843 réponses à ce sujet

[Xanfaus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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

Not trying to join in this discussion, but presenting evidence for a position or viewpoint in order to convince opposing  side(s) to see the issue as you do or to agree with your viewpoint is the purpose of arguing.

[upsettingshorts]

Xanfaus wrote...

Not trying to join in this discussion, but presenting evidence for a position or viewpoint in order to convince opposing  side(s) to see the issue as you do or to agree with your viewpoint is the purpose of arguing.

Indeed, it's called "rhetoric."  And I have to get my practice in somewhere.  Might as well be over something ultimately trivial, like a videogame.

Any0day wrote...

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

That seems like an oversimplifications of the options I feel are available.  But at least we've arrived at an understanding that there are different expecations of and for playstyles.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 11:04 .

[Tommy6860]

Edli wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins spanned two whole years, for the record.

Are you including dlc in here because it sure didn't look to me like 2 years passed ingame. There is nothing mentioned in the game how some months passed or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong so I'm curious how do you know that Origins spanned two years?

Because some frame the time of playing the game (which most will do over a period of time) to what the length of the timeline in the story is. It comes down to imagination, but I can see two years being something easily perceived. Just the thought of the Warden healing, from the injuries s/he sustained from the top of the Tower of Ishal, at Flemth's hut would easily have been two weeks alone and probably much more. Just a thought.

[TJSolo]

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

Well what you call clarification looks like back-peddling to me.

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.

The rigging would be where you purposefully create a question for yourself so that the answer can ignore the variables around the events at Redcliffe and focus only on the endstate.

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?

My responses support what? I stated DAO was not that fixed and that there were some variables about any random save that could be predicted and choices that could not be predicted. But there was no statement on my part claiming there were no choices in DA2. It would have saved us a lot of time if have found someone in this thread that made such a claim for your to argue against.

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Might as well be over something ultimately trivial, like a videogame.

How dare you sir! I challenge you to a duel. Rubber chickens at dawn.

Its been a good read so stay groovy to each other. No need for another locked thread. Just caught up to DA2 on my gamefly list, so I am off to see what all the hub bub is about bubs.

[upsettingshorts]

TJSolo wrote...

Well what you call clarification looks like back-peddling to me.

So your assertion is that unprompted I deliberately used a bad example that is very closely related to a more on-point one for an argument I was forming?

Yeah, that seems less likely than "I should have been more specific."

TJSolo wrote...

The rigging would be where you purposefully create a question for yourself so that the answer can ignore the variables around the events at Redcliffe and focus only on the endstate.

I don't follow, considering I've only been focusing on the endstates from the start.  The common argument in this thread at that time had been that DA2 had no choices/consequences, so describing a variety of endstates seemed to be an appropriate counterargument, would it not?

TJSolo wrote...

It would have saved us a lot of time if have found someone in this thread that made such a claim for your to argue against.

Which would be everyone else then almost, it seems?

If I wrongly used your post as a springboard to make a point in an ongoing argument, it wouldn't be the first time I've done so.  If you're offended, I apologize.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 avril 2011 - 11:47 .

[TJSolo]

So your assertion is that unprompted I deliberately used a bad example that is very closely related to a more on-point one for an argument I was forming?

Yeah, that seems less likely than "I should have been more specific."

No, my point is you want to **** about an answer to your badly worded question instead of moving on.

I don't follow, considering I've only been focusing on the endstates from the start. The common argument in this thread at that time had been that DA2 had no choices/consequences, so describing a variety of endstates seemed to be an appropriate counterargument, would it not?

If that is the common argument then I don't support it. However, I am more likely to support the claim if the 'no' is replaced with 'less'.

Which would be everyone else then almost, it seems?

Then you certainly should be able to find an argument that fits your counterargument better than mine.

[upsettingshorts]

The claim of "less" would not be disputed by me, for a number of reasons - most forgivable - at least by me, perhaps not by others.

As far as moving on, I suppose I will.

[Tommy6860]

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.

There's a huge difference in what one's imagination does while playing their character's role in DA2, to how the choices made in-game have zero effect on the main plot and actually reflect that in the game, if there ever is really a main plot defined until you figure it all out when you reach Act III. Yes, there are subtle reflections made in choices made in the side quests as subtly revealed in those quests, but nothing in what the overall story is, as the game's framing narratives and cinematic interactives just don't offer one.

Example, no matter how much I want or don't want Anders to do something that has serious implications in the end state, he does that anyway, though I have the option to make a choice when it is posited on me, it is just simply fact that my choice does not matter, so why add it when it turns out to be useless dialogue and fluff. Merrill stays with me to the end no matter if she is my ultimate rival who I have scourned with ridicule and turned away with disdain to her affectionate advances. Her personality is never described in the game as having blind trust with those who treat her that way, so I can only assume she cares little for herself and comes across as a creature with little self-esteem unless built up by the PC. This from a being who stands up to the most powerful person in her clan and her clan members with utter temerity, to a persona that wanes to near being a waif when becoming a companion.

I don't need epilogue cards to tell me an end state of the game since playing the game I remember the choices I made, when all was said and done, it was jsut one big "HUH?" Epilogues cards are fine if they give some reflections to how the game ended with the various choices I made and how they worked with the friends, lovers, factions and areas I encountered. In DA2, having ECs just doesn't matter since my character had zero impact on the main storyline and little on my companions.

In the end, if you got a great story and satisfaction from DA2, I am happy for you and I would never say that you didn't. I can only say that my experience is just the opposite and very unsatisfying. It doesn't differentiate some aspect of who is right or wrong between us as gamers, just simply how we perceive the game.

[erynnar]

addiction21 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Might as well be over something ultimately trivial, like a videogame.

How dare you sir! I challenge you to a duel. Rubber chickens at dawn.

Its been a good read so stay groovy to each other. No need for another locked thread. Just caught up to DA2 on my gamefly list, so I am off to see what all the hub bub is about bubs.

*giggles* Okay that just hit my funnybone in a delightful way.   May I join in the rubber chickens at dawn duel?  But, may I ask that it be moved to noon?  Morning and night are only good for keeping morning and night from bumping into one another.<_<

[erynnar]

Tommy6860 wrote...

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.

There's a huge difference in what one's imagination does while playing their character's role in DA2, to how the choices made in-game have zero effect on the main plot and actually reflect that in the game, if there ever is really a main plot defined until you figure it all out when you reach Act III. Yes, there are subtle reflections made in choices made in the side quests as subtly revealed in those quests, but nothing in what the overall story is, as the game's framing narratives and cinematic interactives just don't offer one.

Example, no matter how much I want or don't want Anders to do something that has serious implications in the end state, he does that anyway, though I have the option to make a choice when it is posited on me, it is just simply fact that my choice does not matter, so why add it when it turns out to be useless dialogue and fluff. Merrill stays with me to the end no matter if she is my ultimate rival who I have scourned with ridicule and turned away with disdain to her affectionate advances. Her personality is never described in the game as having blind trust with those who treat her that way, so I can only assume she cares little for herself and comes across as a creature with little self-esteem unless built up by the PC. This from a being who stands up to the most powerful person in her clan and her clan members with utter temerity, to a persona that wanes to near being a waif when becoming a companion.

I don't need epilogue cards to tell me an end state of the game since playing the game I remember the choices I made, when all was said and done, it was jsut one big "HUH?" Epilogues cards are fine if they give some reflections to how the game ended with the various choices I made and how they worked with the friends, lovers, factions and areas I encountered. In DA2, having ECs just doesn't matter since my character had zero impact on the main storyline and little on my companions.

In the end, if you got a great story and satisfaction from DA2, I am happy for you and I would never say that you didn't. I can only say that my experience is just the opposite and very unsatisfying. It doesn't differentiate some aspect of who is right or wrong between us as gamers, just simply how we perceive the game.

^This. Liked having the EC on DAO, it was nice just to have a little more this is what your choice did to the dwarves, etc. DA2 doesn't need them, I did nothing. I affected my companons, supposedly, but even then not that much and they leave Hawke anyways, so who cares what I do with them in game?  

Glad people liked the story, and I wish I was getting a hell of a lot more from it  like those that do.  For a movie or a book maybe that is okay. But for an interactive, book, cinematic it's not all that for me. I have read better books that took me on a journey to a predestined ending (movies too) than this one.

[Boiny Bunny]

Wow, the size of this thread his literally doubled in the last 10 hours!

Must remember, it is important to distinguish between PLOT impacts of decisions and GAMEPLAY impacts of decisions.

What gameplay impacts do DA:O and DA2 have for thier choices? Virtually none at all for any of the choices in the game.

In both games, you can lose certain party members at defined moments if you say the wrong thing. In both games, you can fight through the exact same dungeon area but with slightly different enemies, depending on which side you pick.

The ONLY true gameplay impact of a choice is the Origin you pick, and that doesn't count - as it is not an 'in world' decision, but rather a fourth wall breaking 'what character do I want to play' decision.

The impact of decisions on gameplay is lacking in all Bioware games. I doubt we'll see this implemented properly anytime soon either.


On the other hand, we have PLOT impact of decisions.

Again, in both DA:O and DA2, you can choose to lose certain party members at certain moments or keep them. In DA2, that is about the extent of your decisions in terms of PLOT impact. Many a time you can help either mages or templars - which results in a minor change to a battle, a thanks from whichever you helped, then nothing further.

DA:O takes dozens (probably well over 100 in fact) of variables from various choices you made during the game, and combines them to give you the epilogue slides after the archdemon is slain.

Now we could argue all day about whether the epilogue slides are good or not, or whether cutscenes should have been used instead, etc.

That is not the point of this debate.

We are talking about PLOT impacts.

The DA:O choices you make have MASSIVE plot impacts on the land of Ferelden and the world of Thedas. Some are presented during the game, others in the Epilogue slides. If you have any doubt about which decisions matter, or what kind of impact they have, please read this:

http://dragonage.wik...ilogue_(Origins)

Even the options and possibilities for the Warden ALONE are boggling compared to Hawke's one single option mentioned in the epilogue:

* Got special job, disappeared shortly thereafter.

or

* Disappeared.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 19 avril 2011 - 12:52 .

[graylshaped]

So much speculation here about motives. Achievement systems on all platforms allow the developers of games today to see exactly what people spending time in a game are doing and where they are in the game when they quit. Those of us who care enough about DA to spend time in these forums are a minority of those who play it. Most people buy a game to play a game (gasp!), not to cultivate a new lifestyle. We can like or dislike the changes made based on our individual preferences, but those changes were data-driven based on what real people playing the game actually did. For example, most DA:O players only ever saw one origin story. Why then, plow resources into multiple backstories?

Personally, as much as I wanted to drop a nice piece of armor onto Aveline, the truth is I didn't really miss micro-managing that aspect of inventory, and find DA2 approach a great balance between that type of anal detail and the giant blind spot that is ME2's inventory.

Now what happened to the resources saved by not doing that is fair game for complaints. I didn't have a problem spending three acts exploring different corners of Kirkwall. It bugged the crap out of me, though, to discover the homes, castles, warehouses, and caves in the region were apparently all built by tract developers who had access to limited model plans. Who knew tract developers held such sway in the Free Marches? That type of cost-cutting is obvious and to the detriment of the game, though even there one could argue it is simply an application of the time-honored tradition of the DM (Bioware) re-using dungeon tiles as the party progresses through the game.

Oh, and somewhere in this thread was a question about how long a span DA:O covers compared to the "ten years" of DA2: In DA2 is a loadscreen message that says the Blight was quelled in less than a year by the Hero of Fereldan. The prequel DLC with Leliana is before her Chantry time, where she apparently spent a few years, and Morrigan appears to have regained her figure after giving birth in Witch Hunt, so arguably it could easily be a comparable time period.

And hey, isn't arguing about stuff like that why these forums are here?

[Gatt9]

graylshaped wrote...

So much speculation here about motives. Achievement systems on all platforms allow the developers of games today to see exactly what people spending time in a game are doing and where they are in the game when they quit. Those of us who care enough about DA to spend time in these forums are a minority of those who play it. Most people buy a game to play a game (gasp!), not to cultivate a new lifestyle. We can like or dislike the changes made based on our individual preferences, but those changes were data-driven based on what real people playing the game actually did. For example, most DA:O players only ever saw one origin story. Why then, plow resources into multiple backstories?

I'm afraid you don't have all the information for a solid assessment.

First,  a Bioware employee let it out that DA2 was under production before DAO released,  their decisions weren't at all based on data,  they were made before there was data.

Second,  Most data is useless without context,  "Alot of people quit about 1 hour into the game" doesn't tell you anything.  Why did they quit?

-Was it a friend's copy and he was just showing it off?
-Was it the Ogre battle,  was it too hard for it's place in the story?
-Was it a rental copy?
-Did the person suddenly discover some other game?

The data tells you nothing.  This is in contrast to ME,  where if 90% of the players didn't get the "60 missions with Ashley" achievement,  you can safely conclude that people do not like Ashley.  Why they don't like her,  similiar to above,  is still a mystery.  But you can conclude that people would rather have someone else in ME2 than Ashley,  because you've already set the character,  you can't change it,  there's no other options.

Datamining is only usefull when the data is either able to be read without context,  or provides it's own context.  DAO's achievements didn't do this,  no doubt in part due to the fact that they were tacked on when EA forced Bioware to make it a console release too.

So in conclusion,  the decisions were made before there was even data,  and the data itself is completely useless.  Which honestly,  I'm amazed Bioware's even citing it,  as Doctors and Computer Scientists know very well the first rules of statistical analysis.

[jds1bio]

I'm liking how people have started to come around on the story vs. the RPG choices. More have begun to echo my viewpoint. But, can we go over again how BioWare is at a crossroads? Especially since I don't think that the paths the OP laid down are the only paths available.

The paths the OP has laid down are merely what the OP plans to do once it appears that a path has been chosen:

- One way will be the miraculous return of a departed employee followed by a blind pre-order.
- The other way will be a disavowing if a current employee or current innovations stay, and a move-on to another company who the OP thinks caters to old-age RPG lovers.

One is not going to happen, and the other is a mis-fire in that The Witcher was in no way like an old-age RPG. It had its own combat mechanics and quirks, no real party system, and far less character and armor choices than even DA2. It did get right the choice-and-consequence within a rigid story though, and that alone may be enough reason for you to side with them over BioWare. But are they really siding with you right back?

So again, where is this crossroads? With releases of ME3 and TOR on the horizon, they already seem to have a path they're following.

[Otterwarden]

jds1bio wrote...

One is not going to happen, and the other is a mis-fire in that The Witcher was in no way like an old-age RPG. It had its own combat mechanics and quirks, no real party system, and far less character and armor choices than even DA2. It did get right the choice-and-consequence within a rigid story though, and that alone may be enough reason for you to side with them over BioWare. But are they really siding with you right back?

So again, where is this crossroads? With releases of ME3 and TOR on the horizon, they already seem to have a path they're following.

Personally, I've never been convinced that the old guard is wedded to this old-age RPG formula.  And, simple observation on this board, would suggest otherwise because so many of them enjoyed "The Witcher".  Now either you would be suggesting that they are too senile not to see the ways that CD Projekt has deviated from the golden days, or there has to be some acknowledgement that this group is keenly embracing well executed change.  For me the crossroad stand off with Bioware is not "Return to your roots or I will abandon you".  It's more a desire to see some adult recognition that their experiment has not produced the necessary interest to sustain a franchise built on that model going forward.  From here on out it will be a "show me the goods" relationship.  Well, in my case, it was a "show me the goods" for DA2 as well.

[Maria Caliban]

Gatt9, the DA: O metrics also showed the most popular character. The metrics starts at the achievements but also gathers far more information than just that.

[Boiny Bunny]

I think that people enjoyed the Witcher for reasons other than it's combat system (which incidently, is not party based).

Personally, one of the reasons I liked the Witcher so much is that it is one of the most immersive games I've ever played. The music is incredible (in my opinion). The art and attention to detail is incredible, in every little piece of the game. Birds flock out of trees/nests and fly away if you get too close. When it starts raining, NPCs run for cover under buildings. Children run up to Geralt to tell him that he is a freak, then run away again before he can react. Everybody in the city has their own daily routine which they follow within the dynamic day/night cycle. These also change over time. Every time you walk into a tavern, the type of people and their positions change slightly.

The world is dirty and gritty. Full of dark themes, but doesn't make the mistake many games that go for this do, and still maintains vibrant environments, art styles, and music. The counter-example there is KOTOR 2, where the entire game has music that is incredibly sinister and hollow, all of the environments are bleak and dull, and dark wherever possible. Comparing the difference between Dantooine in KOTOR and KOTOR 2 is a great example of this.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I think that people enjoyed the Witcher for reasons other than it's combat system (which incidently, is not party based).

Personally, one of the reasons I liked the Witcher so much is that it is one of the most immersive games I've ever played. The music is incredible (in my opinion). The art and attention to detail is incredible, in every little piece of the game. Birds flock out of trees/nests and fly away if you get too close. When it starts raining, NPCs run for cover under buildings. Children run up to Geralt to tell him that he is a freak, then run away again before he can react. Everybody in the city has their own daily routine which they follow within the dynamic day/night cycle. These also change over time. Every time you walk into a tavern, the type of people and their positions change slightly.

The world is dirty and gritty. Full of dark themes, but doesn't make the mistake many games that go for this do, and still maintains vibrant environments, art styles, and music. The counter-example there is KOTOR 2, where the entire game has music that is incredibly sinister and hollow, all of the environments are bleak and dull, and dark wherever possible. Comparing the difference between Dantooine in KOTOR and KOTOR 2 is a great example of this.

I loved TW for those very same reasons. The only thing that really killed the game for me was the lack of character/gender choice and having companions. I can even live with playing one race, but give me a gender choice at least. The fact I have to play a male protagonist just doesn't appeal to me. Outside of that, it was one great RPG experience, though limited as it was.

[cljqnsnyc]

This whole "80% of players never got past Ostagar" is complete nonsense!

I am aware this was brought up in an interview, but it's reasoning defies logic and DAO's history. How is it possible to sell 3 to 4 million copies of a game that an overwhelming majority of players supposedly quit after an hour? DAO main reason for success was due to the positive word of mouth it received from the people who played it. Is anyone really going to recommend a game they couldn't even get halfway through? Of course not. There would have been even more of a backlash against DAO than what we are seeing with DA2 if any of this "data" was to be believed. It's clear this was meant to push an agenda, unsuccessfully I might add.

Trying to circulate this information while at the same time DAO has been called Bioware's most successful game is a tactic that makes no sense at all.

The numbers don't add up.

[Otterwarden]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
The world is dirty and gritty. Full of dark themes, but doesn't make the mistake many games that go for this do, and still maintains vibrant environments, art styles, and music. The counter-example there is KOTOR 2, where the entire game has music that is incredibly sinister and hollow, all of the environments are bleak and dull, and dark wherever possible. Comparing the difference between Dantooine in KOTOR and KOTOR 2 is a great example of this.

Balance is so important.  RPGs that focused too much on dungeons never held any appeal.  For every session slogging about, I need some vibrant reminder of why I'm fighting for all this.  A bucolic setting that keeps me from falling into despair.  It was also part of the problem with LOTR.  Without the flashback scenes, and Elven city breaks, you start to get a bit overwhelmed by the orc infested battlegrounds.

[Boiny Bunny]

I'm not sure where that statistic came from, but it sounds like rubbish.

More likely, it has simply been misinterpreted, and the real statistic was something like, "80% of players never got past Ostagar on a difficulty harder than Normal".

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 19 avril 2011 - 02:41 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Otterwarden wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...
The world is dirty and gritty. Full of dark themes, but doesn't make the mistake many games that go for this do, and still maintains vibrant environments, art styles, and music. The counter-example there is KOTOR 2, where the entire game has music that is incredibly sinister and hollow, all of the environments are bleak and dull, and dark wherever possible. Comparing the difference between Dantooine in KOTOR and KOTOR 2 is a great example of this.

Balance is so important.  RPGs that focused too much on dungeons never held any appeal.  For every session slogging about, I need some vibrant reminder of why I'm fighting for all this.  A bucolic setting that keeps me from falling into despair.  It was also part of the problem with LOTR.  Without the flashback scenes, and Elven city breaks, you start to get a bit overwhelmed by the orc infested battlegrounds.

I couldn't possibly agree more.  Even a dark and horrible world does not necessarily require bleakness in every possible landscape, and a lack of light everywhere you go, with music that amounts to nothing more than creepy noises and heartbeats.

If you are going for a 'dark' game, make it one of sad or gritty in my opinion.  Not literally 'dark'.

[Otterwarden]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

This whole "80% of players never got past Ostagar" is complete nonsense!

I am aware this was brought up in an interview, but it's reasoning defies logic and DAO's history. How is it possible to sell 3 to 4 million copies of a game that an overwhelming majority of players supposedly quit after an hour? DAO main reason for success was due to the positive word of mouth it received from the people who played it. Is anyone really going to recommend a game they couldn't even get halfway through? Of course not. There would have been even more of a backlash against DAO than what we are seeing with DA2 if any of this "data" was to be believed. It's clear this was meant to push an agenda, unsuccessfully I might add.

Trying to circulate this information while at the same time DAO has been called Bioware's most successful game is a tactic that makes no sense at all.

The numbers don't add up.

NO, they DO NOT!!!  It is not possible for 20% of the market to have generated that kind of sustained buying power, with 80% failing to forewarn that they only got $2 value out of their copies.  Something is definitely off here.

[Persephone]

RPGrogue wrote...

What am I if I loved DAO and loved DA2?

You're a mediocre hybrid. Not enough of a "true" RPG Lover, with some Action/Adventure thrown in for good measure.

(I kid, I kid. I love DAII myself)