143 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

never mind.


Still, the timeframe for each month would need to change in order to fix the continuity error.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mai 2011 - 06:29 .

[Aaleel]

There's no way Andres could be in Kirkwall when they say. The timeline is completely messed up. They have Andres in Kirkwall and the expedition completed by 9:31.

Andres being there was pushing it at best, but completion of the expedition as well is just completely impossible.

Modifié par Aaleel, 16 mai 2011 - 06:32 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@JohnEpler... If that is what was intended then Mike Laidlaw in the first podcast shouldn't have promised that your decisions would have impact on the story plot. He was very clear about that and made a big deal of it. And so does the marketing information when you buy the game. Have a look on what marketing writes about choices in the ad on Steam.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 mai 2011 - 06:36 .

[rolson00]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@JohnEpler... If that is what was intended then Mike Laidlaw in the first podcast shouldn't have promised that your decisions would have impact on the story plot. He was very clear about that and made a big deal of it. And so does the marketing information when you buy the game. Have a look on what marketing writes about choices in the ad on Steam.

[Cutlasskiwi]

IanPolaris wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Hawke was too lazy to actually investigate a serial killer. He's definitely too lazy to say "Screw you Kirkwall!"

If Tommy Hawke couldn't punch a problem into submission, it was someone else's problem.

Black and white. Left and right. Uppercut and jab. That's how he sees the world.

So why should Tommy Hawke stay?  You've got tons of money.  No more family, and a city full of either bloodcrazed lunatics or raving fanatics?

That's the problem.  The game doesn't make you identify with Kirkwall enough to make it seem worth saving (or taking over).

-Polaris

I think that can be said about any game though. It's all about how well you swallow the plot hook. I had that problem with DAO.

For example, my Dalish did not want to stay with the Wardens and wanted to leave, but couldn't. Later Alistair told her about the taint and then she wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. Going after the sacred ashes, for example, seemed like a foolish thing to do and a real waste of time. Yet, my warden was forced into all this.

[John Epler]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that 'give the player more of a feeling of agency' has been circled a few dozen times in the Fan Feedback 9000. Like I said - it's something we're aware of. And I'm not trying to say 'WELL I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'RE JUST FULL OF DUMB FOR THINKING THAT WAY', so much as attempting to explain the intent there. Whether we achieved our intent or not is, of course, up for discussion. And a good discussion it has been!

[TEWR]

rolson00 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@JohnEpler... If that is what was intended then Mike Laidlaw in the first podcast shouldn't have promised that your decisions would have impact on the story plot. He was very clear about that and made a big deal of it. And so does the marketing information when you buy the game. Have a look on what marketing writes about choices in the ad on Steam.

that image hardly excuses the fact that it was false advertising.


Still funny though.

[Zjarcal]

John Epler is awesome.

Yellow Words wrote...

I think that can be said about any game though. It's all about how well you swallow the plot hook. I had that problem with DAO.

For example, my Dalish did not want to stay with the Wardens and wanted to leave, but couldn't. Later Alistair told her about the taint and then she wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. Going after the sacred ashes, for example, seemed like a foolish thing to do and a real waste of time. Yet, my warden was forced into all this. 

I agree. Even if the number of forced things might have been less in Origins, the simple presence of them was enough to annoy me and make me feel like I wasn't in control of the story, which I wasn't. And honestly, that's fine by me, it's what I expect from Bioware games, a nice story that I can be part of but won't really influence that much.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 mai 2011 - 07:01 .

[IanPolaris]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's the point of a particular event near the end, really. Hawke's not the only one who thinks that the problems can be solved and the ship righted. There's at least one other character who believes it, and who takes steps specifically to prevent this sort of reconciliation. They don't want things returned to anything close to the status quo. They want to knock down the house of cards and scatter them to the winds so that it can never be rebuilt the way it was. And they take steps specifically to ensure that this happens.

Indeed and that makes the NPC in question the most important person in the story and the only real ACTIVE character with an active agency and IMHO that cheapens the experience for me.  However, I'm sure you've gotten similiar enough feedback and I've explained my feelings on this as best as I am able.

-Polaris

[Mr.House]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

John Epler is awesome.

Yellow Words wrote...I think that can be said about any game though. It's all about how well you swallow the plot hook. I had that problem with DAO.
For example, my Dalish did not want to stay with the Wardens and wanted to leave, but couldn't. Later Alistair told her about the taint and then she wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. Going after the sacred ashes, for example, seemed like a foolish thing to do and a real waste of time. Yet, my warden was forced into all this. 

I agree. Even if the number of forced things might have been less in Origins, the simple presence of them was enough to annoy me and make me feel like I wasn't in control of the story, which I wasn't. And honestly, that's fine by me, it's what I expect from Bioware games, a nice story that I can be part of but won't really influence that much.

That is correct.

And yeah, BioWare are known for their stories, which are always coherent(except for DA2, each act has an entirely different plot, for some reason). However, I felt that Act 3 robbed me too much of choice. Just my personal opinion, of course.

Act 3 is what really hurts DA2. Act 1 was ok(good concept, just a tad bitl nog) Act 2 was a master piece but Act 3 was <_<

Not to mention the lack of paying off your debt and no Viscount cermony, but alas this is because of the very short dev time, dam you EA

[Mr.House]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

@Mr. House: Please don't bring EA into the discussion(even though I suspect it was them who suggested the brilliant idea of having a dev cycle of 18 months). I fear I might derail the thread if you do.

We all know it was them but I will restrain from bashing EA and Act 3 :innocent:

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

But I was not given the option to side with the ArchDemon.  The reason being that thestoryteller did not allow that option.

Point.  Missing it.  Sure you weren't given that option.  However, all the lore and all the experience in the game showed that Darkspawn were like locausts that were intent on mindless destruction of all in their path.  There was no rationality or reason to them, and there was no negatiation.  If you didn't fight the darkspawn, Fereldan is destroyed and probably you with it.

Even for evil and self-centered people, personal survival is a pretty powerful motivator.  In short, DAO did a very good job at emotionally discouraging the "peace, I'm out" option,and even Morrigan voices that option and sneers at it saying it's a bad option (but is a supposed option).    This is what I mean by the illusion of choice.

DAO gives us a reason to WANT to defeat the blight, whether we are noble or ignoble.  DA2?  Not so much (re staying in Kirkwall)...and that's because IMO DA2 does a rotten job at making us identify with our characters (and not allowing us meaningful choice in the game is a large part of that failing).

-Polaris

The point is that you are only given the options that the story allow. Other people were stating why certain actions were not allowed. Simple it not the story the writer wanted to tell. So I am not given the option of siding with the darkspawn or the ArchDemon. I am not given the option of running away. I am not given the option  of not becoming a Grey Warden.

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The point is that you are only given the options that the story allow. Other people were stating why certain actions were not allowed. Simple it not the story the writer wanted to tell. So I am not given the option of siding with the darkspawn or the ArchDemon. I am not given the option of running away. I am not given the option of not becoming a Grey Warden.

Again you are missing the point. No one is saying that you are only given the option the story allows, but that is where illusion of choice is so important. In DAO you are given very real and valid reasons to WANT to stay within the boundaries set by the story, and honestly by the end of Act 2, DA2 doesn't. That's the difference.

-Polaris

[Realmzmaster]

erynnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

erynnar wrote...

*Sigh* Because there are parameters for a reason, even in real life. Just as you can't take the lazar tag equipment out of the lazar tag arena and fight in the city streets, there are some things that you have to limit in a game. Killing the archdemon is one, staying in Kirkwall is another.

The problem then comes with the writing or your imagination (hopefully with help from the writters) where a plausible explanation for why..occurs. Now, I felt that DA2 missed the mark on that one big time. outside convos with companions who lightly mention staying was not enough for me, personally, after Frankenmom. I am not trashing DA2 nor do I hate it. For me, it was weak sauce.

Now maybe those here who liked DA2 and pan DAO found the same problem with DAO. To me, DAO explained it, don't kill the Archdemon and no matter where you go in Thedas, the Blight is going to follow destroying everything in it's path. Seems pretty motivating, whether you wanted to give the Wardens the two fingered salute and tell them to shove it. Or if you were playing a self serving evil douche bag, same thing. Self serving means having a world to manipulate and be a jerk in later, so saving it seems like a good idea.

But I was not given the option to side with the ArchDemon.  The reason being that thestoryteller did not allow that option.

How would you side with a crazed, insane, corrupted dragon? Even with intelligence it was crazy as a **** house rat. I got no idication that if you could have talked to it in any way, that the Archdemon would have listened to you and allowed you to fight with it.  

And still you run into the same problem...they destroy the world, so what world would have to live in other than becoming like Tamlen and becoming a diseased, insane, corrupted ghoul?

Polaris said it far more eloquently than I did.

But what if I seek the end of it all and that is what fits my desires! I do not know if people remember a Marvel comic character called Thanatos. But his mistress was Death and sought only to please her.

[Realmzmaster]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

and if you add in the fact that Gascard's testimony might be able to solidify help from the Templars because Emeric was right and this involved one of their Circle Mages, then there is no reason why Hawke, the City Guard, and the Templars didn't investigate fully.

Except Gascard is an apostate and blood mage who would believe him?

[Realmzmaster]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Another thing that I miss in DA2 is that nobody recognizes which side you have chosen and what class you are. These things are less important for a game like DA:O, but in DA2's Kirkwall the side you have chosen should have an impact on the story (which it doesn't) and because you play as a mage (which is usually hunted down, except that it is not enforced on you) you become alienated from the story. Add to that the fact that you don't have meaningful choices and the feeling of being part of the main story collapses because of all that.

All kinds of odd things happen that make no sense, because of this. A mage Hawk can encounter other mages and even though you may be on their side they attack you on sight anyway. That's also true for a rogue supporting the mages. There are lots of these issues that make me scratch my head.

This.

Actually Bioware should have eliminated the mage class from the game. But then those who like to play mages would be up in arms. I believe that the writers may have had a different story in mind for the mage Hawke (i could be wrong) and that time constraints prohibit the realization of that story.

[Zjarcal]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The point is that you are only given the options that the story allow. Other people were stating why certain actions were not allowed. Simple it not the story the writer wanted to tell. So I am not given the option of siding with the darkspawn or the ArchDemon. I am not given the option of running away. I am not given the option of not becoming a Grey Warden.

Again you are missing the point. No one is saying that you are only given the option the story allows, but that is where illusion of choice is so important. In DAO you are given very real and valid reasons to WANT to stay within the boundaries set by the story, and honestly by the end of Act 2, DA2 doesn't. That's the difference.

-Polaris

To be honest, I disagree. A selfish character could just as well want to flee Ferelden and let someone else deal with the blight. Yes, you have a reason to want to stay, but that reason doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. And I would say that DA2 gives you the reason to want to stay to help in the Mage/Templar conflict, but again, that also doesn't apply to everyone.

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The point is that you are only given the options that the story allow. Other people were stating why certain actions were not allowed. Simple it not the story the writer wanted to tell. So I am not given the option of siding with the darkspawn or the ArchDemon. I am not given the option of running away. I am not given the option of not becoming a Grey Warden.

Again you are missing the point. No one is saying that you are only given the option the story allows, but that is where illusion of choice is so important. In DAO you are given very real and valid reasons to WANT to stay within the boundaries set by the story, and honestly by the end of Act 2, DA2 doesn't. That's the difference.

-Polaris

No I am not missing the point in other threads I have spoken about the illusion of choice. I have stated that it depends on how well crafted the story is. How well the story writer hids the rails that we are riding on. Yes In DAO I am given the reasons to stay but that does not mean I have the will to stay. My character may simply want to go, but the story does not allow it.