for this.

I highly doubt it. 

Zeulon wrote...

Am i the only one who got he impression that act 3 was salvaged from something that was supposed to be bigger.

The writers themselves admit Act 1 got too bloated, and Act 3 was a bit thin. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:20 .

[Shadowbanner]

naledgeborn wrote...

At OP: I'm a 22 year old married man. I listen to independant Hip Hop.  I like old school RPGs and I game on both PS3 and PC. So which group am I in 1 or 2? 

The way I see it, BW is trying to bring in new fans at the expense of old ones instead of making a patiently crafted game that caters to the older crowd while reintoducing the RPG to my button mashing peers.

I like the old way better. It's tough to balance complexity with simplicity and the RPG vets got water down Kool Aide instead of vintage wine. The new kids might think Kool Aide is the sh*t but vets know better. Why do I say this.... well because they're vets and played RPGs since D&D, Zelda, and Gaia.

That said RPGs don't have to be an overcomplex borefest that only a mathmetician would understand the game mechanics. But DA2 failed there too. Why have attributes if there's no reason to dump points into 6/8 of them. It was an action game disguised as an RPG.

TL, DR

Old folks want "vintage wine" (DA:O), We got "Kool Aide" because of the new guys (DA2). If they made 100% "grape juice" I think both crowds would've been happy.
 

Thanks, my point too.

It was sold as an RPG but it was really more of an incomplete action button-masher.

Regarding the first part of your post, its hard to have everyone fall neatly into one of the two camps. As I've written, I'm exclusively a console player but choose to side on the PC RPG side, the more "classic" DAO:O.

[cljqnsnyc]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

It just shows the amount of branching out options that were in DA:O and which no longer are present in DA2.

The choices are there, there are no epilogue cards to spoon feed you which outcomes had which consequences.  Bioware failed to predict how many people would fail to understand this. 

And there is no "branching"  there is simply an either-or choice at several ultimately unrelated locations.

One question for you......

What role do you play in DA2's finale outcome?

[upsettingshorts]

It's easier to make them fall into two camps when you're actually talking about camps with truly different opinions.

Not "old fans" and "new audience" or "PC gamers" and "console gamers."

But doing those things lets us ignore and dismiss others. So it's the forum default.

[upsettingshorts]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

What role do you play in DA2's finale outcome?

Hawke determines who wins the first battle in a larger conflict, and whether or not he is publicly seen to endorse the police state or terrorism.  He is also a hero to one side and a villain to another.  The battle of course, still takes place.

What role do you play in DAOs outcome?  You pick who - if anyone - dies killing the Archdemon.  It still dies.  Just as (spoiler) and (spoiler) still die.  

The point that seems to be interwoven through this conversation is that both games are about the journey.  To some, this means setting worldstate/plot flags in totally unrelated locations.  To me, this means having a character with a purpose and desire that matters not only to him, but the characters around him.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:24 .

[CaimDark]

Edli wrote...

TC you're making the same mistake EA made. How hardcore rpgs are enjoyed only from those dying audience of old grumps. That's not true at all. We were kids too when we first got into rpgs. Complicated and deep games and that's why we loved them. There are just different audiences where age have little to do with. I have old grump friends who like only simple games for example.
.

That's very true. Some people act like hardcore (for lack of a better term) RPGs are only enjoyed by old people desperately clinging to the "old ways", and yet we were all in our teens when we first got into this kind of game. Unless our generation was infected by some sort of RPG-loving gene that will die out with us, I really don't see why today's teens can't enjoy them as well.

[cljqnsnyc]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

For me, the big finale of DA2 is also it's biggest mistake and a perfect indication of just how incidental Hawke really was. In the end, Hawke's actions have absolutely no affect whatsoever on the outcome, it was preordained from the start........you're just a witness and nothing more. So what choice or role do you actually play in the grand scheme of things? Witness. What happens after this is anyone's guess. So why is this so called "Champion" important? Who can say? We certainly don't learn the answer in DA2....another huge mistake.

By contrast, The Hero of Fereldan did indeed have a major impact on that country's future. Everything from the fate of The Circle, Redcliffe, The Dalish, and multiple individuals, to the ruler of Orzammar and Fereldan itself. You even have the ultimate choice of life or death! You're not just important, you're essential!

From my viewpoint, there's no comparison between DAO and DA2 when it comes to the amount of impact you actually have on the world you live in. At least for me, in DAO, I FELT like The Hero of Fereldan when it was all said and done. In DA2, The Champion Of Kirkwall was just a title that held very little meaning.

No need to rewrite this so i'm quoting..myself

[cljqnsnyc]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

What role do you play in DA2's finale outcome?

Hawke determines who wins the first battle in a larger conflict, and whether or not he is publicly seen to endorse the police state or terrorism.  He is also a hero to one side and a villain to another.  The battle of course, still takes place.

What role do you play in DAOs outcome?  You pick who - if anyone - dies killing the Archdemon.  It still dies.  Just as (spoiler) and (spoiler) still die.  

The point that seems to be interwoven through this conversation is that both games are about the journey.  To some, this means setting worldstate/plot flags in totally unrelated locations.  To me, this means having a character with a purpose and desire that matters not only to him, but the characters around him.

Please read my previous post.

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 18 avril 2011 - 04:27 .

[upsettingshorts]

It's already been disputed here and elsewhere that several of those events have any permanent relevance and/or aren't closely mirrored by similar decisions available in DA2.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Please read my previous post.

I'm aware, I've played DAO many, many times.

I also paid attention in DA2 to my actions.  Give it a shot.  You'll be thinking up your own epilogue cards in no time.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:29 .

[Rockpopple]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

What role do you play in DA2's finale outcome?

Hawke determines who wins the first battle in a larger conflict, and whether or not he is publicly seen to endorse the police state or terrorism.  He is also a hero to one side and a villain to another.  The battle of course, still takes place.

What role do you play in DAOs outcome?  You pick who - if anyone - dies killing the Archdemon.  It still dies.  Just as (spoiler) and (spoiler) still die.  

The point that seems to be interwoven through this conversation is that both games are about the journey.  To some, this means setting worldstate/plot flags in totally unrelated locations.  To me, this means having a character with a purpose and desire that matters not only to him, but the characters around him.

Not only that, but none of the decisions you make in building your army prior to the final battle make no difference whatsoever.

Save the Anvil or Destroy the Anvil - You get dwarves or Golems to aid you. Does this choice matter in the final battle? Nope.

Side with the Keeper or side with the Werewolves - You get Dalish or Werewolves to aid you. Does this choice matter in the final battle? Nope.

Save Redcliffe or let it burn - Does this choice aid you in the final battle? Nope.

Save the Circle or Annul the Circle - Mages or Templars aid you. Does this choice matter in the final battle? Nope.

Put Alistair on the throne, or Anora, or Alistair and Anora. Let Loghain live or kill him - Does this choice matter in the final battle? Very little.

That's the reality of the situation.

[TJSolo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"It's not ingredients that make the entree, it's the chef.  See hamburger."

He's refering to how certain things are retconned or just ignored by the writers.

I thought that was what I meant by playing along with his analogy.
Maybe Upsettingshorts actually wanted to talk about hamburgers.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't care how clever you think you're being. Your point is still not only irrelevant, but not actually a counterargument to what I was saying. It is, in its own clumsy way, agreeing.

Closure is the writers choosing an endstate.  Not everyone wants the same endstate.  Ergo, someone is going to be disappointed whenever the writers choose an endstate.  Not so hard to follow, is it?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:37 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Ironically whos to say your Hawke is any more real than the Hawke you play in the first 5 minutes... Varric is known to lie, even the ending song is called Liar aswell as fact even in game during play Varric says he is lying to boost the rumours of your deeds. On top of that you played the role of the 5 minute intro Hawke just like you played the role of the rest of game Hawke. So in theory neither Hawke could be the real Hawke and you just played a fictional one regardless, your story is no more real than the first 5 minute Hawke and Varric could be yet again telling lies. Wouldn't that make any Hawke you create pointless too...

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sure, if you decide not to buy the story as presented nothing matters.

Like that guy in the Hanged Man says, the entire Blight was simply a Ferelden plot!

[Shadowbanner]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shadowbanner wrote...

It just shows the amount of branching out options that were in DA:O and which no longer are present in DA2.

The choices are there, there are no epilogue cards to spoon feed you which outcomes had which consequences.  Bioware failed to predict how many people would fail to understand this. 

And there is no "branching"  there is simply an either-or choice at several ultimately unrelated locations.

Ok let me elaborate on that.

I save the game each time prior to making some dialogue choices.

I then reload and follow other different, and at times diameticallly opposite, choices to see where would they have led me.

Fact is 95% of the time, regardless of what dialogue options I click on, the same outcome happens regardless of my choices which bear no real impact whatsoever.

This for me is a game-breaker in an RPG as the choices are only cosmetic. They could have been removed altogether and almost nothing -with counted execeptions- would have changed. The choices in DA2 are there to give me the illusion of being in control, but I'm not really in control, I'm just railroaded from one end to another.

In DA:O I could kill Loghain or I could befriend and enlist him for the cause. I could deliver the final blow on the archdemon myself and die or else choose to live thanks to Morrigan. I could side with the elves or have the werewolves kill them all. I could side with the mages or the templars which resulted in some quests not being available (i.e. smuggling lyrium) depending on whether the right of annulment was invoked or not, I could choose one vying dwarf royal option or the other etc...Bottom line, I made real options that had at times huge impact on the story and gameplay in general that resulted in different outcomes or even endings. Now you may agree or not with me but I honestly believe that as many and as deep options are no longer present in DA2.

In DA2 you know you'll become the champion and eventually you'll have to choose one side or the other. Final battle and in roll the credits. Wow. What a foul aftertaste.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 18 avril 2011 - 04:39 .

[cljqnsnyc]

There's no dispute on life or death.

There's no dispute on who is King and who is not.


You, Hawke are NOT the one who sets the finale events of DA2 into motion. This is also an indisputable fact. Who cares if you aided in the outcome of the first major battle...if it can be called that? Does it change the fact that mages AND templars are revolting all over Thedas...due to actions you were simply a witness to? You are just a witness. So how do you matter?

The events in DAO you actually play though and read about their further outcome at the end. This is not the case in any way in DA2. Most of Hawke's history we learn about in montages that we have no participation in.

[upsettingshorts]

Because you're metagaming.

I enjoy DA2 because it allows me to play a character who loves mages and wanted them to be free. OR a character who hated them and wanted them locked away. OR a character who thought both sides were crazy and did everything in his power to stop the conflict.

I enjoy the roleplaying of DA2. We have wildly different definitions of "impact" and standards of what roleplaying even means.

What you do you could recreate with Gibbed's Save Game Creator for DA2. What I did I have to do by playing the game.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

There's no dispute on life or death.

There's no dispute on who is King and who is not.

That's why it's so dull.  Dispute is great.  Ambiguity is great.  Deeply personal motivations that only a few know the truth of is great.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:41 .

[cljqnsnyc]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's already been disputed here and elsewhere that several of those events have any permanent relevance and/or aren't closely mirrored by similar decisions available in DA2.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Please read my previous post.

I'm aware, I've played DAO many, many times.

I also paid attention in DA2 to my actions.  Give it a shot.  You'll be thinking up your own epilogue cards in no time.

Is it possible for you to have a conversation with anyone WITHOUT some sort of snide comment? I don't need to "give it a shot."  I paid attention the first time I played the game...and my opinions about it stand.

[upsettingshorts]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Is it possible for you to have a conversation with anyone WITHOUT some sort of snide comment?

Yes.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

I paid attention the first time I played the game.

It doesn't show.

You could kill or not kill Dalish in DA2.  You could unleash a potentially incredibly powerful mage/abomination/thing on the world in DA2.  You could push a noble to retake a throne or encourage him to stay in the Chantry in DA2.  All very similar to things stated as options DAO had that DA2 misses, yet there they were.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[cljqnsnyc]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

Is it possible for you to have a conversation with anyone WITHOUT some sort of snide comment?

Yes.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

I paid attention the first time I played the game.

It doesn't show.

It seems to me you're not really interested in a conversation about DA2.

You're far more interested in showing everyone just how arrogant and ignorant you are. As I suspected before I decided to post, a civil debate with you is impossible!

[upsettingshorts]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

It seems to me you're not really interested in a conversation about DA2.

Show me a poster who hasn't already become entrenched in their own conclusions, and I'll have a conversation.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

arrogant

Yup.

cljqnsnyc wrote...

ignorant

Nope.