109 réponses à ce sujet

[Stippling]

Intelligent, Thoughtful Criticism

David Gaider wrote...

If I am personally irritated by anything, it's the display by some of a lack of self-awareness that their actions are a hindrance to their own purported goal-- which I assume is to have their concerns be taken seriously. I can tell you quite honestly that one intelligent, thoughtful criticism is worth a hundred posts full of angry invective or empty praise. The thing that so many forget when it comes to the Internet is that the rules of communication still apply.

I've been meaning to do a small review on the two key things I feel lack in Dragon Age 2, so I wrote up a little (sarcasm) post to add my views. This is not pro or anti anything, it's just conceptual. I wish to rationally explain the improvements I thought were needed with the game in hopes of finding it in the future. I break up the wall of text with images. Some will find it annoying, others might find it entertaining. We shall see.

---------
ATTENTION: In this post, I use humor, lots of images, and SPOILERS. If any of these things make you unhappy, DO NOT PROCEED. Do not click respond. Do not tell me how much you love/hate DA2.
---------

1. Shades of Grey – A big winning quality of Dragon Age: Origins (and Awakening to a lesser extent) was the concept of, “no happy ending.” And while, in a broad sense, this pertains to the ending of DA2, if you look at it on a smaller scale, everything is so black and white. Mages turn violent out of greed or possession, never for any rational cause that can be understood.; Templars are either sympathetic or vehemently opposed to mage freedom and willing to murder small children over it. The choice is no longer whether a decision is worth the consequence, it is now almost not even a decision. Before you can decide if a mage is worth their repentance they’ll turn into a monstrous pride demon and you’ll have to kill them.




The beauty of villains like Loghain is that you can look at him and go, “Man, he was the villain this whole time, but does he deserve to die now that he’s on the ground waiting judgement.” Meredith’s views became irrelevant because a glowing red trinket made her turn into some crazed creature from hell. Orsino says something along the lines of, “You think mages are bad? I’ll prove you wrong!” And then cuts himself and immediately becomes a demon? Why does blood magic immediately make you possessed? Why can my Hawke be a blood mage from level 7 on without even the temptation of demons?





Another point: Loghain was set as the “human” villain whilst the true evil of the story was the blight. Both were very clear from early on. I spent half the game thinking the end would be with the Qunari, and didn’t even know what I was fighting for until the last few hours.





The essence of this game franchise was all about gritty realism, but I feel like in Dragon Age 2 it’s all pre-categorized into group A or B. There is no middle ground. I feel as if you can make a story not about a Grey Warden and still make the story in shades of grey.


2. A Story about Family: This was a big selling point for me on the game, but the execution was too choppy for my taste. The beginning of the game kills off either your brother or sister. Two things upset me about this, and neither of them is that I don’t get to chose or cannot have both.




Firstly, it doesn’t make a difference. At an early analysis, one can assume that having a Mage in the Hawke family would be crucial to the outcome of the plot, which is why regardless of your decisions; one Hawke Mage had to flee to Kirkwall. This had no bearing on the plot whatsoever. What if, for example, it was up to either Hawke or Bethany to make this decision of blowing up the Chantry, instead of a third party which could very well have no emotional bearing on the plot. It just seems like a waste of emotional attachment.




Secondly, the purpose of a siblings death is to make you feel a loss and a sense of empathy for Hawke and his family, but we have no feelings towards these characters from the beginning. Why didn’t the story begin at Lothering? It would provide familiarity for old players and a grounded normalcy for the Hawke. Why do I care that Bethany or Carver dies? I could go the whole game without knowing what the character was like and feeling no loss by not having him/her (a good Lothering DLC would solve this, *hint hint* and yes, it should have been in the main game, you don't need to post that a million times!)




Secondly, the living sibling spends roughly half the game missing in action, either separated or killed. Why could I not save Bethany from the chantry, or convince Carver to work with me in his spare time with the Templars? Why could I not see either of them during an expedition to the deep roads? This isn’t something that can be answered with, “you can’t always get what you want.” I spend the entire game smuggling mages or working for Templars, but my own flesh and blood cannot stop once in a matter of years to even say hello?

Finally, the mother situation. It is pretty clear that the cut was a matter of development needs, but there’s such a huge build up to an inevitable end. And despite the hilarious Star Wars Episode 2 references, I felt that this quest chain left a lot to be desired.




At the beginning of Act 3, my whole family is gone, and all of it was inevitable. One of them I don’t care about, one of them I am not allowed to see or is dead, and one died no matter how hard I tried. The general theme of being pushed along into a single ending is very hard to stomach. In summary, Hawke was our window into DA2, and yet it felt more like a two way mirror. I didn’t start an expedition into the deep roads, Bartrand and Varric did. I didn’t cause the Qunari to uprise, Isabella did. I didn’t start a war, Anders did.


The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.


 ------


I hope my thoughts can be of some help and that we as players and those who care about the future of Dragon Age can begin to discuss improving the future maturely.

Modifié par Stippling, 27 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[noxsachi]

One thing I wanna discuss is how you call DAO a dark fantasy. In no way was DAO a dark fantasy. Sure you had "dark" choices, but the whole point of a dark fantasy is that all the choices suck. For example Redcliffe shouldn't have had a happy option. If you went for the Circle the demon killed everyone but Teagan and Eamon. The end. Instead the Warden makes everything all happy sunshine and rainbows. Same with the elves and werewolves. It should've been either let Zathrian continue being an evil bastard and kill the werewolves or kill all the elves.

And while I will agree that I was kinda shocked there was something beyond Act II, I at least though the conclusion to DAII was far more engaging and interesting than that of DAO. I couldn't have cared less after the deaths of Howe and Loghain, the entire archdaemon bit was perfunctory and forced, not to mention stupid and silly and a joke difficulty wise. (Not that Meredith was much harder, but it was better than the archdaemon fight in that it was an actual fight.)

[Stippling]

I agree that you could pursue the best case scenarios, but a lot of them still ended with someone paying. Also I never coined it as a "dark fantasy," although I can see the connection with my word choice. Thanks for the comments.

[Ulicus]

Hawkwalker? Really? Come on, the obvious play on words there was Skyhawker.

For shame.

[Stippling]

Ulicus wrote...

Hawkwalker? Really? Come on, the obvious play on words there was Skyhawker.

For shame.

Haha, long post made me lazy lack creativity on images. Now I'm going to change that, good call!

EDIT: Done!

Modifié par Stippling, 27 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[noxsachi]

Stippling wrote...

I agree that you could pursue the best case scenarios, but a lot of them still ended with someone paying. Also I never coined it as a "dark fantasy," although I can see the connection with my word choice. Thanks for the comments.

Yeah they paid but generally everything still ended hunky dory. In Song of Fire and Ice very bad things happen to very good and well liked people. [Spoiler removed at a later poster request.] That's dark fantasy. The closest DAO comes is with the broodmother concept, although sadly it didn't happen to a developed character, so there was no tragedy to it, just scquick. In DAO there definently was always a happy ending, and you say people pay for it, but they deserved it. You can't say Loghain or Howe or Zathrian didn't deserve their fate could you? Defending a tower full of maleficar to save the few remaining innocents or killing all the inhabitants of said tower so that the maleficar couldn't escape was a dark choice. Innocent people paid either way. That's why I think DAII was better than DAO in that regard.

Modifié par noxsachi, 27 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[Ulicus]

Whoa! Despite your warning, how about we remove the spoilers for a franchise that has recently been adapted to television, just started airing, and has a whole bunch of new, totally unspoiled fans on the internet at the moment? The surprises are part of what make ASoIaF brilliant. I'd hate to see it ruined for anyone.

Modifié par Ulicus, 27 avril 2011 - 05:00 .

[noxsachi]

Ulicus wrote...

Whoa! Despite your warning, how about we remove the spoilers for a franchise that has recently been adapted to television, just started airing, and has a whole bunch of new, totally unspoiled fans on the internet at the moment? The surprises are part of what make ASoIaF brilliant. I'd hate to see it ruined for anyone.

Alright, I edited it. Though I do feel a sort of vindictinvess in spoiling it for them. Their fault they haven't read the books yet...

[Veovim]

Stippling wrote...

At the beginning of Act 3, my whole family is gone, and all of it was inevitable. One of them I don’t care about, one of them I am not allowed to see or is dead, and one died no matter how hard I tried. The general theme of being pushed along into a single ending is very hard to stomach. In summary, Hawke was our window into DA2, and yet it felt more like a two way mirror. I didn’t start an expedition into the deep roads, Bartrand and Varric did. I didn’t cause the Qunari to uprise, Isabella did. I didn’t start a war, Anders did.


The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.

Interestingly enough, the bolded part is lampshaded in game www.youtube.com/watch.  Aveline (rivalry) accuses Hawke of being a highwayman who stumbled into being the Champion through dumb luck.  The question is whether the lampshading was intentional or not.

In all seriousness, though, I agree that it would have been nice to have been able to influence the story more.  The rebellion led by Grace and Thrask in particular felt like such a wasted opportunity.  No matter what you've done throughout the game, she goes insane and attacks you, and you're left with no choice but to destroy the only group of people in act 3 to have any common sense.

Modifié par Veovim, 27 avril 2011 - 06:28 .

[Corwyn]

Stippling wrote...


The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.

Actually this was one of the things I rather liked about the story.  The sense of inevitablity, that event gather their own momentum no matter how much we might try to stop them and all a person can do is hold on and try to ride with the wave.  I thought it was very well done in Act II with the Qunari, despite the player's best efforts to put a lid on the powder keg Hawke can't control everything and eventaully events explode.

 On the other hand I thought it was not so well done in the last act.  This is partly I think because the story doesn't really make us care about Orsino or Meredith, neither is fleshed out.  The fact that both turn out to be crazy in my mind was also a let down.  In Act II I thought various people were in the wrong but I always believed they had real motivations this is kind of missing in Act III.

On the other hand with DAO I thought the player had too much control it always bothered me that everybody turns to a green Grey Warden recruit for all the answers.  When Arl Eamon asked me what I thought they should do about the guy who tried to have him killed I couldn't believe it, never mind the fact that I get to chose who sits on two thrones (Orzammer and Ferelden).  I always felt too overpowered in DAO I liked the feeling that DA2 gave of being at the mercy of events.

Modifié par Macgarnickle, 27 avril 2011 - 06:44 .

[LobselVith8]

noxsachi wrote...

That's dark fantasy. The closest DAO comes is with the broodmother concept, although sadly it didn't happen to a developed character, so there was no tragedy to it, just scquick. In DAO there definently was always a happy ending, and you say people pay for it, but they deserved it. You can't say Loghain or Howe or Zathrian didn't deserve their fate could you?

Plenty of people have argued about Loghain and whether he deserved to die at the Landsmeet, almost as much as people have argued over mages and templars.

noxsachi wrote...

Defending a tower full of maleficar to save the few remaining innocents or killing all the inhabitants of said tower so that the maleficar couldn't escape was a dark choice. Innocent people paid either way. That's why I think DAII was better than DAO in that regard.

It's not a dark choice when the fact is: Anders, the apostate, blew up the Chantry. Forcing an artificial conflict between the mages and templars isn't "dark fantasy," it's poor story-telling because there's no development between Orsino or Meredith, and we know next to nothing about the actual denizens of the Gallows because the antagonists we encounter are outside of the Gallows. DA:O provided an engaging story where the Warden was important because it was a time of Blight, and his actions changed the societies he encountered, while Hawke remains reactive to the point that he hardly does anything.

You seem to be arguing for the story to be "dark" for the sake of being dark. I found a story where the Warden had agency over his actions and the society around him to be more engaging than what we were provided in DAII, which was two antagonists who were under-developed and not half as engaging or complex as Loghain was forcing the protagonist to make a decision about an act that no Circle mage committed. Had we seen what the mages and apprentices were actually like instead of reading about it in Bethany's letter, or gotten something more than a Macguffin as our final resolution for the story, I think it would have more compelling.

[Pandaman102]

Macgarnickle wrote...

Actually this was one of the things I rather liked about the story.  The sense of inevitablity, that event gather their own momentum no matter how much we might try to stop them and all a person can do is hold on and try to ride with the wave.  I thought it was very well done in Act II with the Qunari, despite the player's best efforts to put a lid on the powder keg Hawke can't control everything and eventaully events explode.

On the other hand I thought it was not so well done in the last act.  This is partly I think because the story doesn't really make us care about Orsino or Meredith, neither is fleshed out.  The fact that both turn out to be crazy in my mind was also a let down.  In Act II I thought various people were in the wrong but I always believed they had real motivations this is kind of missing in Act III.

If the game sold this as "Gather the deadliest of allies to aid your struggle as the tide of fate thrusts you into a conflict that will change the world forever and raise you from destitute refugee to living legend", I might have liked it a bit more. Unfortunately it's pretty much exactly the opposite of what the first two key "features" of the game is supposed to be.

Macgarnickle wrote...
On the other hand with DAO I thought the player had too much control it always bothered me that everybody turns to a green Grey Warden recruit for all the answers.  When Arl Eamon asked me what I thought they should do about the guy who tried to have him killed I couldn't believe it, never mind the fact that I get to chose who sits on two thrones (Orzammer and Ferelden).  I always felt too overpowered in DAO I liked the feeling that DA2 gave of being at the mercy of events.

Amusingly Hawke and the Warden really should have traded places. A green Warden recruit realistically shouldn't have had such political pull (excluding faction-specific origins, like the Cousland Warden in Landsmeet, Dwarven Noble Warden in Orzammar, etc.) in in Ferelden, but converseley a noble and Champion of Kirkwall should have made big ripples in the relatively smaller pond.

[LobselVith8]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Amusingly Hawke and the Warden really should have traded places. A green Warden recruit realistically shouldn't have had such political pull (excluding faction-specific origins, like the Cousland Warden in Landsmeet, Dwarven Noble Warden in Orzammar, etc.) in in Ferelden, but converseley a noble and Champion of Kirkwall should have made big ripples in the relatively smaller pond.

I thought the treaties made sense. Orzammar needed a new ruler, the Wardens are respected because of their role against the darkspawn, and it's ultimately decided because of the intervention of the Paragon providing a crown to the Warden. The village of Redcliffe was in dire need of help, as were the Dalish elves. The Landsmeet made sense because Loghain directly addressed the Warden and acknowledged him as a presence, and was seeking his response, which shows that Loghain isn't a politician because he could have handled it differently. However, almost every noble in the Landsmeet realized the threat posed by the darkspawn because of how the Blight took the South, so it made perfect sense that the Warden - who assembled an army to combat the Blight and is part of an order that has taken down every Archdemon throughout history - would be acknowledged as a possible savior to their crisis.

[Pandaman102]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I thought the treaties made sense. Orzammar needed a new ruler, the Wardens are respected because of their role against the darkspawn, and it's ultimately decided because of the intervention of the Paragon providing a crown to the Warden. The village of Redcliffe was in dire need of help, as were the Dalish elves. The Landsmeet made sense because Loghain directly addressed the Warden and acknowledged him as a presence, and was seeking his response, which shows that Loghain isn't a politician because he could have handled it differently. However, almost every noble in the Landsmeet realized the threat posed by the darkspawn because of how the Blight took the South, so it made perfect sense that the Warden - who assembled an army to combat the Blight and is part of an order that has taken down every Archdemon throughout history - would be acknowledged as a possible savior to their crisis.

True, I'm just saying the scale of influence appears to be reversed. On one hand you have one person who's able to decide if the mages live or die, if the werewolves' curse is lifted or if the werewolves or Dalish perish, who becomes king of Orzammar, and who will rule Ferelden - all in the course of working your way to killing the Archdemon.

On the other hand Hawke can only become a noble (technically you shouldn't need to become a noble because it gets repeated over and over how powerless nobles are agains the Templars, so the actual goal is to become filthy rich) by going into the Deep Roads, you can only become Champion by getting dragged into Isabela's mess, and there's no way to avoid the Templar/Mage conflict because you need to kill both Orsino and Meredith for the story to finish as it's meant to - even though neither really need to die for the revolution (forced by Anders) to take off.

The main character of a story that takes place in a single city over the course of seven years should simply have more influence over that one city than the main character of a story that takes place across an entire kingdom in under a year has over said kingdom.

[DeathStride]

Stippling wrote...

Before you can decide if a mage is worth their repentance they’ll turn into a monstrous pride demon and you’ll have to kill them.

Gaider has said that they're trying to get people to side with the Templars (or more specifically, not automatically with the mages) but it's obvious that they went way overboard with the whole "mages = abominations" theme to the point where the whole thing becomes farcical.

Stippling wrote...

Orsino says something along the lines of, “You think mages are bad? I’ll prove you wrong!” And then cuts himself and immediately becomes a demon?

"Hey guys, thanks for protecting me. To show my gratitude I'm now going to block the loads of Templars outside this area with a magical barrier and attack all of YOU, my generous protectors and allies." Flat out most ludicrous moment in the game. Shattered my game immersion into a million pieces. Also, epitome of the problem I mentioned above where the writers tried to make mages seem somehow "deserving" of their abusive and oppressive treatment.

Stippling wrote...

I spent half the game thinking the end would be with the Qunari, and didn’t even know what I was fighting for until the last few hours.

I even did a survey about this, about how there's a complete lack of direction in the game. As one of my friends so aptly put it: "The story is significant, it just gets strangely mixed up in the game, with the final conflict coming up from the background instead of the fore."

Stippling wrote...

Secondly, the purpose of a siblings death is to make you feel a loss and a sense of empathy for Hawke and his family, but we have no feelings towards these characters from the beginning. [...] Why do I care that Bethany or Carver dies?

We get 2 deaths in the space of the first 15-20 minutes in a 40 hour game. As you said, there's zero gravity to either death because we didn't know jack about either character. It's like when a random enemy NPC dies, except that these two happen to have had names.

Stippling wrote...

Secondly, the living sibling spends roughly half the game missing in action, either separated or killed. Why could I not save Bethany from the chantry, or convince Carver to work with me in his spare time with the Templars? Why could I not see either of them during an expedition to the deep roads? This isn’t something that can be answered with, “you can’t always get what you want.” I spend the entire game smuggling mages or working for Templars, but my own flesh and blood cannot stop once in a matter of years to even say hello?

I completely agree.

Stippling wrote...

I didn’t start an expedition into the deep roads, Bartrand and Varric did. I didn’t cause the Qunari to uprise, Isabella did. I didn’t start a war, Anders did.

My feelings(and I think yours) are summed up quite well by what I saw a forum member post a week or two ago: "Anders changed the fate of Thedas, not Hawke."

Stippling wrote...

The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.

Hollow feeling indeed.

Modifié par DeathStride, 27 avril 2011 - 07:50 .

[FedericoV]

Stippling wrote...

The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story? And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game. It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.

What a nice read. I completely agree with your analisys and especially with your last point. Many people focuses on obvious secondary points like recycled areas or encounter design (like DA:O was perfect on those issues). But for me the main weakness of the game, what really left me cold at the end, was the disjointed and linear nature of the story, the complete lack of agency of the player charachter and most of all the removal of all the proper roleplaying elements and of the nice "world changing" choices and consequences.

The last point is really a mistery to me and they will never convince me if they explain that decision with "creative" reasons. I'm pretty sure that it's all about budget and time and that it's not the game they wanted to make, not by a long margin. I'm not talking of "concession". I'm talking of total surrender. So, that's no excuse: I would have preferred a smaller game the lenght of act. 1 & 2 that focuses heavily on the Qunari/Arishock and that have more paths on its way to the end than the linear/longer experience we have to face (if I have to choose, I allways prefer quality over quantity).

Another thing: the few interesting RP situation in the game have not materialized in my playthrough because most of them are strictly related to the charachters that you bring with you in determinate instances. It's not a great decision: the Bethany/Carver infection was a great plot. The alternative is really meh, if you have Carver instead of Bethany. My reaction was something like: "Oh, the annoying ****** has became a templar. Whatever". In general, Bethany storyline is more interesting than the Carver one and I really do not believe that the annoying ****** is a good subsitute for Bethany. Not by a long margin.

The Isabella situation was a no brainer: why should I handle her to the Arischock after she comes back to bring the book to me? And the Anders (aka Gay Fawkes) situation was not that great too because a) He was never part of my party so I never felt any kind connection with him or with what he believes (and he was changed so much from Awakening that the chartachters I loved was not the same)  It was phoned that he was in to something really bad and big that involved the Chantry c) What you do does not change anything important. Oh, yes, maybe a DLC (thus optional) charachter will invade Kirkwall if you not kill him...

And I would also like to point out that most of those C&C in my opinion were more focused on replayibility than proper roleplaying. They do not change the course of the storyline in any important way, they seem to be their only to give some illusion of choice. It's like someone was saying me: "See? This is an RPG". But it's not enough and honestly it felt a little bit pathetic. 

Mind, I was very excited by the more personal tale, by the "city that changes during 10 years" concept, by the frame narrative and the absence of a clear villain. Really, really, really excited. I would have not bought DA2 if the game was about another blight. Only, it appears to me that all those opportunities were not handled properly by the writers. And it breaks my hearts to admit it since I really love their work on all Bioware games and they have done a great job in DA2 too if we talk about charchters and dialogues.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 08:03 .

[Dave of Canada]

[quote]Stippling wrote...

1. Shades of Grey – A big winning quality of Dragon Age: Origins (and Awakening to a lesser extent) was the concept of, “no happy ending.” And while, in a broad sense, this pertains to the ending of DA2, if you look at it on a smaller scale, everything is so black and white.[/quote]

I feel the opposite on this situation, I felt that DA:O's endings were horribly black & white that any future metagamed playthrough would result in the player doing the "happy ending"  of every choice from start to finish.

(Going a bit into the story)

People who'd side with Harrowmont were now siding with Bhelen, people would cure the Werewolves, they'd side with the mages because they knew they were never inflicted with demons and they'd be able to save Connor without sacrificing everybody and they'd do the super-ultimate-fun-time ending depending on how they felt for each character:

God Baby.

Those who feel the God Baby will do some good things would harden Alistair and put him on the throne with Anora, spare Loghain and have the baby. This results in everybody being alive and celebrating, the god baby being born and you've got some cool shades.

Non-God Baby.
Those who felt like the God Baby will bite them back in the ass one day would harden Alistair, put him on the throne with Anora, spare Loghain and deny Morrigan. Everybody celebrates, the monarchy is strong and Loghain is now revered as a hero across Ferelden.


One of the greater things about Dragon Age 2, imo, was how each choice is rationalized differently. Somebody sending Feynriel to the Dalish may feel it's the good thing to do while others feel sending him to the Circle is better. We still have the metagame decisions that players will do in future playthroughs, though some of the things left open do not add a finality to it.

A player cannot decide that letting Feynriel go or siding with the Mages in the finale as being the "good thing" because the game never outright states it, which is imo it's greatest strength. The ending and choices have conjured far more arguments about who's right and who's wrong than the DA:O ending /choices, which in my opinion is shows that players feel differently about it.

I'd consider this a success when the Social Network tends to be filled with people who metagame decisions and argue for it or always go for the "lawful good" path of decisions. We've got the "lawful good" players arguing among themselves which is something that rarely happens on the forums in general.


[quote]


[/quote]

Silly caption time.

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN I SPIT WHEN I TALK?!"

[quote]
The beauty of villains like Loghain is that you can look at him and go, “Man, he was the villain this whole time, but does he deserve to die now that he’s on the ground waiting judgement.” Meredith’s views became irrelevant because a glowing red trinket made her turn into some crazed creature from hell. Orsino says something along the lines of, “You think mages are bad? I’ll prove you wrong!” And then cuts himself and immediately becomes a demon?[/quote]

Loghain was the character that I loved the most in DA:O, so... yep. I'm pretty much in agreement here, the game offered good characters with Orsino and Meredith until the finale. Meredith's reasoning for being harsh on mages made me sympathetic to her, though the entire idol and "LET'S GO CRAZY FOR NOTHING!" felt rather... forced.

I'd much prefer pretending that the idol didn't exist and Varric was just getting tired of narrating so he made **** up for the ending.

[quote]Why does blood magic immediately make you possessed? Why can my Hawke be a blood mage from level 7 on without even the temptation of demons?[/quote]

Gameplay mechanics, they can't show Mage Hawke decimating people with a single thought and mind controlling them because it's funny thanks to gameplay mechanics or struggling with demons through his life for class content balance. You can pretend that he's suffering through the temptations between the timeskips though that's going more into fanfiction territory.

It's the same reason apostate Hawke isn't taken by the templar when waving his magic around.

[quote]


[/quote]

"I love the smell of bacon in the morning."

[quote]Another point: Loghain was set as the “human” villain whilst the true evil of the story was the blight. Both were very clear from early on. I spent half the game thinking the end would be with the Qunari, and didn’t even know what I was fighting for until the last few hours.[/quote]

Honestly, I'm very certain that I'm in the minority here but I prefered not knowing how the game was going to end. I loved guessing who was going to be the last boss, my thought processes went from Flemeth to the Arishok to "I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE".

While I was certainly disappointed with how the last fights were handled, I prefered not knowing who was going to be the last bosses because it kept me guessing. I hate having this one goal in mind through the entire game and achieving it in the ending, like I didn't even care much for the Archdemon in DA:O. Though, like I said, it's very likely a minority point of view.

[quote]



[/quote]

"Sorry Orsino, we're going to be going with the A-Team."

[quote]The essence of this game franchise was all about gritty realism, but I feel like in Dragon Age 2 it’s all pre-categorized into group A or B. There is no middle ground.[/quote]

True from a choice point of view, though from a player point of view their reasoning for each choice differs greatly. For example, my pro-mage Hawke sided with the templar to try and contain the scenario. Other people might have different reasoning for siding with the templar / mages in the finale, though the choice itself is rather simplistic in terms of A & B.

[quote]

[/quote]

"You did THAT with drake urine?!"

[quote]Firstly, it doesn’t make a difference.[/quote]

It does if only barely.

Hawke/Bethany are trying to join the Deep Roads expedition because of the Templar hunting them, creating the scenario for Act 1 which eventually lead to Act 3's insanity.

Bethany & Carver exist to introduce somebody with opinions on both factions of the game, somebody who makes a non-mage and becomes anti-mage will deal with his sister's comments on everything while a pro-mage mage will hear Carver's side of things. It isn't much but we've had people side with the mages because they wanted to help Bethany for example.

[quote]



[/quote]

No lame comment for this one.


[quote]Secondly, the purpose of a siblings death is to make you feel a loss and a sense of empathy for Hawke and his family, but we have no feelings towards these characters from the beginning.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Why didn’t the story begin at Lothering?[/quote]

I would've loved to see Lothering fall, though I kind of like (not prefer or love) how it starts because it leaves much more to the player's imagination. Did Hawke care about Lothering at all? Was Hawke friends with the people in Lothering or a recluse? Ect. It leaves it more open for the player's imagination.

[quote]Why do I care that Bethany or Carver dies? I could go the whole game without knowing what the character was like and feeling no loss by not having him/her[/quote]

Yeah, it would've been better if Carver blaming you for Bethany's death (for example) was something you actually cared about. A Mage hears maybe five lines from her before she goes splat with little character development.

[quote]


[/quote]

"You guys! I'm done playing tag, this is childish!"

[quote]Secondly, the living sibling spends roughly half the game missing in action, either separated or killed. Why could I not save Bethany from the chantry, or convince Carver to work with me in his spare time with the Templars? Why could I not see either of them during an expedition to the deep roads? This isn’t something that can be answered with, “you can’t always get what you want.” I spend the entire game smuggling mages or working for Templars, but my own flesh and blood cannot stop once in a matter of years to even say hello?[/quote]

Sort of explained in the game itself, though rather... poorly. Maybe it's just me but the seperation from them made me smile when they showed up again, seeing Carver again in Act 2 / 3's finales made me crack a smile for example.

[quote]Finally, the mother situation. It is pretty clear that the cut was a matter of development needs, but there’s such a huge build up to an inevitable end. And despite the hilarious Star Wars Episode 2 references, I felt that this quest chain left a lot to be desired.[/quote]

Loved the quest myself, just wish that she died and didn't say how she was proud of me before dying.

[quote]


[/quote]

Orsino: "I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE SAND PEOPLE ALL ALONG, THEIR SAND MAGIC RESEARCH IS PRETTY DARN USEFUL"

[quote]I didn’t start an expedition into the deep roads, Bartrand and Varric did. I didn’t cause the Qunari to uprise, Isabella did. I didn’t start a war, Anders did.[/quote]

This is why I felt Hawke was my favorite protagonist in all previous Bioware games, he felt powerless in his duty. He wasn't given protagonist powers and starts everything in the universe, solves all the world's problems and comes home in town to save their family from the evil villain.

Hawke's just an average joe (who happens to be Nobility/Champion of Kirkwall/possible Viscount) that goes through an entire journey out of their control. Hawke is never given a position of protagonist armor, (s)he'll never arrive before it's too late or stop a conflict that's been brewing for years because they go "STOP IT".


[quote]The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story?[/quote]

Nothing. Which is why I like it.

[quote]And perhaps for myself and maybe others, the story, for the first time, was the ultimate flaw of this Bioware game.[/quote]

And I find it one of their strongest works (except for maybe the "everybody's insane" finale)

[quote]It planted all the seeds but the giant brick wall at the end left a hollow feeling and the desire for more.[/quote]

I thought that was a good thing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 avril 2011 - 07:59 .

[FedericoV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The end conclusion is, what did I do to affect this story?

Nothing. Which is why I like it.

So, let me get this straight cause I do not want to misunderstand you: you like the fact that they remove all the proper roleplaying elements from the franchise?

[noxsachi]

LobselVith8 wrote...

noxsachi wrote...

That's dark fantasy. The closest DAO comes is with the broodmother concept, although sadly it didn't happen to a developed character, so there was no tragedy to it, just scquick. In DAO there definently was always a happy ending, and you say people pay for it, but they deserved it. You can't say Loghain or Howe or Zathrian didn't deserve their fate could you?

Plenty of people have argued about Loghain and whether he deserved to die at the Landsmeet, almost as much as people have argued over mages and templars.

noxsachi wrote...

Defending a tower full of maleficar to save the few remaining innocents or killing all the inhabitants of said tower so that the maleficar couldn't escape was a dark choice. Innocent people paid either way. That's why I think DAII was better than DAO in that regard.

It's not a dark choice when the fact is: Anders, the apostate, blew up the Chantry. Forcing an artificial conflict between the mages and templars isn't "dark fantasy," it's poor story-telling because there's no development between Orsino or Meredith, and we know next to nothing about the actual denizens of the Gallows because the antagonists we encounter are outside of the Gallows. DA:O provided an engaging story where the Warden was important because it was a time of Blight, and his actions changed the societies he encountered, while Hawke remains reactive to the point that he hardly does anything.

You seem to be arguing for the story to be "dark" for the sake of being dark. I found a story where the Warden had agency over his actions and the society around him to be more engaging than what we were provided in DAII, which was two antagonists who were under-developed and not half as engaging or complex as Loghain was forcing the protagonist to make a decision about an act that no Circle mage committed. Had we seen what the mages and apprentices were actually like instead of reading about it in Bethany's letter, or gotten something more than a Macguffin as our final resolution for the story, I think it would have more compelling.

Loghain was by far the most engaging part of the story in DAO, I'll give you that. I'm probably the minority here in that I really found DAO's story bland, boring and pedantic, carried only by the excellent companions. I dunno I found Loghain and Meredith really quite similar; ruthless hardliners who went loopy at the ends of their respective careers. I've also only spared him once, at the insistence of a friend, and if I ever replay DAO again, he gets the murder knife, great villain, but I just can't spare him.

Now I will say that I hate the lolIdol that resolves Meredith's plot. I'd have much rather had her be ruthless. And well I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I believe there was sufficient reason to annul the circle, particularly Orsino being like THERE ARE NO BLOOD MAGES HERE BUT YOU CANT SEARCH MY TOWER NEENER NEENER. That's kind of suspicious. Now could they have been better developed? You bet. I'd have loved about 3-4x more interaction with Orsino and Meredith, but as is, at least siding with the templars makes Orsino going mad make some sense.

And before you or Polaris come in here screaming genocide...

[Viyu]

Nothing. Which is why I like it.

I think the problem is that while that may've been great for another franchise, that's hardly what people pay for when they pay to see a Bioware game. There are plenty of games like that on the market, like Final Fantasy.

[Dave of Canada]

FedericoV wrote...

So, let me get this straight cause I do not want to misunderstand you: you like the fact that they remove all the proper roleplaying elements from the franchise?

You define who Hawke is, you do choices and befriend / berival people and see how Hawke is caught up in the whole Templar / Mage mess. I didn't know you had to do world altering choices for it to be considered a roleplaying game.

[noxsachi]

Dave of Canada wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

So, let me get this straight cause I do not want to misunderstand you: you like the fact that they remove all the proper roleplaying elements from the franchise?

You define who Hawke is, you do choices and befriend / berival people and see how Hawke is caught up in the whole Templar / Mage mess. I didn't know you had to do world altering choices for it to be considered a roleplaying game.

As someone who prefers more personal stories to 'epic' ones, I like how this did function as an extended Origin story for Hawke. It really allowed me to shape her as a person, rather than shaping the narative. Is that the job of an RPG? I don't know. As a fan of visual novels, for example, I'd say that Fate/Stay Night had a great deal of roleplaying required to get the best end, in that you had to act how Shirou would act. (ie. a collasal lawful stupid idiot) Is that more roleplaying that simply creating your own character? I dunno. But defining character and the interactions between them mean a great deal more to me than choosing which dwarf I'll never see again is king.

Basically, I would've prefered Origins if they got rid of that annoying combat thing and made it more about just talking with people and your companions, since in comparision to Hawke the warden is pretty bricklike. Not Sheppard-like, but close.

Modifié par noxsachi, 27 avril 2011 - 08:19 .

[LobselVith8]

noxsachi wrote...

Loghain was by far the most engaging part of the story in DAO, I'll give you that. I'm probably the minority here in that I really found DAO's story bland, boring and pedantic, carried only by the excellent companions. I dunno I found Loghain and Meredith really quite similar; ruthless hardliners who went loopy at the ends of their respective careers. I've also only spared him once, at the insistence of a friend, and if I ever replay DAO again, he gets the murder knife, great villain, but I just can't spare him.

I didn't find Loghain and Meredith similar. Loghain was driven to protect the people of Ferelden because of their brutal occupation for over a century by the Orlesian Empire, and Meredith lost her mind to a Lyrium Idol.

noxsachi wrote...

Now I will say that I hate the lolIdol that resolves Meredith's plot. I'd have much rather had her be ruthless. And well I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I believe there was sufficient reason to annul the circle, particularly Orsino being like THERE ARE NO BLOOD MAGES HERE BUT YOU CANT SEARCH MY TOWER NEENER NEENER. That's kind of suspicious. Now could they have been better developed? You bet. I'd have loved about 3-4x more interaction with Orsino and Meredith, but as is, at least siding with the templars makes Orsino going mad make some sense.

Speculation is a poor substitute for facts when people's lives are on the line.

noxsachi wrote...

And before you or Polaris come in here screaming genocide...

I'm addressing that the conflict between the mages and templars is forced.

[Pandaman102]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You define who Hawke is, you do choices and befriend / berival people and see how Hawke is caught up in the whole Templar / Mage mess. I didn't know you had to do world altering choices for it to be considered a roleplaying game.

Considering the role you're given is Champion and most important person in Kirkwall, influencing the the city - which in turn should have effects on the story - is part of the role you're supposed to be playing. If the story was about Hawke, Guardsman of the Month then the inability to do anything other than kill people might be more palatable.

[LobselVith8]

noxsachi wrote...

Basically, I would've prefered Origins if they got rid of that annoying combat thing and made it more about just talking with people and your companions, since in comparision to Hawke the warden is pretty bricklike. Not Sheppard-like, but close.  

I found it easier to immerse myself in the story of the Warden, which is probably because we had more creative license in developing what kind of person the protagonist was rather than being forced to deal with personality traits that are forced on us, and we had more than three emotions to choose from in our dialogue responses.