109 réponses à ce sujet

[Corto81]

noxsachi wrote...


Mmm, I will agree that yeah plenty of grey characters exist, its just that more or less alongside those grey choices are the white ones.
Like Redcliffe really should've been, kill Conor or kill his mother to save him. Thats a grey choice and carries alot of drama with it. However the warden can just run to the Circle and fix everyone, a white choice that many players will do, because hey, everyone is happy. I myself always do this because I mean I like getting the chance to make myself feel all warm and fuzzy.
But grey, dark, whatever fantasy is about not allowing those warm and fuzzy choices to exist at all. Its supposed to be uncomfortable. Its sorta like with why they didn't let you save your mother in All that Remains. Is letting her die more interesting for the story? I think so. But 90% of us are going to save her if that was an option because that big group of us wants to be big godamned heroes.
One of the lessons of grey fantasy is that big godamned heroes don't exist. Or that those that try to be a hero end up very dead, very fast.

Fair enough, I agree, especially in recent big fantasy novels, it's all very grey and nobody's safe (Martin, Abercrombie, Erikson, Bakker, etc.).

I don't mind the "white "choice though, as long as it feels real.

For example, I always save the boy and the mother in Redcliffe if I had done Mage Tower by then.
It makes sense.

If, in that playthrough, I hadn't, then I leave the Mage Tower out of it and make the tough decision who to sacrifice.

But yeah, the dark/grey fantasy - speaking of RPG games here -  isn't about getting forced sick/discusting content into the game regardless of what the player does (Leandra in DA2 IMO), but to set a believable wrold and belieable characters where you decisions and behaviour matter.... WIth realistic consequences.

I felt very involved and immersed in DA:O cos that was the case, and I still feel a part of it every time I play Origins.
On my 7th playthrough, I'm still excited at the Ostagar scene, POd and satisfied when I do Arl Howe in, exact revenge on Loghain etc.

I just don't feel any connection to my DA2 character like that, or my companions, or the world.
It feels dead and it feels fake... 

In DA2, characters exist to give me quests, and the wold exists for me to quest in.
In DA:O, you quest and you live and have relationships in a world that feels "real".

Modifié par Corto81, 27 avril 2011 - 10:59 .

[Ulicus]

I'm inclined to agree. I didn't feel like there was any particular "lack" of RP in DA2.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure though if denial falls under "intelligent, thoughtful criticism" either. Maybe if people would be more serious about being intelligent and throughtful then there would be better discussions possible.

Right.  It's denial.  Has to be.  It's impossible for it to be anything else!

Couldn't be that people actually - like - something, could it?  Nah they're probly paid shills or delusional.  That's a lot more plausible and not at all self-serving an explanation.

I have no problem with people liking streamlinedness. I have a problem with people claiming there is none if there obviously is. I could go into detail about certain quests etc. that blatantly keep you from 'defining' your own character, or better said giving Hawke a certain character. That would for example be quests that you decline but still get updated as if accepted and if you just don't do it (if they are not main quests) you don't get the XP/rewards but the game still treats it as if you did it in the next chapter. Basically if you say 'no' you get a club on the head and dragged into a cave. If you know what I mean. You like that? Good. You say it didn't happen? Then I have to say you have an agenda. In which case ad hominem is more or less justified.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 27 avril 2011 - 12:14 .

[AlexXIV]

Rojahar wrote...

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.

It annoys me how people often confuse roleplaying and crafting fanfiction. There's plenty of roleplaying in DA2. I felt like there was more than DAO. You decide the nuances, the personality, and reasoning of Hawke. Controlling every event and every person in the universe is not roleplaying; that's writing a story. There's a difference between the two, but I doubt most on this forum could ever comprehend it. We're the player, roleplaying Hawke, but we're not the GM. People are upset because they don't play God of the Universe story-metagamer. I like that though. It makes the story more realistic. Sometimes other people don't do whatever I say.

RP is not about controlling, that's right. But it is about making decisions. If they then don't go your way, too bad. But basically being stripped of choice to begin with I would rather see as someone making a decision for me. And it even happens in smaller quests which makes me think it is not about 'telling a certain story', but more about reducing options because it is cheaper. Quests that offer multiple choices and paths to solve them use up more ressources and still only offer the same amount of 'playtime'.

[FedericoV]

Rojahar wrote...

It annoys me how people often confuse roleplaying and crafting fanfiction. There's plenty of roleplaying in DA2. I felt like there was more than DAO. You decide the nuances, the personality, and reasoning of Hawke. Controlling every event and every person in the universe is not roleplaying; that's writing a story. There's a difference between the two, but I doubt most on this forum could ever comprehend it. People are upset because they don't play God of the Universe story-metagamer. I like that though. It makes the story more realistic.

Sorry, but for me the way roleplaying is handled in DA2 is more similar to crafting fanfiction than proper roleplaying. Because it's all in your head and the game at the end does not give a lot of importance to it. And you do not decide anything: you only give the tone to the reaction of Hawke to what's happening in the game according to the plot.

I don't want to controll every event: I want to interact with them in a meaningfull way. They are two different things. I don't want to feel so driven by the writers. I don't want to be the master of the universe, I want a game that reacts to my choices and reflect them with consequences that appear in the game and not just in my head. I'm not interested in Hawke's favourite colour or in his position on slavery if it does not influece the game I'm playing.

I want to interact with the story because, you know, if I wanted to read/watch a story passively there are better medium than videgoames and there are better stories than DA2 (even in the videogames field... you know, DA2 it's not "The Road" of videgaming...). And no, to express an opinion is not to interact with the event. While I watch a movie, sometime I make a comment about a scene I like/dislike. That's how I felt while playing DA2, especially from the end of act 2, since there you realize that all your previous choices account to nothing in the end.

At the end there is only one meaningfull way to interact with Thedas in DA2: combat. It's the only way to make a difference. Wich is fun and all but I don't get why I have to spend all that time choosing dialogue option and listening to convolute npc lines that talk about "serious stuff" in a silly environment, if at the end I'm still playing Baldur's Gate 2 (wich, I said previously, was at least more efficient in its use of resources, lighter and less pretentious).

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 12:57 .

[Maria Caliban]

I appreciate the thought Stippling put into this even if I disagree and believe the pictures were less to illuminate the subject matter and more to score internet cool points.

[Morroian]

Rojahar wrote...

It annoys me how people often confuse roleplaying and crafting fanfiction. There's plenty of roleplaying in DA2. I felt like there was more than DAO. You decide the nuances, the personality, and reasoning of Hawke. Controlling every event and every person in the universe is not roleplaying; that's writing a story. There's a difference between the two, but I doubt most on this forum could ever comprehend it. We're the player, roleplaying Hawke, but we're not the GM. People are upset because they don't play God of the Universe story-metagamer. I like that though. It makes the story more realistic. Sometimes other people don't do whatever I say.

So much word to this. Governing the direction of the story is almost just a trope of rpgs rather than being actual role playing. 

[FedericoV]

AlexXIV wrote...

RP is not about controlling, that's right. But it is about making decisions. If they then don't go your way, too bad. But basically being stripped of choice to begin with I would rather see as someone making a decision for me. And it even happens in smaller quests which makes me think it is not about 'telling a certain story', but more about reducing options because it is cheaper. Quests that offer multiple choices and paths to solve them use up more ressources and still only offer the same amount of 'playtime'.

I completely agree. Trying to justify how DA2 handles the roleplaying part (especially for the "consequences") with creative or artistic reason is good faith turned in to denial. They were just cutting corners and I will never believe that the way the game unfolds is what the writers/developers have originally envisioned.

Wich could be even fine at the end because I'm a reasonable person, I work too and I know what it means to live within the budget. But I must say that for a linear experience like DA2, they wasted too much resources on dialogues, giving an impression of choice that never materialize thius leaving many player dissatisfied. If you want to develop a linear storydriven/cinematic game that focus on combat and you are short with time and budget, DA2 is not the game you should do.

[Stippling]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I appreciate the thought Stippling put into this even if I disagree and believe the pictures were less to illuminate the subject matter and more to score internet cool points.

Can you elaborate more on what you disagree about?

In terms of the pictures, the function was neither of what you suggested. It was simply to break up a wall of text so people would read it. If all you took out of it was the pictures then I guess I missed the mark.

[FedericoV]

Morroian wrote...

So much word to this. Governing the direction of the story is almost just a trope of rpgs rather than being actual role playing. 

It's not governing: it's INTERACTING. And if I cannot interact with the story and generate some sort of emerging gaming, what should I do in a computer RPG? In P&P RPG if I express my self with dialogues or charachterization not related to the plot/environment, I met the reaction of my gaming friends in real time and that's interesting because it's not driven and most of all it's done with real people. What is the point  doing so in a single player game? Discuss with computer NPCs like they are real person is a better alternative than to interact with the story? Especially, what's the point if the game does not react in any way to what you do? I mean, I was a Blood Mage in DA2 and templars and friends do not give a f*ck. Do you call it charachterization?

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 01:39 .

[Corto81]

FedericoV wrote...

Morroian wrote...

So much word to this. Governing the direction of the story is almost just a trope of rpgs rather than being actual role playing. 

It's not governing: it's INTERACTING. And if I cannot interact with the story and generate some sort of emerging gaming, what should I do in a computer RPG? In P&P RPG if I express my self with dialogues or charachterization not related to the plot/environment, I met the reaction of my gaming friends in real time and that's interesting because it's not driven and most of all it's done with real people. What is the point  doing so in a single player game? Discuss with computer NPCs like they are real person is a better alternative than to interact with the story? Especially, what's the point if the game does not react in any way to what you do? I mean, I was a Blood Mage in DA2 and templars and friends do not give a f*ck. Do you call it charachterization?

Exactly.

Not everything with levels and items is an RPG.

I think you put it right. DA2 is lacking in interacting with the enviroment.... It stays the same no matter what you do or say, on a smaller or bigger scale.

[ajm317]

Viyu wrote...

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.

I don't agree.

Everytime someone comes in and complains about the plot of DA2 it usually comes down to this one thing: I had no impact on the outcome.  Everyone nods their heads in agreement and then we move on, until the next person finishes the game and repeats the process.

The unspoken assumption here is that not impacting the outcome is "bad", my question is why?

Literature is full of characters who do not controll their fate.  It was a particularly common theme in Greek literature, but it pops up all over the place.  Nobody says Oedipus Rex was a bad story because Oedipus was at the mercy of the Fates.  Much of the point of the tale is that the main character is swept up in events beyond his control.

Some might argue that because games (and Bioware games in particular) allow the players choice that this type of story is not suitable to the medium.  I disagree.  This is exactly why games are the ideal choice of medium for such a story.  When you read a Greek tragedy the main character shuffles along to his inevitable fate sure enough, but the reader is always left thinking "if only he hadn't done that one thing, everything would have been fine!"  Games remove this crutch by allowing you to do that one thing, and showing you that it didn't matter anyway.  Conventional literature and games like Final Fantasy where you are offered no choices do not do this.

A game like Final Fantasy can not tell this story the way a Bioware game can.  If you are trying to craft a story where human choice is meaningless, the most important thing you can do is give the person choice.

Modifié par ajm317, 27 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[FedericoV]

Corto81 wrote...

Exactly.

Not everything with levels and items is an RPG.

I think you put it right. DA2 is lacking in interacting with the enviroment.... It stays the same no matter what you do or say, on a smaller or bigger scale.

Yep! According to the persons I quoted, The Sim is a CRPG while Fallout 1 is not...

[Ulicus]

@ ajm317

Bravo, ser.

Modifié par Ulicus, 27 avril 2011 - 01:59 .

[FedericoV]

ajm317 wrote...

Literature is full of characters who do not controll their fate.  It was a particularly common theme in Greek literature, but it pops up all over the place.  Nobody says Oedipus Rex was a bad story because Oedipus was at the mercy of the Fates.  Much of the point of the tale is that the main character is swept up in events beyond his control.

OMG . Are you really using Greek Literature to justify the structure of a fantasy CRPG that at the end, you know, it's just a toy? A toy for grown up child like me but still, you know... a toy!

What's next? Are we going to use the Sistine Chapel to justify the bugs in Obsidian Games? You know, Rome wasn't build in a day . Are we going to use Becket to justify the stupidity of the dialogues of Bethesda's games? You know, it's an homage to the theater of absurd.

Pls it's not that hard to aknowledge the truth. I am a supporter of Bioware too. I supported the general direction of DA2 too before I completed the game. But the complete lack of choice and consequences, the complete lack of proper roleplaying element was not an artistic decision driven by the need to emulate greek tragedy, but merely a way to save time and money. 

I understand if marketing try to sell me some "corners cut" as a feature. That's old as the history of videogaming. But I cannot believe that players actually still believes the marketing and even try to use Shackespeare, Euripides or Plato to justify it.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 02:13 .

[ajm317]

FedericoV wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Literature is full of characters who do not controll their fate.  It was a particularly common theme in Greek literature, but it pops up all over the place.  Nobody says Oedipus Rex was a bad story because Oedipus was at the mercy of the Fates.  Much of the point of the tale is that the main character is swept up in events beyond his control.

OMG . Are you really using Greek Literature to justify the structure of a fantasy CRPG that at the end, you know, it's just a toy? A toy for grown up child like me but still, you know... a toy!

What's next? Are we going to use the Sistine Chapel to justify the bugs in Obsidian Game? You know, Rome wasn't build in a day .

DA2 has a story.  Oedipus had a story.  It is not unreasonable.

Is DA2 as good as one of the greatest works of western literature?  No, of course not.  Ultimately it's roughly on tier with a summer popcorn flick in terms of quality.  That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and compare it to stories that do reach high standards.

If we don't compare games to great works, then games will never be great works.

Pls it's not that hard to aknowledge the truth. I am a supporter of Bioware too. I supported the general direction of DA2 too before I played the entire game. But the complete lack of choice and consequences, the complete lack of proper roleplaying element was not an artistic decision driven by the need to emulate greek tragedy, but merely a way to save time and money. 

I understand if marketing try to sell me some "corners cut" as a feature. That's old as the history of videogaming. But I cannot believe that players actually still believes it and even try to use Shackespeare, Euripides or Plato to justify it.

Whether or not it was a decision to save money is irrelevant.  What matters is how it stands as a story on it's own.  What kind of story it might have been with more time and money is not important to evaluating the story that it actually was.

Modifié par ajm317, 27 avril 2011 - 02:15 .

[Ulicus]

FedericoV wrote...
not an artistic decision driven by the need to emulate greek tragedy, but merely a way to save time and money.

But who cares if the effect is the same?

Edit: Ah, ninja'ed. Should post before making sandwiches.

Modifié par Ulicus, 27 avril 2011 - 02:16 .

[FedericoV]

ajm317 wrote...

DA2 has a story.  Oedipus had a story.  It is not unreasonable.

Is DA2 as good as one of the greatest works of western literature?  No, of course not.  Ultimately it's roughly on tier with a summer popcorn flick in terms of quality.  That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and compare it to stories that do reach high standards.

If we don't compare games to great works, then games will never be great works.

My point is: untill we will use literature or cinema as a standard for gaming, we will never see great works in the gaming field. Games should be judged in their own terms. One of the most important point of gaming is interactivity. If a game misses entire layers of interactivity in the way the story plays out, especially in a genre like CRPG that is founded upon that premise, we cannot use external source like the greek tragedy to save it. It's out of place and does not help the media to improve. It's just another excuse for the marketing department: and when you push a button, something tragic happens .

Whether or not it was a decision to save money is irrelevant.  What matters it how it stands as a story on it's own.  What kind of story it might have been with more time and money is not important to evaluating the story that it actually was.

But the story must be judged in gaming terms and not using the canon of external sources like literature. And in gaming terms I feel the story was lacking any kind of interactivity since the only interaction I was allowed with it was combat. So it's a very poor story and a not efficient use of resources for a game that invested so much time, effort and money on dialogues.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 02:31 .

[ajm317]

FedericoV wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

DA2 has a story.  Oedipus had a story.  It is not unreasonable.

Is DA2 as good as one of the greatest works of western literature?  No, of course not.  Ultimately it's roughly on tier with a summer popcorn flick in terms of quality.  That doesn't mean we can't talk about it and compare it to stories that do reach high standards.

If we don't compare games to great works, then games will never be great works.

My point is: untill we will use literature or cinema as a standard for gaming, we will never see great works in the gaming field. Games should be judged in their own terms. One of the most important point of gaming is interactivity. If a game misses entire layers of interactivity in the way the story plays out, especially in a genre like CRPG that is founded upon that premise, we cannot use external source like the greek tragedy to save it. It's out of place and does not help the media to improve. It's just another exuse for the marketing department: and when you push a button, something tragic happens .

Whether or not it was a decision to save money is irrelevant.  What matters it how it stands as a story on it's own.  What kind of story it might have been with more time and money is not important to evaluating the story that it actually was.

But the story must be jusged in terms of gaming and not in terms of external sources like literature. In terms of gaming I feel the story was lacking any kind of interactivity since the only interaction I was allowed with it was combat. So it's a very poor story for a game that invest so much time, effort and resources on dialogues.

First of all, you have interactivity.  You can have your Hawke reacting to the world around him/her in a variety of ways, which has some limited input into that world.

Second of all, again, why is the lack of ability to influence the story bad?  Because you CAN create a game where you influence the story?  You can also make color films, people still film in black and white.  Just because you can do something does not mean you must.  If your claim is that any game that does not allow the player a large degree of input into the plot is a failure you must argue that point, not simply state it.  In fact very few games have this feature.

Modifié par ajm317, 27 avril 2011 - 02:32 .

[_Aine_]

FedericoV wrote...

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?

That is what made it a decent story *if* you weren't interested in having an effect on the story.  If you want a dynamic story that changes because of your presence in the world?  That hollow feeling may have less to do with story, than a feeling of detachment from the outcome because of having zero effect on that outcome.   To each their own.  

Disappointment comes from many things I think, but for me I never felt like the Champion.  Had they never used the word, I never would have expected to make a difference, even if I left disappointed as the take away mood (a valid and interesting ending in general even though I disliked the end of the game, mostly).  That said, I enjoyed the game enough despite all the things I wish had been different.  Still, I understand the frustrations of many too.  

Modifié par shantisands, 27 avril 2011 - 02:40 .

[thermalware]

First of all, you have interactivity.  You can have your Hawke reacting to the world around him/her in a variety of ways, which has some limited input into that world.

Second of all, again, why is the lack of ability to influence the story bad?  Because you CAN create a game where you influence the story?  You can also make color films, people still film in black and white.  Just because you can do something does not mean you must.  If your claim is that any game that does not allow the player a large degree of input into the plot is a failure you must argue that point, not simply state it.  In fact very few games have this feature.

That's silly argument. By your logic you can defend any bad story by saying "well that's how I made it".

For a movie/story/game to be considered great, it has to influence the watcher/player/listener in some powerful emotional way, DA:O did that very well in many ways.. using music, pacing and CHOICES that influenced the outcome of the game. DA2 didn't and hence is considered bad compared to its predecessor.

OP listed out his reasons very well, you may thumb your nose and not like it but his reasons are still valid so far..

[FedericoV]

ajm317 wrote...
First of all, you have interactivity.  You can have your Hawke reacting to the world around him/her in a variety of ways, which has some limited input into that world.

Wich are? You have combat. Then?

I'm not talking of Hawke reacting to the plot saying "too bad" or "I'm smart" or "Me angry!, I'm talking of Hawke interacting with it and changing the course of events even on a small basis (and the environment reacting to his choices in good or bad way). 

Second of all, again, why is the lack of ability to influence the story bad? 

Because it's an RPG and the genre is founded on that premise (between others). The control could be greater or smaller but any successful game in the history of the genre was builded on that premise. The player influence his story and change the gaming world wich reacts to his decision. And you know, people used to like it!

I would not use "plot interactivity" as a tool to judge the quality of say God of War or Uncharted. But that's one of the elements that every professional reviewer use to judge an RPG. Maybe they are just all lacking in Greek Tragedy...

Because you CAN create a game where you influence the story? 

Because that's what CRPG do best. Other genres are better in developing linear and cinematic experience or offering fun/responsive/deep combat.

And even because there is no point to invest all those effort and resources on witty dialogues and fancy voice over if then I have an RPG without any kind of C&C. Since it's meant to be linear and focused on combat, they better invested those money to have more unique dungeons and environments imho.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 03:19 .

[ajm317]

thermalware wrote...

That's silly argument. By your logic you can defend any bad story by saying "well that's how I made it".

For
a movie/story/game to be considered great, it has to influence the
watcher/player/listener in some powerful emotional way, DA:O did that
very well in many ways.. using music, pacing and CHOICES that influenced
the outcome of the game. DA2 didn't and hence is considered bad
compared to its predecessor.

OP listed out his reasons very well, you may thumb your nose and not like it but his reasons are still valid so far..

I don't understand how this response was made to my post.  I haven't even said that DA2 was good unless you feel "summer popcorn flick" is good.

All I said was that the lack of player impact on the world did not by itself doom the story.  Whether DA2 had an emotional impact is a subjective thing, and if it did not have an emotional impact on you then it was not a good story, for you, but the lack of "player impact" alone cannot be responsible for that, unless you have never seen a movie or a book that had an impact on you, since those mediums have no room for "player impact" at all.

FedericoV wrote...

ajm317 wrote...
First of all, you have interactivity.  You can have your Hawke reacting to the world around him/her in a variety of ways, which has some limited input into that world.

Wich are? You have combat. Then?

I'm not talking of Hawke reacting to the plot saying "too bad" or "I'm smart" or "Me angry!, I'm talking of Hawke interacting with it and changing the course of events even on a small basis.

First of all Hawke reacting to the plot is a player choice.  It just has not impact on the plot itself.  My point is that giving the player choices like this, choices that have no real impact themselves, is making an artistic statement itself.

That said you do impact the plot in some ways.  Depending on your choices your brother is either dead, a warden or a templar.

Second of all, again, why is the lack of ability to influence the story bad? 

Because it's an RPG and the genre is founded on that premise (between others).  The control could be greater or smaller but any successful game in the
history of the genre was builded on that premise. The player influence
his story and change the gaming world wich reacts to his decision.

I don't really care what kind of game DA2 is labeled as.  Either it's good or not.  Whether or not is an RPG has no impact on that.

If you expect certain things from an RPG and DA2 does not deliver them, then either your expectations need to be reevaluated or DA2 is not an RPG.  Either way, the game is either good or bad.

And you know, people used to like it!

Maybe people would like other things to?

Because that's what CRPG do best. Other genres are better in developing linear and cinematic experience or offering fun/responsive/deep combat.

And even because there is no point to invest all those effort and resources on witty dialogues and fancy voice over if then I have an RPG without any kind of C&C. Since it's meant to be linear and focused on combat, they better invested those money to have more unique dungeons and environments imho.

This ignores my earlier point entirely.  CRPG is the IDEAL genre for this type of story BECAUSE it allows for player choice.  As I said, if you want a story that demonstrates human choice is of limited impact, the most effective way to convey that point is to give humans choice.

Modifié par ajm317, 27 avril 2011 - 03:23 .

[Beerfish]

"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."

This is a postive not a negative and fits perfectly within the framed narrative and the story Varric tells.  The Hero is not supposed to know what's truly going on until the end.  Cassandra keeps trying to nail down Varric with the fact that the Hero knew more than he/she did and knew it earlier than he/she did.  This was a nice change from the thing you listed earlier as a postive, that being that we know the Blight is the big threat and that Loghain is traitor from about the 1st hour into the game.

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.

There was all sorts of middle ground and grey areas right up until the end.  In most of my playthroughs I have a very tough time making up my mind as to who should be supported.  Unfortunately they went a little bonkers for end battles and made it so your final choice didn't mean much at all because both Orsino and Meredith go off the deep end and Elthina gets blown to bits.  They did a fine job building up a tough decision right up until the end battles.


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.

Agreed, this held a lot of promise and they did have some nice touching moments but when there is a very good chance you lose all of them really through not fault of your own is not a good thing.  The immediately taking one away at the start was clumbsy.  I would have rather they made that character not be a fighter mage or rogue at all.  It was a good idea but the execution ended up making one think "They just gave me a family so they could kill them all for the dark, tragic theme.

Modifié par Beerfish, 27 avril 2011 - 03:36 .