136 réponses à ce sujet

[SirGladiator]

I think what wasn't epic, even more than the story wasn't epic, is simply the complete lack of epic decision making. In DAO your decisions decide who lives and dies in that castle. Does Connor die? Does his mother die? Do they both live? You decide whether the Elves live or die, do you side with the werewolves, attack them, or free them from their curse? In Orzammar, who is on the throne, the murderous evil dude, or the old guy? Will you save the Anvil, or destroy it to prevent its misuse against innocent dwarves? Will you save or destroy the ashes? Side with the cultists or wipe them out? Slay the dragon or not?

I obviously could go on and on, but the point is that there's just an epic amount of profound and awesome decision-making in DAO, truly meaningful things that really make you feel like your decisions matter, and that if you play the game again you can play a completely different way and it'll be super fesh and new and fun. In DA2 there's almost nothing like that. The only thing I actually controlled of any meaning, was who I romanced, and that I was able to save my sister from the various ways she could die. Those were good things, I enjoyed those a great deal, but other than that I didn't really control much of anything. Over and over again you can side with someone only to be forced to end up killing them anyway. Gee, do you want to side them then kill them, or oppose them then kill them, now thats an epic decision....epicly pathetic anyway . If the game isn't going to be super-epic in terms of saving the world and all that, that's perfectly fine with me. The most memorable decisions you make in DAO aren't really about saving the world anyway. But there really should've been more, a LOT more, important decisions that actually matter in some meaningful way. Give me an option to save all my family. Give me an option to save all the mages including Orsino, or side with the Templars and not have to kill Meredith. Give me the chance to turn my mansion into a shelter for the mages, let me build an addition to the house just for the mages I've saved throughout the game to live in. Or make that addition a special training area for Templars. Again I could go on and on, but the point is that meaningful decisions are really nice to have, and hopefully DA3 will be a lot more like DAO in that regard. I don't care if the main plot is about saving the world, saving a town, or just about finding the ultimate pair of shoes for Leliana . I honestly don't, just so long as during the course of the game the meaningful decisions come back, the ones that really make you feel like you made a difference, that what you did mattered in an important way. That's what I want.

[Critical Miss]

DA2 is epic storytelling. It deals with the world of men and the clash of idealogies that have existed for a long time. A status quo has blown up, so to speak, and paves the way for a conflict of unimaginable scope. DA2 isn't about A versus B as seen in Origins, rather DA2 concentrates on an event that will divide people across Thedas. People are far more interesting to deal with than some dragon perched on top of a tower waiting to tear you limb from limb.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Critical Miss wrote...
DA2 isn't about A versus B as seen in Origins

Critical Miss wrote...
It deals with the world of men and the clash of idealogies that have existed for a long time. A status quo has blown up, so to speak, and paves the way for a conflict of unimaginable scope.

Critical Miss wrote...
DA2 isn't about A versus B as seen in Origins

Critical Miss wrote...
DA2 isn't about Mages versus Templars as seen in Origins

Critical Miss

Irony overload.

But I do agree the setup and barebones narrative is very good. The problem was in it's execution and implementation for me.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 avril 2011 - 01:43 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Critical Miss wrote...

DA2 is epic storytelling. It deals with the world of men and the clash of idealogies that have existed for a long time. A status quo has blown up, so to speak, and paves the way for a conflict of unimaginable scope. DA2 isn't about A versus B as seen in Origins, rather DA2 concentrates on an event that will divide people across Thedas. People are far more interesting to deal with than some dragon perched on top of a tower waiting to tear you limb from limb.

Hi, Avanost. <3

[neppakyo]

Critical Miss wrote...

DA2 is epic storytelling. It deals with the world of men and the clash of idealogies that have existed for a long time. A status quo has blown up, so to speak, and paves the way for a conflict of unimaginable scope. DA2 isn't about A versus B as seen in Origins, rather DA2 concentrates on an event that will divide people across Thedas. People are far more interesting to deal with than some dragon perched on top of a tower waiting to tear you limb from limb.

Its all about A vs B. More so than DA:O.

Its Mages vs Templars.

DA:O Was about the story of the lands, politics and such in fereldan. You still have to face the archdemon, but that wasn't all to DA:O

DA2's story was good in theory, but handled and executed rather poorly. More plotholes that you could drive a truck through than in DA:O.

Except for Varric, compaions were worse than DA:O. More shallow and forgettable.

So I reiterate again, nothing epic about DA2, unless you count the epic plotholes.

Modifié par neppakyo, 25 avril 2011 - 01:47 .

[Roxlimn]

neppakyo:

Elaborate on how DA2 companions are shallower than DAO companions. My own view is that most of them are better written and have more easily pinpointed and more consistent character quirks (while also remaining less archetypal).

My own view of DAO is that it was the story of how the Blight was defeated. The fact that the rest of it was a random expository mess doesn't make the story structure better. That makes it worse. If the story of DAO isn't about the Archdemon, then it's pretty much an unfocused series of generally unrelated small stories.

[neppakyo]

Roxlimn wrote...

neppakyo:

Elaborate on how DA2 companions are shallower than DAO companions. My own view is that most of them are better written and have more easily pinpointed and more consistent character quirks (while also remaining less archetypal).

My own view of DAO is that it was the story of how the Blight was defeated. The fact that the rest of it was a random expository mess doesn't make the story structure better. That makes it worse. If the story of DAO isn't about the Archdemon, then it's pretty much an unfocused series of generally unrelated small stories.

I just said it wasn't just all about the archdemon. Thats the main goal, sure, but I found it was the journey to get there that made the game.

Not that good at expressing myself in text, but I found Leliana, Allistar, Sten, Morrigan, Dog, Oghran more memorible that the DA2 companions. Could be just personal, but thats how ti feels to me.

[Roxlimn]

neppakyo:

1. I also said that if the game's story is not about the Archdemon, then it's just a collection of unrelated expository stories about Ferelden and the DAO world, which is also not very good story structure. Placing the Archdemon over all of that and linking the two structures with MacGuffins doesn't make the narrative structure significantly better. It just takes two mediocre narrative designs and makes them both worse by mashing them together clumsily.

2. Don't hide under personal. There are narrative techniques and general guidelines on how to create and describe characters in literature and film. Since a lot of DAO is either motion animation or text, several of those techniques are applicable.

Here, I'll point out a flaw.

DAO uses Morrigan as an obvious platform for spewing expository information on mages and apostates in Ferelden, even when she dislikes you and even when her character dictates that she doesn't much tolerate people who are obviously ill-informed fools. Going by her character, Morrigan should be nearly as uncommunicative as Sten, but she just goes on and on and on.

This is an obvious mistake in narrative characterization. Morrigan should be showing you expository information, not yakking about it at camp, especially if she doesn't like you much. Barring this, this kind of narrative exposition could be placed in the Codex, or perhaps she'll speak up in a conversation between Wynne and the Warden if she fells that the old windbag was getting a little uppity. She's rude enough to do that (but never does).

Okay. Now you.

[AkiKishi]

Critical Miss wrote...

DA2 is epic storytelling. It deals with the world of men and the clash of idealogies that have existed for a long time. A status quo has blown up, so to speak, and paves the way for a conflict of unimaginable scope.

That reminds me of that quote.

"Mike Laidlaw describes how DA2 is the uninteresting bit between DA and DA3".

[Kilshrek]

Roxlimn wrote...

neppakyo:

Elaborate on how DA2 companions are shallower than DAO companions. My own view is that most of them are better written and have more easily pinpointed and more consistent character quirks (while also remaining less archetypal).

My own view of DAO is that it was the story of how the Blight was defeated. The fact that the rest of it was a random expository mess doesn't make the story structure better. That makes it worse. If the story of DAO isn't about the Archdemon, then it's pretty much an unfocused series of generally unrelated small stories.

A couple of meters on my computer just exploded. That was rather the whole point of DAO, if you're not looking to defeat the Archdemon the story never happens. This isn't even a cat in a box theory. What are you trying to say anyway?

The rest of the DAO story is not expository mess. Everything has a point, a purpose, you're going to each and every signee of the ancient treaties to get their help to beat the Blight. They happen to have their own problems, which obviously you need to solve, this being a game. Expository how?

Modifié par Kilshrek, 25 avril 2011 - 02:49 .

[sleepyowlet]

Nope, not epic. Not that games need to be epic in big ways. But I like to get emotionally involved - and in DA2 I just felt a big disconnect. I don't like being railroaded into killing lots of people - I like having the option of solving conflicts with survivours on both sides. I like interacting with my companions whenever I like. I couldn't really get close to any of them, the strongest feelings I had while playing DA2 were frustration and anger. The anger bit was because Isabela stabbed me in the back. Twice. Other than that - nothing. All right, the get-Aveline-laid-quest was funny, but that's about it. The romances felt rushed and awkward - and the pick-up lines made me facepalm the first time I clicked one of those yellow hearts, so I soon stopped klicking them and went through the game unkissed.

DA:O made me feel a lot of things, awe (Sacred Ashes), conflict (Alistair or Loghain?), amusement (Wade and Herren among other things), sadness (family Cousland), anger (City Elf origin), horror (the Broodmother - but maybe you have to be female to really appreciate that one) - I could go on.

So the epicness for me is not in what the story is about, it's in the range of emotions I feel, and their intensity.

[Roxlimn]

Kilshrek:

Each substory in the game is linked to the Archdemon plot through a "treaty." The nature of this blunt narrative device is not important. It could have been anything, especially since ultimately, you help out all the factions in Ferelden and they owe you. It could have been a grocery list where you have to go around the various supermarkets because oranges were not in season.

The point of each story was to explain and narrate the nature of that particular corner of Ferelden and the DA world - hence expository. In fact, a whole lot of those subplots involved improbable personages telling you all kinds of things about their world at the slightest provocation, supposedly because the Warden is an ignorant country bumpkin and everyone's a tourist guide on the side.

The fact that each of those substories is related to the Archdemon by the MacGuffin (a blunt literary device to tie wholly unrelated plots to each other) is not an improvement, nor much of a justification. It's still a splintered story structure clumsily mashed into an overarching stock fairy tale story.

[Whisky]

Roxlimn wrote...

Kilshrek:

Each substory in the game is linked to the Archdemon plot through a "treaty." The nature of this blunt narrative device is not important. It could have been anything, especially since ultimately, you help out all the factions in Ferelden and they owe you. It could have been a grocery list where you have to go around the various supermarkets because oranges were not in season.

The point of each story was to explain and narrate the nature of that particular corner of Ferelden and the DA world - hence expository. In fact, a whole lot of those subplots involved improbable personages telling you all kinds of things about their world at the slightest provocation, supposedly because the Warden is an ignorant country bumpkin and everyone's a tourist guide on the side.

The fact that each of those substories is related to the Archdemon by the MacGuffin (a blunt literary device to tie wholly unrelated plots to each other) is not an improvement, nor much of a justification. It's still a splintered story structure clumsily mashed into an overarching stock fairy tale story.

Man, it's a dark fantasy story, not a fairy tale. Fairy tales have tiny colorful fairies flying around in a colorful forest, or a wicked ugly old witch who kidnaps children/curses a princess, etc. You used a worse concept to lower the actual value of DA:O.

Speaking of mess, the whole DA2 is a big mess. Unrelated boring quests are put in the Main Plot category for no reason. They have nothing to do with each other, they have nothing to do with Hawke and his/her family, they don't contribute to the plot, they don't mean anything to Kirkwall, yet you are forced to do them all just because they sit in the "Main Plot" category.

[Roxlimn]

Whisky:

Man, it's a dark fantasy story, not a fairy tale. Fairy tales have tiny colorful fairies flying around in a colorful forest, or a wicked ugly old witch who kidnaps children/curses a princess, etc. You used a worse concept to lower the actual value of DA:O.

There is NOTHING WRONG with fairy tales. If DAO had stuck with its fairy tale structure and made content that was relevant to its main plot in specific ways, it would have been a better game with a better story.

Your exposure to fairy tales is sorely lacking. "Dark fantasy" is a catch phrase publishers use to convince insecure teenagers that fairy tales are cool. Fairy tales are generally dark by nature. Remember Hansel and Gretel? That story involves parents who abandon their children in the woods to be eaten by wild beasts, a cannibal villain, and ends with the heroes going back to their negligent father.

Many fairy tales involve rape, cannibalism, murder, and theft. In the Grimm tales, fairies abduct little children for their own amusement, and let them go decades into the future when everyone they know is dead.

Speaking of mess, the whole DA2 is a big mess. Unrelated boring quests are put in the Main Plot category for no reason. They have nothing to do with each other, they have nothing to do with Hawke and his/her family, they don't contribute to the plot, they don't mean anything to Kirkwall, yet you are forced to do them all just because they sit in the "Main Plot" category.

All the quests in the Main Plot category either develop major characters, or culminate in the events of Act 3. They're not directly related to each other, but they are related to the Event that Varric and Cassandra are talking about.

[Night Prowler76]

Roxlimn wrote...

Kilshrek:

Each substory in the game is linked to the Archdemon plot through a "treaty." The nature of this blunt narrative device is not important. It could have been anything, especially since ultimately, you help out all the factions in Ferelden and they owe you. It could have been a grocery list where you have to go around the various supermarkets because oranges were not in season.

The point of each story was to explain and narrate the nature of that particular corner of Ferelden and the DA world - hence expository. In fact, a whole lot of those subplots involved improbable personages telling you all kinds of things about their world at the slightest provocation, supposedly because the Warden is an ignorant country bumpkin and everyone's a tourist guide on the side.

The fact that each of those substories is related to the Archdemon by the MacGuffin (a blunt literary device to tie wholly unrelated plots to each other) is not an improvement, nor much of a justification. It's still a splintered story structure clumsily mashed into an overarching stock fairy tale story.

Not all of the substories were related to the arch demon, such as some of the companion quests, chantry board and random quests etc, alot of the game was building relationships with companions, helping leliana find her past love, helping morrigan with flemeth etc.

Your posts are just opinion, you dont think DAO's story was that great, we get it, yes the story is cliche, but so is DA2, atleast Origins had more character development and a much larger world to explore and learn about the lore.

Modifié par Night Prowler76, 25 avril 2011 - 04:40 .

[Roxlimn]

Night Prowler76:

Thank you for strengthening my point. A lot of DAO's major content is totally unrelated to anything, being more or less just expository.

Your posts are just opinion, you dont think DAO's story was that great, we get it, yes the story is cliche, but so is DA2, atleast Origins had more character development and a much larger world to explore and learn about the lore.

Some of my posts are opinion, some are discussions about actual things we can point to and discuss in the game. Having the majority of your story not deal with the main plot is a weakness in a story. This is somewhat subjective, but such narrative design is generally held to be bad.

I'm interested in exactly how you think DA2's story is a cliche. I mean, how many other games are there about protagonists essentially destroying the world?

[Whisky]

Roxlimn wrote...

There is NOTHING WRONG with fairy tales. If DAO had stuck with its fairy tale structure and made content that was relevant to its main plot in specific ways, it would have been a better game with a better story.

Your exposure to fairy tales is sorely lacking. "Dark fantasy" is a catch phrase publishers use to convince insecure teenagers that fairy tales are cool. Fairy tales are generally dark by nature. Remember Hansel and Gretel? That story involves parents who abandon their children in the woods to be eaten by wild beasts, a cannibal villain, and ends with the heroes going back to their negligent father.

Many fairy tales involve rape, cannibalism, murder, and theft. In the Grimm tales, fairies abduct little children for their own amusement, and let them go decades into the future when everyone they know is dead.

Yes I heard those tales. But even with those kinds of tale you mentioned, DA:O is different. Those fairy tales they are simple and silly while DA:O is not. DA:O is about an epic journey of a person to save the world, about poltics, betrayal, loyalty and love. It's obviously nothing like a fairy tale.

Roxlimn wrote...
All the quests in the Main Plot category either develop major characters, or culminate in the events of Act 3. They're not directly related to each other, but they are related to the Event that Varric and Cassandra are talking about.

That's my point. They have no real impact on the plots but you are forced to do them just because those quests are repeated in the following acts (or because Varric told Cassandra for no reason) . Fenryel has nothing to do with Kirkwall/Hawke/Deep Roads Expedition/the war. Act of Mercy and Enemies Among Us are just as unnecessary but you have to do them anyway. The main plot of DA2 is the war at the end, "having the majority of your story not deal with the main plot is a weakness in a story".

Modifié par Whisky, 25 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[Roxlimn]

Whisky:

Yes I heard those tales. But even with those kinds of tale you mentioned, DA:O is different. Those fairy tales they are simple and silly while DA:O is not. DA:O is about an epic journey of a person to save the world, about poltics, betrayal, loyalty and love. It's obviously nothing like a fairy tale.

I dunno. That sounds exactly like what a fairy tale is. I don't know about you, but I don't find child abandonment and cannibalism silly.

That's my point. They have no real impact on the plots but you are forced to do them just because those quests are repeated in the following acts (or because Varric told Cassandra for no reason) . Fenryel has nothing to do with Kirkwall/Hawke/Deep Roads Expedition/the war. Act of Mercy and Enemies Among Us are just as unnecessary but you have to do them anyway. The main plot of DA2 is the war at the end, "having the majority of your story not deal with the main plot is a weakness in a story".

The Feynriel quest actually introduces you to the Thrask character, who figures in the later events somewhat prominently, so that's kind of important.

Act of Mercy further develops the Thrask character and introduces the Grace character, both of whom are instrumental in Best Served Cold.

Enemies Among Us develops the nature of the Mage threat, the nature of Templar, and introduces the Cullen character, who also somewhat becomes important later on.

The main plot of DA2 is the reasons for why the war starts. You can't understand that without the background and the events in these quests. I think the issue many gamers have in not understanding why the war starts the way it does, and how they think all these quests are unrelated, is a direct cause-and-effect. If you don't get the threads, you won't understand the tapestry.

[Whisky]

Roxlimn wrote...
I dunno. That sounds exactly like what a fairy tale is. I don't know about you, but I don't find child abandonment and cannibalism silly.

All right. Everybody has his oppinion I suppose.

Roxlimn wrote...
The Feynriel quest actually introduces you to the Thrask character, who figures in the later events somewhat prominently, so that's kind of important.

Act of Mercy further develops the Thrask character and introduces the Grace character, both of whom are instrumental in Best Served Cold.

Enemies Among Us develops the nature of the Mage threat, the nature of Templar, and introduces the Cullen character, who also somewhat becomes important later on.

The main plot of DA2 is the reasons for why the war starts. You can't understand that without the background and the events in these quests. I think the issue many gamers have in not understanding why the war starts the way it does, and how they think all these quests are unrelated, is a direct cause-and-effect. If you don't get the threads, you won't understand the tapestry.

Duuuuude, you're not getting my point. The way you interprete those unrelated quests can be applied to Origins too. Every main quest in Origins is important for the same reason.


*Off topic*: And omg would you please don't mention Grace here. Why do I NOT have the option to kill her in that cave? I was playing a mean templar who kills every apostate but I there was no option to kill her. She only said: "Please help me" then Hawke: "Okay I'll make sure it's safe" without me choosing anything. I wanted to kill her so badly.

[SkittlesKat96]

 I agree completely, mind you a lot of this is because they wanted to try something new and they made a lot of oversights and wrong decisions.

Even though they did a bad job at DA 2 they still fixed a lot of things like the awful combat and item systems from DAO (trust me, it seems good but when you discover the systems in-depth you'll find out how unbalanced the game is and how it gives you the illusion that the attributes you give your character make a difference, that Lifegiver ring you bought for yourself actually isn't as good as it seems and is riddled with bugs even with the latest patch, there are lower level rings slightly more useful than it) etc.

Even though they did a lot of bad stuff I think they've also added a lot of good stuff that will pay off in future Dragon Age games

Even though you'll disagree having a voice acted protagonist is a good thing even if it doesn't allow as much depth it still has more worthwhile perks and it allows Bioware to have better control and make a better game

The lack of Rpg depth in DA II isn't really why it failed

[Roxlimn]

Whisky:

Duuuuude, you're not getting my point. The way you interprete those unrelated quests can be applied to Origins too. Every main quest in Origins is important for the same reason.

Really now? Alright. Without mentioning the treaty (the blunt MacGuffin device), tell me how the events in the Brecilian Forest matter to defeating the Archdemon.

And omg would you please don't mention Grace here. Why do I NOT have the option to kill her in that cave? I was playing a mean templar who kills every apostate but I there was no option to kill her. She only said: "Please help me" then Hawke: "Okay I'll make sure it's safe" without me choosing anything. I wanted to kill her so badly.

I suspect it's for much the same reason that you can't side with the Archdemon, or broker a peace with Bhelen and Harrowmont.

[Whisky]

Roxlimn wrote...
Really now? Alright. Without mentioning the treaty (the blunt MacGuffin device), tell me how the events in the Brecilian Forest matter to defeating the Archdemon.

Siding with the Dalish gives you the dalish elves army to fight the darkspawn horde. Siding wit the werewolves gives you an army of werewolves. Since Origins is about gathering allies to battle the darkspawn army, every quest in the main plot is necessary.

On the other hand, DA2 is about "Rise to power". But helping Fenryel has nothing to do with rising to power. Deliver Flemeth's amulet has nothing to do with rising to power. Same go for dealing with Grace/Thrask, crazy mages in Enemies Among Us, Prime Suspect...

Roxlimn wrote...
I suspect it's for much the same reason that you can't side with the Archdemon, or broker a peace with Bhelen and Harrowmont.

The siding with the Archdemon thing is pretty much the same reason that you can't side with the Arishok to take Kirkwall.

Killing both Bhelen and Harrownmont and you have no dwarves army, which conflicts with the main storyline. Whereas killing Grace has no impact on the plot. Thrask will still gather mages and templars against Meredith.

[Aaleel]

I was always under the impression that a MacGuffin device was something that you did not have in your possession. Your quest to get it, and that quest keeping the story going is what makes it a MacGuffin device. You're not searching for treaties, you have them.

If anything is an example of a MacGuffin device, it's the 50 gold you're trying to raise in the first act. Everything you do in the first act has to do with raising this 50 gold, but the 50 gold itself has nothing to do with the actual story. It just gets the expedition started.

[Roxlimn]

Aaleel:

A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[1] The defining aspect of a MacGuffin is that the major players in the story are (at least initially) willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is. In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained.

The McGuffin here is the allegiance of the various factions represented by the treaties.

[Aaleel]

Roxlimn wrote...

Aaleel:

A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[1] The defining aspect of a MacGuffin is that the major players in the story are (at least initially) willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is. In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained.

The McGuffin here is the allegiance of the various factions represented by the treaties.

But not the treaties themselves, which is what you said.  And you're here running down Origins story for using them, when DA2 uses far more blatant ones.  The 50 gold, and fixing the Eluvian for example.  You just didn't like the story in Origins so you pick on it, but you liked the story in DA2 so you ignore the same things.