109 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

ajm317 wrote...

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.

I'm ignoring your point on purpose because it's not even a point. Sorry, it wont be intelligent and toughtfull, but as AlexXIV has said, that's simply denial. You like an RPG story without any kind of interactivity? Fine. You are allright with a game that screams "budget" and "time" from any corner you look at it? No problem with it. That's your game and your money.

But you cannot falsify the reality of that game trying to present certain choices as artistic decision, justifing those choices and even glorifying them since, you know, in greek tragedy the protagonist was doomed too. Sorry, but that's just rethoric. The same rethoric they have used to convince customer like me to preorder the game.

RPG or not, for me, the story and the game were not that good nonetheless. Not going to judge the story on its own because it's not even worth it. But speaking as a player, if you want to tell a tragic tale and make it
believable and interesting in a gaming context, you have to make me careabout the story, the NPC and the environment where the story happens. If you treat me like a passive observer that can only "review" the events of
the story or interact with them just mindlessly killing things without feeling any kind of sorrow, guilt or responsability, it all seems like a fake tragedy. Thus, the game is a failure because it's not builded to make the player care about the story. Most of all the story try to touch too many topics with its "3 storyline" structure and fails to capture each of them completely.

A very good game with a tragic and poetic theme running underground was Shadow of the Colossus. A game that delivered a very sad tale with a (mostly) bad and scripted end and that used only images, music, interaction, hints about a story that you can only speculate about and a handfull of dialogues. I cared more about Haro, the horse you use in that game, than any NPC in DA2. If you want to deliver a tragedy, that's the way to do it. The most important lesson: show, don't tell. Why should I care about a situation that I never experience but that only came to know with dialogues? There's nothing in the game that speak about that tragedy outside of dialogues and rrare cutscene.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 04:16 .

[uanime5]

ajm317 wrote...

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.

Having no impact on the plot is the same as having no choice. Choosing whether to respond diplomatically, sarcstically, or rudely becomes meaningless when all the characters react exactly the same way. The current player choices are like being able to choose whether Hawke wears blue, red, or green armour rather than something that affects the plot in any way.

The only difference between your brother being dead and being a Templar/Grey Warden is that they help you at the end of Act 3. Had they remained playable throughout Act 2 and 3 if you kept them alive then this would have made your choice much more meaningful.

Incorrect. If DA2 is mean to be an RPG then it should be judges as an RPG. If it fails to live up to the standards expected from an RPG then it's a bad RPG and I am not at fault if the developers don't know how to make a good RPG.

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.

DA2 barely had any meaningful choices. Being able to repsond 3 different ways that have no effect on the game is the same as having 1 choice that has no effect on the game.

Modifié par uanime5, 27 avril 2011 - 04:23 .

[ajm317]

FedericoV wrote...

I'm ignoring your point on purpose because it's not even a point. Sorry, it wont be intelligent and toughtfull, but as AlexXIV has said, that's simply denial. You like an RPG story without any kind of interactivity? Fine. You are allright with a game that screams "budget" and "time" from any corner you look at it? No problem with it. That's your game and your money.

But you cannot falsify the reality of that game trying to present certain choices as artistic decision, justifing those choices and even glorifying them since, you know, in greek tragedy the protagonist was doomed too. Sorry, but that's just rethoric. The same rethoric they have used to convince customer like me to preorder the game.

You've said this a few times, but I still don't really understand why.  Perhaps you can expand?

Why is the idea of giving the player choices that don't ulitimately effect the outcome in a manner to emulate what we see in, for example, Greek tragedy not a valid artistic choice?  What invalidates it?  What about it makes it a flawed concept?

RPG or not, for me, the story and the game were not that good nonetheless. Not going to judge the story on its own because it's not even worth it. But speaking as a player, if you want to tell a tragic tale and make it
believable and interesting in a gaming context, you have to make me careabout the story, the NPC and the environment where the story happens. If you treat me like a passive observer that can only "review" the events of
the story or interact with them just mindlessly killing things without feeling any kind of sorrow, guilt or responsability, it all seems like a fake tragedy. Thus, the game is a failure because it's not builded to make the player care about the story. Most of all the story try to touch too many topics with its "3 storyline" structure and fails to capture each of them completely.

A very good game with a tragic and poetic theme running underground was
Shadow of the Colossus. A game that delivered a very sad tale with a
(mostly) bad and scripted end and that used only images, music,
interaction, hints about a story that you can only speculate about and a
handfull of dialogues. I cared more about Haro, the horse you use in
that game, than any NPC in DA2. If you want to deliver a tragedy, that's
the way to do it. The most important lesson: show, don't tell. Why
should I care about a situation that I never experience but that only
came to know with dialogues? There's nothing in the game that speak
about that tragedy outside of dialogues and rrare cutscene.

I think you are conflating two seperate issues.  I would agree that the game does a lackluster job in building an emotional connection between the player and the game world, but I'm not convinced that the lack of meaningful choices was the problem here.  I think the bigger problem was the compressed Act III and the poor handling of the players family.

[EmperorSahlertz]

One of the main themes of DA2 was the inevitability of fate. You can either embrace it, or struggle against it. So why doesn't it make sense from a storytelling point, to make your choices less impactful?

[ajm317]

uanime5 wrote...

Having no impact on the plot is the same as having no choice. Choosing whether to respond diplomatically, sarcstically, or rudely becomes meaningless when all the characters react exactly the same way. The current player choices are like being able to choose whether Hawke wears blue, red, or green armour rather than something that affects the plot in any way.

I don't agree.

If you play the game one way Hawke is a mage sympathizer that cannot stop the templars from annulling the circle, if you play it another way Hawke is a neutral party unable to stop a terrible tragedy, play it another and Hawke is a templar sympathizer who can only standby and watch as the order more or less self destructs.

Those are all different tales.  The outcome might be the same, but the journey is different.

Perhaps you see no distinction, to me at least it is important.

Incorrect. If DA2 is mean to be an RPG then it should be judges as an RPG. If it fails to live up to the standards expected from an RPG then it's a bad RPG and I am not at fault if the developers don't know how to make a good RPG.

I don't agree here either.  Wheather you call the game an RPG or not is really only important for game websites that need to bin it somewhere in their review section.  I believe the game should be evaluated on it's own merits, not on how it conforms to some genre checklist.

[FedericoV]

ajm317 wrote...

You've said this a few times, but I still don't really understand why.  Perhaps you can expand?

Why is the idea of giving the player choices that don't ulitimately effect the outcome in a manner to emulate what we see in, for example, Greek tragedy not a valid artistic choice?  What invalidates it?  What about it makes it a flawed concept?

Because greek tragedy sucks . Just joking. You know, in Italy we use the term Greek Tragedy as sinonymous of a pompous, fake and boring struggle . 

Because in a gaming context, there is a way to make me care about the things that happens. If you fail to make me care about those things, refusing to use the tools that you have in the media that you choose to deliver a narrative with and if you disconnect me from the story as a result, then the "artistic choices" you have made as a developer are invalidated because the player will never feel something real for the tragedy you have tried to build.  

I think you are conflating two seperate issues.  I would agree that the game does a lackluster job in building an emotional connection between the player and the game world, but I'm not convinced that the lack of meaningful choices was the problem here.  I think the bigger problem was the compressed Act III and the poor handling of the players family.

I think that the lack of meaningfull interaction is what caused the compressed/rushed nature of Act III and the poor handling of the family.

Edit: I would even add the following issues:

- The gameplay style (while fun and very good on its own) does not match the supposed tragic, mature and gritty nature of the game.

- The sheer amount of filler combat in the game, combined with the very restricted nature of the gaming environment, created an oppressive and brutal feeling that disconnected the player from the humanity of Hawke. You know, even in "The longest road" that it's probably the best quest of the game, you have to kill mobs of enemies! It's hard to feel like a reasonable and sensible human being when you act like a serial killer during the entire course of the game.

- DA2 touches too many topics and no one is covered in depth. Fate, tolerance, love, friendhsip, family, law enforcement, freedom, morality. All those topics are thrown at you randomnly without a recurring theme that helps to link them. Hard to feel invested when the story is a mess.

- Finally, as I said above, every information about the game is gained with dialogues. It's hard to feel something for a story if the world that they talk about and the world that you experience while playing do not match on any level. I repeat it: show, don't tell.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 avril 2011 - 05:50 .

[Corto81]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

One of the main themes of DA2 was the inevitability of fate. You can either embrace it, or struggle against it. So why doesn't it make sense from a storytelling point, to make your choices less impactful?

If that was the plan, to show the inevitability of fate, it was just done sloppy... Well, bad actually.

Orsino is probably the most blatant example, like it's been said about 405 diferent times.
And the lack of any consequence to using blood magic if you're a MageHawke.

You help every mage in the game.
Kill every templar.
Nearing the end of the game you're wiping the floor with templars, then Orsino goes bananas.
And no matter how hard I try, I can't see why. You got the champion by your side!
Conqueror of Deep Roads, Slayer of Dragon, Bane of Qunari...! He's just about beaten all the templars and is doing rather well against them... *poof*

Orsino turns into an abomination.
And attacks you, the last hope mages have.
What???

"Oh, btw, just so you can feel better about killing me, I wuz friendz with the dude that killed your mom lol!"

...


Seriously?

Modifié par Corto81, 27 avril 2011 - 04:40 .

[Stippling]

As was mentioned by a number of posters, it's not necessarily the lack of control over the game world. Not being a god that can make every decision and chose how the world will unfold is a good thing, I agree. And I would even go as far as to agree with the argument that Hawke being at the right place at the right time is sort of the way the plot is structured.

The problem is that decisions aren't decisions. You don't want to buy Mass Effect 3 and open it up and find the illustrious Rogue Warrior inside. If the situation had not presented itself, and the possibility was never given to buy that particular game, it's perfectly understandable that outside forces might make you leave with a choice out of your control. But if the decision is given, it better be a decision.

Again, I'm not against negative consequences for your actions, or even your actions blowing up in your face. What I cannot tolerate is the blind insanity of villians and choices being presented as x or y and then shoving both x and y down your throat. If it's out of my hands, don't make a big deal about me picking a side.

At any rate, I think there's a lot of really great discussion going on here. Kudos to everyone who is providing detailed feedback and not absolutes with no explanation.

[LobselVith8]

ajm317 wrote...

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.

The Warden couldn't control the Blight, either, and was placed in the difficult position of having to assemble an army to defeat the darkspawn horde, but the storyline allowed the protagonist to change the societies around him and determine the fate of a multitude of people by his actions. In contrast, despite Hawke having both wealth and status as a Human Noble,  he does nothing to change the society he's living in. He doesn't help the destitutde people of Darktwon, he doesn't aid the elves of the Alienage, he doesn't change Kirkwall in a meaningful way when it remains stagnant. Even when he comes across a suspicious letter signed "O," Hawke doesn't investigate it, despite the evidence that shows Quentin (the man who murdered Leandra and countless others) was corresponding with someone who was likely in the Circle of Kirkwall.

ajm317 wrote...

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.

I don't see it that way. I see it more as a convenience for the writers to force the protagonist down a linear path where choice doesn't matter, because it allows them to avoid exploring how a character should be able to change the world around him by his choices and interactions. Instead, nothing mattersas all paths head down the same singular path and the protagonist does nothing to have any real impact in Kirkwall, and it's hard to be invested in a story where the protagonist's actions carry no weight.

[ajm317]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Warden couldn't control the Blight, either, and was placed in the difficult position of having to assemble an army to defeat the darkspawn horde, but the storyline allowed the protagonist to change the societies around him and determine the fate of a multitude of people by his actions. In contrast, despite Hawke having both wealth and status as a Human Noble,  he does nothing to change the society he's living in. He doesn't help the destitutde people of Darktwon, he doesn't aid the elves of the Alienage, he doesn't change Kirkwall in a meaningful way when it remains stagnant. Even when he comes across a suspicious letter signed "O," Hawke doesn't investigate it, despite the evidence that shows Quentin (the man who murdered Leandra and countless others) was corresponding with someone who was likely in the Circle of Kirkwall.

It's true that the game differs from DAO in these ways, but I actually kind of like the concept, if not the execution.

I don't see it that way. I see it more as a convenience for the writers to force the protagonist down a linear path where choice doesn't matter, because it allows them to avoid exploring how a character should be able to change the world around him by his choices and interactions.

Undoubtedly resources and money were a factor in the decision, but as I said before, the game that DA2 might have been with more money should not color our evaluation of the game we got.  Budget cuts can inform our decision of why we didn't like the game, but shouldn't inform our decision of if we liked the game.

I'm guessing from your response that the plot didn't work for you.  That's fine, but personally I object to the notion that a game which offers choices which have limited impact cannot possibly be interesting.  I think it is a potentially intriguing avenue to explore, although it shouldn't be for every game obviously.

Instead, nothing mattersas all paths head down the same singular path and the protagonist does nothing to have any real impact in Kirkwall, and it's hard to be invested in a story where the protagonist's actions carry no weight.

I don't agree that Hawkes actions have no weight.  Your decisions as the player carry little weight, but Hawke does profoundly affect Kirkwall.  Hawke fights off the Qunari at the end of Act II.  Meredith goes crazy in Act III sparking a mage-templar war because of an artifact that Hawke found at the end of Act I.  Maybe the player doesn't get to shape the world around them in the meaningful way, but Hawke still matters.

[Corto81]

ajm317 wrote...


I don't agree that Hawkes actions have no weight.  Your decisions as the player carry little weight, but Hawke does profoundly affect Kirkwall.  Hawke fights off the Qunari at the end of Act II.  Meredith goes crazy in Act III sparking a mage-templar war because of an artifact that Hawke found at the end of Act I.  Maybe the player doesn't get to shape the world around them in the meaningful way, but Hawke still matters.

Hawke does, but YOU don't.

Which is fine, if you're playing AC or Uncharted.

In a supposed RPG, IMO, YOUR decisions should have consequnces.
It goes a long way to building up immersion, which was the core of any ROLE-PLAYING game.
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

[Greta13]

 Well I guess personality wise there are three choices. Good, sarcastic, and aggressive. As for the actual choices, that's been covered pretty good so I won't bother repeating. 

[Stippling]

Corto81 wrote...

Hawke does, but YOU don't.

I think that distinction is very true, good point.

[ajm317]

Corto81 wrote...

ajm317 wrote...


I don't agree that Hawkes actions have no weight.  Your decisions as the player carry little weight, but Hawke does profoundly affect Kirkwall.  Hawke fights off the Qunari at the end of Act II.  Meredith goes crazy in Act III sparking a mage-templar war because of an artifact that Hawke found at the end of Act I.  Maybe the player doesn't get to shape the world around them in the meaningful way, but Hawke still matters.

Hawke does, but YOU don't.

Which is fine, if you're playing AC or Uncharted.

In a supposed RPG, IMO, YOUR decisions should have consequnces.
It goes a long way to building up immersion, which was the core of any ROLE-PLAYING game.
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

I've spent two pages arguing this point and don't feel I have anything new to add.  We will simply have to disagree I suppose.

[Morroian]

Corto81 wrote...

In a supposed RPG, IMO, YOUR decisions should have consequnces.
It goes a long way to building up immersion, which was the core of any ROLE-PLAYING game.
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

Hawke's decisions do have consequences but they're personal to do with the people around him, they're not based around the overarching story except insofar as the personal themes dovetail with the themes of the overall story.

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

In a supposed RPG, IMO, YOUR decisions should have consequnces.
It goes a long way to building up immersion, which was the core of any ROLE-PLAYING game.
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

Hawke's decisions do have consequences but they're personal to do with the people around him, they're not based around the overarching story except insofar as the personal themes dovetail with the themes of the overall story.

Based on what the devs have said, I think this was deliberate.  They had too many players "Fan-Ficcing" their world and doing things to the story that they didn't like.  I regard this as overweening arrogance on the Dev's part personally.  After all, if you are going to accept that a world is to be the backdrop of an RPG, then you MUST accept that the players you permit in will have an impact on that world, and you had best be prepared to deal with it (like any good GM is).  Bioware clearly isn't...at least not now (they were when they made ME1 and DAO).

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

Corto81 wrote...
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

DAO had it right? I must have been playing a different game then because I could swear DAO railroaded me towards becoming the Hero of Ferelden, regardless of origin or choices. Even fairly big choices had little to no consequences.

Much like DA2.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 avril 2011 - 06:35 .

[Corto81]

klarabella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

DAO had it right? I must have been playing a different game then because I could swear DAO railroaded me towards becoming the Hero of Ferelden, regardless of origin or choices. Even fairly big choices had little to no consequences.

Much like DA2.

Is this a joke?
You decided the political structure of cities, when you sided with someone, you actually sided with them, you could help save towns and tribes or choose to not do so, you could defile the holy relic, you could end up fighting your companions, you decide who rules the entire land, etc.... Nearly everywhere you went there was a grey choice waiting for you, with consequences.

And even at the end, you could choose HOW to end the Blight.

Seriously, you can't even begin to compare.
You can trivialize it and take it out of context and yes, say, "uhhh I was railroaded into becoming Hero of Ferelden", but that's just missing the point.

For example, you side with the elves of werewovles in Brecilian forest, you SIDE with them and it has consequences.
You side with mages/templars, nothing changes.

Fenris won't fight for the mages? You as him again, he goes "lol, okay".
You defile the Urn? You fight Leliana. Side with Cullen in Mage Tower? Fight Wynne.

Just off the top of my head, some comparable examples...

Seriously...

If you can't see the differences there, that's just ignoring the obvious for the sake of an argument.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

One of the main themes of DA2 was the inevitability of fate. You can either embrace it, or struggle against it. So why doesn't it make sense from a storytelling point, to make your choices less impactful?

The art in it is to write the story in a way that gives that feeling. That fate is inevitable. That no matter how hard you try, things go wrong. Not giving you (the player) a choice to begin with is just sort of silly. If they gave you a choice and then things go wrong it would be one thing. But the game is railroading you in a way that pretents that Hawke made all these choices. Sister Petrices quest. Hawke chose to do it. Hawke also chose to not kill her at the end. It not some 'twist of fate' that causes both of this. It is simply the plot rolling on and right over the player. The Blackpowder thing is the same. You happen to meet a dwarf on the road, no choice in that. You save him, no choice either. You say you don't like his plan. But to go to the deep roads you have to finish the quest. Whatever the reason. These are just two examples from Act1. There are more throughout the game.

Fate isn't inevitable. The only thing that 'makes it seem' inevitable is that you as a player have no choice. Hawke could have every choice he/she wants to walk away or do things different if the game had the option to. It would not have been impossible to write the story in a way that makes it obvious that Hawke does not have a choice. That Hawke is forced to do these things. But the writing isn't that good. It rather describes a Hawke who does make decissions but leaves the player out of it. And that's why it could be a good story for a book, but not for an RPG. And I say 'could' because the story isn't even half as good as to say it is a good one. It was a 'nice try' at best.

Granted, DA:O had a generic heroic story. But within it, it made sense and gave the player some freedom. DA2 is the other way round. It appears to be an open story. As in Hawke is just a guy/girl without really being forced to do anything. But then the player gets forced and railroaded worse than it ever happened in any other Bioware game before. Even ME and ME2 had more choices and chances to develop your character. If you decide to go to work by bus and then see yourself getting in your car which then explodes, was it inevitability of fate or was it just silly?

[SirOccam]

@OP

I just wanted to say that was a great post. When most "criticism" in here seems to take the form of snide, cynical backhanded bashing, yours is a breath of fresh air. I really really liked the game but you make some excellent points.

[nos_astra]

Corto81 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

DAO had it right? I must have been playing a different game then because I could swear DAO railroaded me towards becoming the Hero of Ferelden, regardless of origin or choices. Even fairly big choices had little to no consequences.

Much like DA2.

Is this a joke?
You decided the political structure of cities, when you sided with someone, you actually sided with them, you could help save towns and tribes or choose to not do so, you could defile the holy relic, you could end up fighting your companions, you decide who rules the entire land, etc.... Nearly everywhere you went there was a grey choice waiting for you, with consequences.

No, it's not a joke.

In DAO there are only a few choices that have an impact in the game itself. And there are many things that only add flavour but don't actually change anything.

DA2 is not much worse than DAO in that regard. Both games are flawed and incomplete.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 avril 2011 - 08:19 .

[SilentK]

Hmmm.... Hawke isn't in the position to always influence things to her/his liking. 1:st year, main thing is to keep food on the table and working for choosen gang. Act 1, you are still in no position to influence things really. You are getting a bit of a name as someone getting things done, but not in the political way. Act 2, people are really starting to take notice of Hawke and he/she tries to do something about it but it isn't working. Act 3, Hawke is the champion and tries to work things out. It's ony in Act 3 that you have real politial power I guess, Act 2 was a beginning.

The warden had a piece of paper from the start saying that they had the right to ask for help. Remember getting into Orzammar the first time, Loghains guys couldn't get in. Warden has the right papers so you get in. You still have to go through alot in order to gather you army but you have an official voice. Hawke doesn't have that until the end of the game. I don't find it strange that you cannot have political power in the beginning when you just try to get by. Getting the money to bribe templars to stay away from Bethany and get food on the table and save for the deep road expiditon. Just my take.

edit: to remove super-qoute

Modifié par SilentK, 28 avril 2011 - 08:39 .

[Nixter Shepard]

Fantastic post. I strongly agree.
Personal insight...

I feel that a lot of the issue comes from a lack of the game reflecting the impact of most choices you make in the game. It reminded me of the Fable series where choices you make only impact public opinion of you and are never truly witnessed (excluding the third act of Fable 3).

Meredith and Orsino were both designed so that no matter who you side with, they were both villians in their own way (regardless of how nonsensical it seems) making your decision seem pointless. It's like, "side with nutjob A or lunatic B" (though I feel they intended Meredith to be the Main villian). I remember one playthrough trying to make the neutral decision and it forced me to choose sides and just like Fable it almost tells you what decision the game wants you to make.

I felt the game was just pushing you to side with the mages regardless and only used Anders as a means of making the decision seem difficult. If you play as a mage it seems ridiculous to side with the Templars, and if you are not a mage Bethany is there to hold that place, and if she is still alive (prefurably in the circle) it just feels like a betrayal.

In all, there were some interesting attempts, and intentions, but poor execution made most of them fall flat taking away what could have been a grand emotional impact.

Modifié par Nixter Shepard, 28 avril 2011 - 09:15 .

[Ulicus]

klarabella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
DA:O had it right, I don't understand why they had to railroad the whole thing in DA2.

DAO had it right? I must have been playing a different game then because I could swear DAO railroaded me towards becoming the Hero of Ferelden, regardless of origin or choices. Even fairly big choices had little to no consequences.

Much like DA2.

Is this a joke?
You decided the political structure of cities, when you sided with someone, you actually sided with them, you could help save towns and tribes or choose to not do so, you could defile the holy relic, you could end up fighting your companions, you decide who rules the entire land, etc.... Nearly everywhere you went there was a grey choice waiting for you, with consequences.

No, it's not a joke.

In DAO there are only a few choices that have an impact in the game itself. And there are many things that only add flavour but don't actually change anything.

This can't be restated enough. While I appreciated them, none of the consequences of our DA:O actions will ever be that important to the continued narrative of Dragon Age. They can't possibly, because they all (for the most part) carry over. The most we'll ever get is the odd cameo and reference here and there. But the fact that you picked say, Bhelen over Harrowmont is never, ever, going to make a drastic difference to the gameworld.

Sure, you can choose whether Anora or Alistair rule Ferelden... but it doesn't matter in the slightest who rules Ferelden. Did it make a difference in Awakening or DA2? No. Hell, with the Anvil of the Void, even the epilogue slide began to undo that particular decision if you "destroyed" it.

At least DA2 was more upfront about things.

How much did Mass Effect 2's story actually change to accomodate your decisions in the previous game? Not an awful lot, really. And it certainly didn't take "everything" into account. What if you never recruited Garrus? He still talks about his adventures with you against Saren as if he was right there by your side the entire time.

In any franchise in which the sequels allow you to carry over your decisions, those decisions can't and won't matter in anything other than a superficial sense. The only way to make a decision "really matter", ironically, is to establish a set canon in which THIS happened and THAT didn't and showing how different things are because of it.

Modifié par Ulicus, 28 avril 2011 - 09:53 .

[FedericoV]

Ulicus wrote...

This can't be restated enough. While I appreciated them, none of the consequences of our DA:O actions will ever be that important to the continued narrative of Dragon Age. They can't possibly, because they all (for the most part) carry over. The most we'll ever get is the odd cameo and reference here and there. But the fact that you picked say, Bhelen over Harrowmont is never, ever, going to make a drastic difference to the gameworld.

So, if I understand, you're saying that it's nice to play an RPG without any kind of significant choice and consequence like DA2 because Bioware do not know how to expand on a feature they have decided to use (choices/consequences that carries over between games creating a continuity for each player) and/or have not the guts to tell the player base: sorry guys, but we cannot create a coherent game if we try to keep each choice/playthrough you made in consideration so we have to estabilish a canon, just like we did between BG 1 and 2.

Having said that, in ME2 the choices of ME1 has zero impact, but at least the game has many RP opportunities on its own. DA2 has not any kind of proper roleplaying at all. There is zero interaction with the story. In that regard, DA2 is like the IWD of the DA franchise (as the Vault Dweller has said in his very interesting review of DA2).

Most important, the fun in DA:O's C&C was not the prospect of continuity for me. Those choices were fun on their own while I played and experience them and that's all. Yep, they could have even done more and that's what I hoped for DA2. Instead, they decided to pull out an IWD of BG2! That really make no sense if not for the money involved.

Saying that DA:O's choice has zero impact on your game because choices do not carry over and do not create a  significant continuity it's simply a wrong way to look at the issue. And saying that they do not change the nature of your game and that DA:O (a game were in the game final you could decide to sacrifice yourself for the common good or to create an abomination out of selfishness) and DA2 (a game were you have zero impact on the story) are the same, it's simply another form of denial.

Btw, I would not have a problem if Bioware would have decided to estabilish a canon. I was one of the few supporters of the canon option because I see the implication of the "no canon" direction (ie: no impact on the game and no continuity). Bioware has decided to take the most difficult way to please the crowd (displeasing everyone in the process), now they have to deal with it. Not our business as players.

Modifié par FedericoV, 28 avril 2011 - 12:00 .