843 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Any0day wrote...

Yeah - he pretty much nailed it.

Indeed, and a lot of the stuff regarding the story he cites as negatives - while absolutely spot on descriptions of both DAO and DA2 - I'd switch from negative to positive and vice versa.

But then, I liked that my character's motivation was left up to me.   I disliked the Archdemon/Blight/Big Bad.  

If you like the latter and dislike the former of course DA2 is going to feel like a holding pattern for the "real story."  To me it will likely be the interesting bit inbetween the big mindless wars to restore the status quo.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[John Epler]

I think I made a point before about replacing actual discourse with youtube videos and spam images - let me reiterate that it's still not acceptable.

Either contribute or don't, but cut it out with that sort of thing.

[TJSolo]

I see I'm getting nowhere with the nuance of this one. Moving on. There's a better example later anyway.

You are getting nowhere if are going to try to change your questions after I have answered them.

Sure about that?

Nope, it was just a process of elimination on my part.

Regardless of how you dealt with Connor, the crisis in Redcliff ends. The question is still relevant. How the Champion ended the Qunari crisis matters in the same way.

No fair in constructing and answering your own questing about DAO.
The question may be relevant to you now but it was not what you asked.

Unless you have a savegame of DAO where you didn't install Bhelan or Harrowmont, told the elves and werewolves that you didn't have time for their petty issues, let the Circle situation fix itself, and never encountered the Urn of Sacred ashes then I think you're missing my point.

So given your knowledge about the selection you would have a 50/50 chance at guessing correctly if I were to ask you questions about my current save. Ultimately though your point is it is fine and dandy to ignore the trivial bits in DAO but doing the same in DA2 results in people having to deal with your ire. You are two-faced.

Modifié par TJSolo, 18 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[MorrigansLove]

JohnEpler wrote...

I think I made a point before about replacing actual discourse with youtube videos and spam images - let me reiterate that it's still not acceptable.

Either contribute or don't, but cut it out with that sort of thing.

My apologies, your majesty.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 18 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

TJSolo wrote...

You are getting nowhere if are going to try to change your questions after I have answered them.

No, you're sticking to your own interpretation of what I meant and ignoring my attempts at clarification as "changes."

TJSolo wrote...

No fair in constructing and answering your own questing about DAO.
The question may be relevant to you now but it was not what you asked.

Yes it was, you just thought I meant something else.  I wanted to know what you thought my Hawke did to resolve the Qunari crisis, not if the crisis was resolved.  Of course it was.  As far as I am aware, there are three possible solutions.

TJSolo wrote...

Ultimately though your point is it is fine and dandy to ignore the trivial bits in DAO but doing the same in DA2 results in people having to deal with your ire. You are two-faced.

No, I'm trying to say they're more similar in the realm of player choice than people have been claiming and nothing more.  People dismiss the choices in DA2 partly because they aren't flagged with DECISION and consequences aren't confirmed by EPILOGUE CARD.  They still exist. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:29 .

[MorrigansLove]

Another video for ya, Upsettingshorts.

Go to about 17:00 in.

[upsettingshorts]

"In any good story you can think of, there is always some sort of goal you're trying to accomplish." - the video

I had one. That he didn't have a motivation for his character is his fault. That's a huge part of what roleplaying is.  Varric even asks you, further implying that this is up to you. 

I watched the whole of the last video, I'm not gonna sit through another, however. His comment about "any of the acts could have been their own story" could also apply to DAO, and I would have enjoyed Dragon Age: Orzammar probably more than Origins itself. But I've said that before.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:35 .

[Rockpopple]

MorrigansLove, why are you just going around posting random Youtube videos of people's opinions. Exactly why should anyone care what they think? Are they the King or something?

Or are they just saying something you agree with that you can't articulate yourself? Not to be snarky - it's an honest question.

Edit: Is it over?! 

Modifié par Rockpopple, 18 avril 2011 - 10:36 .

[MorrigansLove]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"In any good story you can think of, there is always some sort of goal you're trying to accomplish." - the video

I had one. That he didn't have a motivation for his character is his fault. That's a huge part of what roleplaying is.  Varric even asks you, further implying that this is up to you. 

I watched the whole of the last video, I'm not gonna sit through another, however. His comment about "any of the acts could have been their own story" could also apply to DAO, and I would have enjoyed Dragon Age: Orzammar probably more than Origins itself. But I've said that before.

   Fine. 

[Tommy6860]

klarabella wrote...

The only thing that has an actual impact in DAO was: Annul the Circle and you won't be able to ask the mages to save Connor. It's the only consequence I remember that mattered. The rest was flavour.

I feel I prefer defining who Hawke is on a smaller scale over being railroaded towards AWESOME regardless of my carefully crafted origin.

That's not a good example, but there are certainly more than that when you use that in the context that you did. You don't need the mages to save Connor, saving him is an option and how you save him has more than a few options, as is; Making the choice between wolves and elves (and you can actually save both), making the choice to have Kolgrum as an ally, or ****** him off and kill when you don't do the UoSA againstto his wishes, and so on. It's not the fact that any choices you make in Origins changes the end-run, it is the fact that they are all reflected in the story arc you make as you play out the game. DA2 doesn't offer that, the story's state is predetermined regardless of the choices you make and the PC has near zero impact on most of the consequences and none on the end game.

In the end you can no more define Hawke as much as Isabela and Anders defines what will happen in the game, no matter the choices you make with them.

[MorrigansLove]

Rockpopple wrote...

MorrigansLove, why are you just going around posting random Youtube videos of people's opinions. Exactly why should anyone care what they think? Are they the King or something?

Or are they just saying something you agree with that you can't articulate yourself? Not to be snarky - it's an honest question.

Nah, don't worry about it, it's true. I'm not really good at voicing my own opinion as you can see in this thread.

Modifié par MorrigansLove, 18 avril 2011 - 10:38 .

[Rockpopple]

Tommy6860 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

The only thing that has an actual impact in DAO was: Annul the Circle and you won't be able to ask the mages to save Connor. It's the only consequence I remember that mattered. The rest was flavour.

I feel I prefer defining who Hawke is on a smaller scale over being railroaded towards AWESOME regardless of my carefully crafted origin.

That's not a good example, but there are certainly more than that when you use that in the context that you did. You don't need the mages to save Connor, saving him is an option and how you save him has more than a few options, as is; Making the choice between wolves and elves (and you can actually save both), making the choice to have Kolgrum as an ally, or ****** him off and kill when you don't do the UoSA againstto his wishes, and so on. It's not the fact that any choices you make in Origins changes the end-run, it is the fact that they are all reflected in the story arc you make as you play out the game. DA2 doesn't offer that, the story's state is predetermined regardless of the choices you make and the PC has near zero impact on most of the consequences and none on the end game.

In the end you can no more define Hawke as much as Isabela and Anders defines what will happen in the game, no matter the choices you make with them.

MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW IF YOU CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!

You can choose to save your <spoiler> from <spoiler> of the Blight in the Deep Roads, or you can make them a <spoiler>. If they <spoiler>, they're <spoiler>, they don't come back. As <spoilers> they're temporarily a part of the plot in the future of both acts. Or you can have your sister become a <spoiler> or your brother become a <spoiler>. 

You can betray <spoiler>, causing her to leave your party and <spoiler>, or you can develop a friendship with her and she <spoiler> in the last minute to aid you fighting the <spoiler>. You can even betray her AGAIN at this point by turning her into the <spoiler>, losing her forever. 

You can side with <spoiler> and kill your own <spoiler> if she's <spoiler>, or you can decide to spare her. Or you can side with the <spoiler> and have them <spoiler>. 

You can ****** off <spoiler> where she decides instead of <spoiler> she goes off to <spoiler> instead. 

You can decide to <spoiler> Fenris to <spoiler> or you can <spoiler>. If you <spoiler>, he's <spoiler>. You can kill <spoiler>or keep him on your side. Etc. 

And there are many more that I missed. Stop lying about the game.

I have that saved on my TextEdit, so I can bust it out whenever someone claims there were no choices of meaning in DA 2.

@ MorrigansLove - Cool beans.

[upsettingshorts]

Tommy6860 wrote...

In the end you can no more define Hawke as much as Isabela and Anders defines what will happen in the game, no matter the choices you make with them.

My Hawke character is wildly different in terms of goals, motivation, and even decisions - from almost all the other ones I know from say, the Anders thread.  And they'd probably confirm as much - at least the ones who've read my description.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:39 .

[TJSolo]

No, you're sticking to your own interpretation of what I meant and ignoring my attempts at clarification as "changes."

If only I could ignore you...but I am simply not allowing you to wrangle the correctness of my answer away because of your inability own up to the openness that question.

Yes it was, you just thought I meant something else. I wanted to know what you thought my Hawke did to resolve the Qunari crisis, not if the crisis was resolved. Of course it was. As far as I am aware, there are three possible solutions.

It is only fair if you think rigging questions about the general worldstate in DAO somehow shows the nuances you claim to be pointing out in DA2.

No, I'm trying to say they're more similar than people have been implying. People dismiss the choices in DA2 partly because they aren't flagged with DECISION and consequences aren't confirmed by EPILOGUE CARD. They still exist.

You took my comment to Gavinthelocust, which at the time had nothing to do with DA2 v DAO, and are trying to twist it into your soapbox. I only joined along to see how far you would go. Frankly, you seem to be juggling too many defenses at once and are a bit lost because of it.

[Any0day]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

In the end you can no more define Hawke as much as Isabela and Anders defines what will happen in the game, no matter the choices you make with them.

My Hawke character is wildly different in terms of goals, motivation, and even decisions - from almost all the other ones I know from say, the Anders thread.  And they'd probably confirm as much - at least the ones who've read my description.

I think the underlying issue for me is that ''wildly different'' is a bit of an opinion. I mean, I could go through the entire game and choose *random* dialogue responses and have the same exact ending doing it a second time doing the same thing.

[upsettingshorts]

TJSolo wrote...

If only I could ignore you...but I am simply not allowing you to wrangle the correctness of my answer away because of your inability own up to the openness that question.

It was open, I clarified.  I am struggling to comprehend your hostility over what should be a simple error in communication.

TJSolo wrote...

It is only fair if you think rigging questions about the general worldstate in DAO somehow shows the nuances you claim to be pointing out in DA2.

How is pointing out a similarity rigging?  It's not like DAO is an odd or random example to pick for comparison to its own sequel?

Connor scenario-> Do one of three things, settle issue. 
Qunari scenario-> Do one of three things, settle issue.

Wheres the rigging?  It's a comparison.  To something in DAO that is a character decision and is reflected in an epilogue card.

TJSolo wrote...

You took my comment to Gavinthelocust, which at the time had nothing to do with DA2 v DAO, and are trying to twist it into your soapbox. I only joined along to see how far you would go. Frankly, you seem to be juggling too many defenses at once and are a bit lost because of it.

My message seems clear to me, at least on the issue of choices - which was the original reason I posed a list of hypotheticals - many of which you confirmed the relevance of simply by saying you didn't have an answer.  And what are these forums if not soapboxes for user opinions anyway?

Any0day wrote...

I think the underlying issue for me is that ''wildly different'' is a bit of an opinion. I mean, I could go through the entire game and choose *random* dialogue responses and have the same exact ending doing it a second time doing the same thing.

You're probably right.  I'm very concerned with the "why" behind every decision.  If Bob Hawke has one reason for selecting option A, and Joe Hawke has another reason for selecting option A, I'd view that as different.  But not wildly so.  I imagine you'd say they were the same, correct?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[Dave of Canada]

Any0day wrote...

I think the underlying issue for me is that ''wildly different'' is a bit of an opinion. I mean, I could go through the entire game and choose *random* dialogue responses and have the same exact ending doing it a second time doing the same thing.

Same thing with Origins, ME1 and ME2?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My Hawke character is wildly different in terms of goals, motivation, and even decisions - from almost all the other ones I know from say, the Anders thread.  And they'd probably confirm as much - at least the ones who've read my description.

Anders threader dropping in to confirm wildly different goals, motivation and decisions for Rayin Hawke (Upsetty Hawke) than either of my Hawkes.

I'm Pseudo and this is the least helpful post in the thread.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 18 avril 2011 - 10:53 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
My Hawke character is wildly different in terms of goals, motivation, and even decisions - from almost all the other ones I know from say, the Anders thread. And they'd probably confirm as much - at least the ones who've read my description.

The issue for many, that is simultaneously difficult to articulate, is the illusion of choice. You have freedom within your character. You have the ability to interpret and apply your character as you see fit. However, from the presentation of the game and the development of the expectations of many of the fans, the perceived final product was thought to be something which is fundamentally altered by the choices you make in the game. Something it decidedly is not.

Your character can be the most unique thing under the sun. In the end [big spoiler of the ending] is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it, or how your character is perceived in the events of such, except that you choose which side will have respect for him/her at a later date.

Is there anything inherently wrong with this? No. Where the fans lead to believe that the game would play out otherwise? Yes. Are they disappointed that they were thusly mislead? Emphatically yes.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The problem with Hawke's motivation is that he/she is not 'born' a hero. At least according to Bioware. They wanted to show how a normal person becomes a hero. Which failed. Because Hawke becomes hero by meddling with everything and actually 'wanting to become a hero'. There is a dragon somewhere? No problem, I kill it. Motivation is what? To kill a dragon. Most quests are to my experience like that. After act1 Hawke is rich and the family relatively save. There is no reason to go around and cause trouble or help everyone, not to mention risk your life, that of your family and friends. If you mean that roleplaying means filling plot holes with own creativity, then you don't need a game for that. Just write a story on your own or something. And if you have to be somewhat of a 'good roleplayer' to even make sense to the game it isn't exactly a good sign either.

You can say that plotholes are there to be filled by player creativity. You can even say that Varric is a bad storyteller or liar. But it is just being apologetic of a weak executed story. Thing is if Bioware cannot make a cohesive story without having a fixed goal or motivation for their main character then they shouldn't do it. I mean it can work to have the hero being drawn into events and rather be forced hero than actually wanting to be hero. But you need to do better than they did in DA2. Too often Hawke is just running around collecting quest for no reason, or even accepting quests (even main quests) merely because they are needed to further the plot and not because they make sense in this situation.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 18 avril 2011 - 10:51 .

[Dragoonlordz]

How many people here are actually arguing for the sole purpose of convincing someone else they are wrong? Is it worth it?

[the_one_54321]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Any0day wrote...
I could go through the entire game and choose *random* dialogue responses and have the same exact ending doing it a second time doing the same thing.

Same thing with Origins

Dude, no. Seriously. <_<
The only thing that doesn't change is that the Archdemon is dead at the end.

AlexXIV wrote...
You can say that plotholes are there to be filled by player creativity.

Making stuff up in your head is something any player is totally allowed to do. But covering up plotholes with it is like saying you're covering up a crappy game with your imagination. You're allowed, and maybe it makes it all better, but it's still covering up crap.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 avril 2011 - 10:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Is there anything inherently wrong with this? No. Where the fans lead to believe that the game would play out otherwise? Yes. Are they disappointed that they were thusly mislead? Emphatically yes.

I'm not going to take issue with your particular arguments on the nature of room for choice within the game - with one exception - because I figure that's what we're discussing generally already.  But the expectations for this game and the way Bioware has handled the marketing for this and practically every other game since I've started following their pre-release hype closely has been nothing short of shocking.  I am not going to disagree with you there one bit.  

The exception is of course the instances of "but thou must" that are occasionally riddled throughout the game.  Hang on a second, let me make this really clear.

I AM CRITICIZING DRAGON AGE 2 IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION

There are a few examples of this but the most notable to me is the Act 1 Sister Petrice quest.  You are presented with the option "No" yet if you try to advance the game you are told you must go and complete the quest in order to continue.  Within the context of the game as presented to the character at that time, there is possibly absolutely no good reason to do so - especially if you already have met the other requirements to advance.  There is no in-character justification for this but-thou-must, only the player realizing he has indeed arrived at just such a scenario.

This is clumsy and awkward, and every time the game does this - any game - it's a big problem for me.  If the game must force a but thou must on us, and I acknowledge that they do in a story based game - it must be done more "artfully" - to take a Mike Laidlaw term - than that.  Why not make an offer the protagonist can't refuse?  Introduce an obvious threat?  Use blackmail?  Something or anything that would give my character who would otherwise have no reason to do it, just that.  

I haven't exactly kept a list - but I do feel like there are probably more of those in DA2 than in DAO.

AlexXIV wrote...
stuff

Sorry for the aggressive quote snipping, and while I agree with you in concept that a couple cases I did do sidequests my character wouldn't be motivated to do simply out of a completionist nature - the specific examples you listed my character did have valid, ingame, stated-by-NPCs reasons why he should do those things.  The dragon in particular, given his financial stake in the operation it was interfering with.  I can't really respond in any further detail in a nonspoiler forum.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 10:59 .

[Bostur]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
My Hawke character is wildly different in terms of goals, motivation, and even decisions - from almost all the other ones I know from say, the Anders thread. And they'd probably confirm as much - at least the ones who've read my description.

The issue for many, that is simultaneously difficult to articulate, is the illusion of choice. You have freedom within your character. You have the ability to interpret and apply your character as you see fit. However, from the presentation of the game and the development of the expectations of many of the fans, the perceived final product was thought to be something which is fundamentally altered by the choices you make in the game. Something it decidedly is not.

Your character can be the most unique thing under the sun. In the end [big spoiler of the ending] is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it, or how your character is perceived in the events of such, except that you choose which side will have respect for him/her at a later date.

Is there anything inherently wrong with this? No. Where the fans lead to believe that the game would play out otherwise? Yes. Are they disappointed that they were thusly mislead? Emphatically yes.

I think expectations play a major role in whether we are willing to accept lack of choice. If we are presented with what looks like a choice and the illusion breaks it feels worse than if we weren't given the choice in the first place.

Bioware dialogues often have more options than outcomes, which I think is fine as long as we don't notice. But if we discover the misdirection the magic trick fails and we feel cheated.

If combat is needed at a specific spot in the story, and we get 3 choices all resulting in the same combat playing out, the choice feels superflous.


In Upsettingshort's example above my post I think it would be better to simply have a "Yes" or a "Carry on" option. I think we are willing to accept limitations for storyline reasons, as long as we don't get tricked into believing there is a choice.

Modifié par Bostur, 18 avril 2011 - 11:00 .

[Any0day]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You're probably right.  I'm very concerned with the "why" behind every decision.  If Bob Hawke has one reason for selecting option A, and Joe Hawke has another reason for selecting option A, I'd view that as different.  But not wildly so.  I imagine you'd say they were the same, correct?

Sure - I would, because the game doesn't really give the choice to choose evil or good. You can either be a nice hero, or take on the ''house'' persona of a jackass who happens to do heroic things. You're still a hero. Now, before you go and use my argument against me for DAO - you could want the demon dead for any number of reasons, because in the end him being alive meant you would inevitably die. On my first playthrough, I was an evil dwarf who wanted to become a reaver. I had to destroy the ashes and kill leliana to do it; None of those choices were heroic in any way you look at it, and none of them were carried over to DA2 in turn. 

Dave of Canada wrote...

Same thing with Origins, ME1 and ME2?

It makes me wonder if you actually played those games if that's the response you're giving. Certain dialogue options in both games could kill you outright if you weren't aware of whats going on.