55 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

thesuperdarkone wrote...

You do realize the DAO had the same choices and consequences. For example, I could decide whether I wanted to have Morrigan leave or not. I could kill Zathrian and thus he wouldn't appear as an ally during the final battle and his first ends up making peace in the Hinterlands. DAO is naturally the superior game.

The slide with the Dalish is bugged; the Dalish are only provided the Hinterlands if the Dalish Warden commits the U.S. or asks the ruler of Ferelden for a land for his (or her) people.

Also, The Warden had an impact on the societies he encountered - whether the people of Redcliffe lived or died, whether the last Great Thaig would prosper under Bhelen or flounder under Harrowmont, whether the golems would see a return after a millennia of the Anvil being lost, whether the Dalish would be respected or killed and whether the werewolves would be cured or condemned, what fate would befall the Circle of Magi, and who would rule the nation of Ferelden. Societies changed because of The Warden, and Hawke should have had some kind of impact on Kirkwall since he spent seven years living in the city-state, but we're never provided with any kind of opportunity to have such an impact there.

[ipgd]

There's a point to the lack of choice in DA2.

DAO establishes a set of expectations. DAO heavily emphasized player choice; in most situations you were given significant player agency, or at least an illusion of it. The entire game is set up to make your choices feel like they matter, even when they don't.

DA2 deliberately manipulates those expectations. DA2 knows you played DAO and it knows you expect your choices to matter. It uses this. The great portion of the game's tension is specifically built upon the denial of player agency -- Leandra's death, the destruction of the Chantry, etc., are all deliberately built in order to make the player feel powerless. The game knows you expect your choices to have impact, but it makes no attempt to hide that or replace it with more illusions of choice -- in fact, it rubs it in your face. Whether or not people prefer this to DAO's method is different matter, but DA2 certainly used expectations and the subversion thereof to its benefit. It's a different kind of tension, but it can work spectacularly well if you stop to think about it beyond They Changed It Now It Sucks.

It's fairly obvious that this direction was taken more because of budget and time constraints than a direct mission to be all subversive and postmodern from the get-go, but I think they did an excellent job making a narrative that functioned within and even took advantage of those constraints. It could have been much worse had they attempted to build the narrative on player agency without the resources to actually give real, substantial player agency.

[LobselVith8]

ipgd wrote...

There's a point to the lack of choice in DA2.

DAO establishes a set of expectations. DAO heavily emphasized player choice; in most situations you were given significant player agency, or at least an illusion of it. The entire game is set up to make your choices feel like they matter, even when they don't.

DA2 deliberately manipulates those expectations. DA2 knows you played DAO and it knows you expect your choices to matter. It uses this. The great portion of the game's tension is specifically built upon the denial of player agency -- Leandra's death, the destruction of the Chantry, etc., are all deliberately built in order to make the player feel powerless. The game knows you expect your choices to have impact, but it makes no attempt to hide that or replace it with more illusions of choice -- in fact, it rubs it in your face. Whether or not people prefer this to DAO's method is different matter, but DA2 certainly used expectations and the subversion thereof to its benefit. It's a different kind of tension, but it can work spectacularly well if you stop to think about it beyond They Changed It Now It Sucks.

It's fairly obvious that this direction was taken more because of budget and time constraints than a direct mission to be all subversive and postmodern from the get-go, but I think they did an excellent job making a narrative that functioned within and even took advantage of those constraints. It could have been much worse had they attempted to build the narrative on player agency without the resources to actually give real, substantial player agency.

Was the point to make people reconsider purchasing a Dragon Age game ever again by having one of the laziest characters as a protagonist who does nothing with his wealth and power, and is reactive to the point of doing absolutely nothing about the evidence he discovers in Quentin's lair addressing an accomplice to his mother's killer?

[Pandaman102]

Filament wrote...

It was also advertised that I would fight like a spartan... where are my phalanx formations?

I'm not defending whether or not it lived up to its advertisement campaign (Origins' advertising wasn't stellar either, however), I'm defending it on its own merits.

And part of any product's merits also rests on whether or not it lives up to its marketing. DA2 didn't live up to its promises, people have a right to complain, and people have a right to counter those complaints.

Except "go play something else", "it's about Hawke, you should be able to affect the story", and "it has companions choices, companions are a part of the story, ergo you're wrong about story choices" don't counter anything raised in the original post.

[ipgd]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Was the point to make people reconsider purchasing a Dragon Age game ever again by having one of the laziest characters as a protagonist who does nothing with his wealth and power, and is reactive to the point of doing absolutely nothing about the evidence he discovers in Quentin's lair addressing an accomplice to his mother's killer?

If you don't want to like it, you won't. God knows The Haters be hatin so strong that nothing I say will convince anyone of anything. Still, I don't see it as a failure to live up to expectations because it didn't seem like that was what they were trying to do.

DA2 will just enjoy its seat next to MGS2 on my Games I Thought Were Brilliant But Nobody Else Likes list. It's okay, baby, my love is worth like, 15 people.

[LobselVith8]

ipgd wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Was the point to make people reconsider purchasing a Dragon Age game ever again by having one of the laziest characters as a protagonist who does nothing with his wealth and power, and is reactive to the point of doing absolutely nothing about the evidence he discovers in Quentin's lair addressing an accomplice to his mother's killer?

If you don't want to like it, you won't. God knows The Haters be hatin so strong that nothing I say will convince anyone of anything. Still, I don't see it as a failure to live up to expectations because it didn't seem like that was what they were trying to do.

DA2 will just enjoy its seat next to MGS2 on my Games I Thought Were Brilliant But Nobody Else Likes list. It's okay, baby, my love is worth like, 15 people.

I don't hate it, but I think the flaws are there. I'd like to see them rectified in DLC or an expansion because I did like the companions.

[spoe71]

I find myself agreeing with ipgd a bit on this. The protagonist in DAO has a greatness destiny; the protagonist in DA2 has a survival destiny. Hawke is just trying to get away from the Blight (not the noblest thing; certainly not what the Hero of Fereldon did) and to put food on the table. I think from the onset, Hawke wasn't meant to be able to change things on a global scale, a much more "human" hero approach, one that forces us to deal with the frustration of not being able to change the fates of nations.

I see the opposition's argument on this as well: I too expected, at least initially, a world-changing character because that's what Bioware customers are used to---BG II, Kotor, NWN, DAO, almost all of them. We end up with a character who makes a significant difference (though the mage revolt is certainly significant). I'm used to ending a Bioware story in such a fashion, and I'll admit, DA2 took me a bit by surprise, but it was a refreshing one that made me think, "Wow, I guess this hero doesn't wield the Power Cosmic like the Silver Surfer does. Where's my power ring? My spear and magic helmet?"

I'm not sure that I am really arguing this point well, but I do think there was a different attitude taken for Hawke. Seems to me the developers set out to make him more of a "regular" type instead of a godly one. I think it worked pretty well. I'm happy I bought the game, and I look forward to the next installment to see how the story plays out.

EDIT

Now that I'm thinking about it, I find Hawke to be a much more relatable character than the Hero of Fereldon was (not that I think the story in DAO was inferior, for I did enjoy that a bit more).  I say that because we all know what it is like to try to accomplish something difficult but to fail nonetheless.  The fact that Hawke couldn't save his mother, for example, puts Hawke more in touch with humanity than the Hero of Fereldon.

This reminds me of the distinct change in literary topics starting with Victorianism. Prior to that, most of the top-selling stories featured larger-than-life heroes who demonstrated the best of us.  They were the superheroes of the time: Sir Gawain, Sir Gallahad in Mallory's Le Morte De Artur, Achilles, Odysseus, and countless others who far surpased the average human of the time.  These stories lost their appeal in later generations because people wanted characters they could relate to (how many average people during Victorian England or Post Modern America have ever slain a dragon?).  

Maybe I'm stretching a bit, but it seems to me that we have to give Hawke credit for doing the best he could in the circumstances he was in.  After all, he's not the Hero of Fereldon.  He's just an average Joe, and average Joe's make mistakes and bleed. 

Modifié par spoe71, 05 mai 2011 - 02:30 .

[Pandaman102]

Filament wrote...

If you're saying I made those arguments, that's a nice straw man.

And the OP didn't say anything about whether the game lived up to its own marketing, s/he was saying the game failed inherently on its own merits. Forgive me for not reading the minds of everyone of a similar sentiment so as to address all of their arguments at once.

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, I was just pointing out those three tend to be the most common "argument" against anyone complaining about DA2's lack of choice - and more importantly how they don't actually address any issues raised.

[Plaintiff]

thesuperdarkone wrote...
So my Hawke refusing to help Thrask find some blood mages then being forced to do it regardless of my prior opinions is great story telling?

So my Warden refusing to help defeat the Blight and then being forced to do so regardless of my prior opinions is great storytelling?

Yes, actually. Yes it is. Movies and books and most videogames regardless of genre are completely linear. They are still great stories. Linearity is irrelevent to quality.

You will never have "true freedom" in a videogame. There will always be things you cannot do, or that have to happen for the sake of story progression.

[CalJones]

I understand Bioware wants a certain amount of consistency in terms of endings in order not to cause headaches further along the franchise. In Origins it was that the archdemon ultimately needed to be defeated. The other changes - who ended up ruling didn't really matter as the Theirin line is likely to end either way (Alistair's fertility is in doubt, being a warden, as is a warden male consort, or a warden female consort, and there are questions over Anora's ability or desire to produce an heir); the old god baby may or may not matter as Morrigan has left through the eluvian, and so on.

In this game, the end result was a rebellion by the mages and templars against the Chantry.

But, I understand the frustration. The game I played before DA2 was Fallout: New Vegas. In that game you have four factions vying for power and you can change things significantly depending on your choices. The good thing is that, whilst a lot of the quests are essentially the same across all factions (eg, enlist the aid of the Boomers, or destroy them), there are differences as well. For instance, if you want to help the NCR, you can help investigate intelligence leaks which ultimately lead to an act of sabotage which you may or may not prevent. If, on the other hand, you want to help Caesar's Legion, you can help their undercover operative go through with the sabotage.

This is something DA2 lacks. In Chapter 3 you are locked into finding the mages for Meredith and spying on the meeting for Orsino no matter where your sympathies lie. Even if you're pro-mage, you can't avoid killing a load of apostates and rebel Circle mages that you might otherwise want to help.

It would have been better to have pro-templar and pro-mage quests which you had to choose between in the final chapter, rather like doing Bhelen or Harrowmont's quests in Orzammar. The end result would still be the death of Orsino and Meredith, but at least it would feel as though you were doing something different either way and would give more incentive to replay.

[Daishar Vneef]

There were a couple of things that really annoyed me and made me wish that either of my characters could have impacted these details of the world. The first being, I am a blood mage and I am saving the lot of you, so obviously not all blood mages are bad. How come I can make my followers like Wynne into blood mages but they still go on about how bad they are?

Secondly, how come there are points when you can basically say "screw the Chantry, the Maker and Andraste" but people are always like "The Maker Himself must have sent you". Really? Did you notice I'm a blood mage? You think he sent a blood mage to help you? Cause that would just be crazy, wouldn't it?

Its things like that that bothered me the most. If you are going to allow the main character to be something that is considered evil by most of the populace then maybe all the npcs should react appropriately.

[LivelyLaughter]

I think I understand exactly what sugasugaki is referring to in regard to shallow choices. This sounds very familiar to my posting thread to some degree.

The odd thing is that some choices I made which seemed completely irrelevant actually did come back to surprise me in later ACT's. Such as selling Aveline's husband's (who perished at the very begining) shield just to make space, then giving her the "Shield of the knight herself" companion gift only for her to sudden and unexpectedly being upset that Hawk had sold her other shield. After that I was careful not to sell any of the companions "prized" equipment.

But that type of decision when compared with game changing decisions...or decisions that should have been game changers, didn't seem to make much difference. For one thing what ever happen to Hawk's cousin and that gem? Or Hawk taking ownership of the Bonepit? No mention was ever made of that. There's far too many to list, but basically the game was left with far too many loose ends. So many in fact that the game actually should have had an ACT 4 to bring all the major storyline to a close in preparation for DA 3.

Mass Effect 2 had such a nice ending. That I'm simply confused how and why they left DA2 the way they did.

[Mr.House]

All Bioware games have given you the illusion of choice, it's just other Bioware games have done a better job with it where DA2 did not.

In the end, your choices did not matter in DAO because the Archdemon was always destroyed, the game was about what you do to get there, and that's what DA2 did wrong. Yes depending on your choices in DA2, you get different quest, but the big choice at the end, while handled fine for the Templar side, was handled poorly with the mage ending and felt unfinished. I hope in DA3, Bioware does a better job with the illusion or goes even higher...making our choices really matter

[Pandaman102]

LivelyLaughter wrote...

The odd thing is that some choices I made which seemed completely irrelevant actually did come back to surprise me in later ACT's. Such as selling Aveline's husband's (who perished at the very begining) shield just to make space, then giving her the "Shield of the knight herself" companion gift only for her to sudden and unexpectedly being upset that Hawk had sold her other shield. After that I was careful not to sell any of the companions "prized" equipment.

While the dialogue that came from that was pleasantly surprising, the trigger for them are somewhat sloppily handled. You get the "I had a shield, you sold it" happens if it's not in the party inventory, which means you get that line even if you just put it away in the house storage, and you get "I had a shield, apparently you thought it was a good shield too since you're passing it around to everyone" if it's in the inventory and Avenline isn't actively using it (even if nobody else has ever equipped it).

It was a little annoying that I went out of my way to keep her dead hubby's momento safe and she still acts all indignant over it.

[LivelyLaughter]

Mr.House wrote...

Yes depending on your choices in DA2, you get different quest, but the big choice at the end, while handled fine for the Templar side, was handled poorly with the mage ending and felt unfinished.

This really surprises me, it's as though they're saying you get rewarding for oppressing the mages, and penalized for helping the little guy.

Just doesn't make much sense to me.

[man giraffedog000]

I've come to warn you about MAN-GIRAFFE-DOG!! It's the single greatest threat to humanity!! RUN AWAY!!



I'm still more Serial than ever guys.

[Plaintiff]

Daishar Vneef wrote...

There were a couple of things that really annoyed me and made me wish that either of my characters could have impacted these details of the world. The first being, I am a blood mage and I am saving the lot of you, so obviously not all blood mages are bad. How come I can make my followers like Wynne into blood mages but they still go on about how bad they are?

Secondly, how come there are points when you can basically say "screw the Chantry, the Maker and Andraste" but people are always like "The Maker Himself must have sent you". Really? Did you notice I'm a blood mage? You think he sent a blood mage to help you? Cause that would just be crazy, wouldn't it?

Its things like that that bothered me the most. If you are going to allow the main character to be something that is considered evil by most of the populace then maybe all the npcs should react appropriately.

Yes, why didn't they re-write and re-record the entire script just for people who pick one specialization that is only available to one class?

Oh, wait. For the exact reason I just said.

It is not feasible to have characters act differently just because you're a blood mage. The amount of work that would be required for that is stupid. The only other option is to remove Blood Mage as a specialty and we all know how well that would go down.

So I suggest you learn to deal with a certain amount of story/gameplay segregation.

[cdtrk65]

Yes I remember people complaining about Orgins...My ___________ was forced to become a warden...my warden was forced to fight the darkspawn...

The problem is the game needs to have a story, and general direction. I've seen some people use fable as a good example in this thread. I have played those games and none of them stand up to either of the dragon age games in my opinion. Yeah there's a story, and choices, but it is all surface and nothing really deep.

Regarding the final choice, I didn't see it as a break in character when I did the complete opposite of what my character had done throughtout the entire game. It was a gut wrenching decision, and I'll take those any day over the kind that fable offers.

Modifié par cdtrk65, 05 mai 2011 - 01:56 .

[Beerfish]

Anders living or dying is a moot point, because the damage is already done. The game is about to end, so it doesn't make much of a difference at that point whether you let him die. Recruiting Isabella or not, the end result is still the same. Letting Arishok go does nothing for Act 3. Ditto for Aveline. None of your choices impact the outcome of the game. 

Well this is pretty common in a lot of games, some of the best rpgs of all time had you at the same point near the end and give you a couple of choices at best (ie PST).  The folly of DA2 was having two majot choices at the end but then eliminating that final choice by having both sides attack you.  The ending had little choice, how you go there could be fairly different.

Great storytelling in the context of a non-linear RPG has choices that have consequences. You give up Isabella to Arishok, you're one party member short, that's it. In Baldur's Gate 2 for example (dunno why that one keeps coming to mind), you make decisions that your companions hate, they'll attack you and try to kill you.

Attack you and try and kill you vs just leave the party for good?  What's the difference.  Companions are influenced by your decisions in DA2 as well, they don't just go from being good buddies to trying to kill you quickly.

Hawk doesn't have a personality in this game, and that's precisely the problem. You can play 99.9% of the game helping the mages, then at the very end side with Meredith. You can be a sociopathic, bigoted selfish bastard in one instance, and suddenly switch to a philanthropic paragon the next. Without any consequence. Compare that say with KOTOR or Fable, where over time your actions determine your disposition, of whether you're good or evil. In KOTOR, if you're selfish and evil the whole game, trying to be good at the very end doesn't change the fact that your disposition is evil. Ditto for Fallout 1/2 (a great example of games with choices).  In this game that doesn't exist. Hawke's "personality" exists in a vacuum, because his/her disposition isn't tempered/affected by events in the game.

Eh?  Hawke very much has a personality, moreso than in many many games.  You can accuse the game of not having the kind of choices or significant choices if you like but having a conversation system that caters it's responses to how you have acted in the past gives your Hawke a personality.  I'm not sure what choices you have been making but make all goody goody choices and then in another game make all snark and then in another game choose all humour.  Your Hawke and and how they are viewed changes.

Hence, as game that's supposed to center around character-driven storytelling, it falls short.

Story driven and character interactions are quite different things.  You can be strong in one area and not so strong in another.  In any case, the more linear a game is normally the tighter the story is, the more freedom and the looser the story is.

[happy_daiz]

I've loved and beat all 3 Fables, but it's a different type of game from Dragon Age. Do people wish they could strike a hero stance, belch, or use/not use a condom while sleeping with their wife in Dragon Age? Really? I'm glad BioWare hasn't cheapened the franchise like that.

I'm not knocking Fable (1-3) by any means, as it's one of my favorite games, but Dragon Age has more class than that, thank the Maker.

The one thing that's clear to me is that people want open-world environments. I'm sorry to tell you this, you're probably not going to get it in this type of game...unless you'd like a more buggy experience, riddled with load screens, ala Oblivion.

[Daishar Vneef]

Plaintiff wrote...

Daishar Vneef wrote...

There were a couple of things that really annoyed me and made me wish that either of my characters could have impacted these details of the world. The first being, I am a blood mage and I am saving the lot of you, so obviously not all blood mages are bad. How come I can make my followers like Wynne into blood mages but they still go on about how bad they are?

Secondly, how come there are points when you can basically say "screw the Chantry, the Maker and Andraste" but people are always like "The Maker Himself must have sent you". Really? Did you notice I'm a blood mage? You think he sent a blood mage to help you? Cause that would just be crazy, wouldn't it?

Its things like that that bothered me the most. If you are going to allow the main character to be something that is considered evil by most of the populace then maybe all the npcs should react appropriately.

Yes, why didn't they re-write and re-record the entire script just for people who pick one specialization that is only available to one class?

Oh, wait. For the exact reason I just said.

It is not feasible to have characters act differently just because you're a blood mage. The amount of work that would be required for that is stupid. The only other option is to remove Blood Mage as a specialty and we all know how well that would go down.

So I suggest you learn to deal with a certain amount of story/gameplay segregation.

It doesn't take a lot more time to add in a few NPCs going "Maker's breath the warden's a..a..malifecarum!" or your followers having a conversation with you at camp about evil as a life style choice.

The thing is blood magic is so reviled and through half the game you hear everyone cursing blood magic; it's a crime not to have it mentioned when the hero is a blood mage. You don't hear people cursing beserkers, templars, or even assassins...just blood mages. So yeah, if there isn't going to be some dialogue about taking that route then maybe it shouldn't be available to the player.

[Faroth]

Plaintiff wrote...

thesuperdarkone wrote...
So my Hawke refusing to help Thrask find some blood mages then being forced to do it regardless of my prior opinions is great story telling?

So my Warden refusing to help defeat the Blight and then being forced to do so regardless of my prior opinions is great storytelling?

Yes, actually. Yes it is. Movies and books and most videogames regardless of genre are completely linear. They are still great stories. Linearity is irrelevent to quality.

Plaintiff and I are well aware we disagree on DA2's level of quality, but I've come to respect his outlook on the game.  Heck, Plaintiff, I like reading your posts now....  I don't agree with him that Origins was and felt just as linear as DA2, though.

To be fair..."Hey, you're an apostate, so we'll force you to help hunt down apostates" doesn't have the same weight of "The fate of Ferelden lies with you, Warden. If you cannot complete this task, we are all doomed" in forcing you to action.  The desire to flee Ferelden in DA:O was addressed. You could ask about finding other Wardens and it was stated that you could do that, but chances of reaching them before the Blight consumed the kingdom, let alone return with them, was a snowflake's chance in hell.

Granted, they can't create different paths exclusively for class or further with class specialization, but generally "don't wanna" vs "okay I'll help" could have been options.  I think a little more game-wide changes leading down two paths: helping the Templars and seeking blood mages and helping the mages and subverting templars could have worked.

I think it's feasible, but the composer says the score was rushed and I personally am willing to bet the game was rushed as EA was indeed wanting to cash in on the IP before people started getting too detached from it.  If I'm right (and I'm assuming I am), it's no fault to Bioware.  They have to do what they have to do and you always gotta answer to the higher ups.

DA2 forced a little more heavy handed than Origins, basically.  And in many points, I don't see the necessity.  It really doesn't seem like it would be that hard for them to have given more flexibility on how you reach the destination, even if all roads lead through Rome.

You will never have "true freedom" in a videogame. There will always be things you cannot do, or that have to happen for the sake of story progression.

Lies, sir!  I present to thee....EverQuest.

Sure, you couldn't wave your arms and fly, so there were things you couldn't do, but that game was the most immersive game world in a fantasy RPG to date.  It was the least restrictive and "force you to do ____" I've ever played.  That said, it was an MMO with a story not every player could experience. A great deal of major events were heard from others, by word of mouth and hearsay.  But that all just made if more immersive.

Of course, Dragon Age Origins AND Dragon Age 2 compared to EverQuest is like apples to.....baseball bats?

But still, it's a "videogame"  (and yes, I'm being a little bit facetious. Hope you'll take it with a grin). 

On the other hand, if Gaider could tighten the continuity and start hammering down lore that stays consistent, I really think Thedas would make a wonderful immersive world MMO (not a grind & raid WoW clone).

Modifié par Faroth, 06 mai 2011 - 02:56 .

[Plaintiff]

Faroth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

thesuperdarkone wrote...
So my Hawke refusing to help Thrask find some blood mages then being forced to do it regardless of my prior opinions is great story telling?

So my Warden refusing to help defeat the Blight and then being forced to do so regardless of my prior opinions is great storytelling?

Yes, actually. Yes it is. Movies and books and most videogames regardless of genre are completely linear. They are still great stories. Linearity is irrelevent to quality.

Plaintiff and I are well aware we disagree on DA2's level of quality, but I've come to respect his outlook on the game.  Heck, Plaintiff, I like reading your posts now....  I don't agree with him that Origins was and felt just as linear as DA2, though.

To be fair..."Hey, you're an apostate, so we'll force you to help hunt down apostates" doesn't have the same weight of "The fate of Ferelden lies with you, Warden. If you cannot complete this task, we are all doomed" in forcing you to action.  The desire to flee Ferelden in DA:O was addressed. You could ask about finding other Wardens and it was stated that you could do that, but chances of reaching them before the Blight consumed the kingdom, let alone return with them, was a snowflake's chance in hell.

Granted, they can't create different paths exclusively for class or further with class specialization, but generally "don't wanna" vs "okay I'll help" could have been options.  I think a little more game-wide changes leading down two paths: helping the Templars and seeking blood mages and helping the mages and subverting templars could have worked.

I think it's feasible, but the composer says the score was rushed and I personally am willing to bet the game was rushed as EA was indeed wanting to cash in on the IP before people started getting too detached from it.  If I'm right (and I'm assuming I am), it's no fault to Bioware.  They have to do what they have to do and you always gotta answer to the higher ups.

DA2 forced a little more heavy handed than Origins, basically.  And in many points, I don't see the necessity.  It really doesn't seem like it would be that hard for them to have given more flexibility on how you reach the destination, even if all roads lead through Rome.

You will never have "true freedom" in a videogame. There will always be things you cannot do, or that have to happen for the sake of story progression.

Lies, sir!  I present to thee....EverQuest.

Sure, you couldn't wave your arms and fly, so there were things you couldn't do, but that game was the most immersive game world in a fantasy RPG to date.  It was the least restrictive and "force you to do ____" I've ever played.  That said, it was an MMO with a story not every player could experience. A great deal of major events were heard from others, by word of mouth and hearsay.  But that all just made if more immersive.

Of course, Dragon Age Origins AND Dragon Age 2 compared to EverQuest is like apples to.....baseball bats?

But still, it's a "videogame"  (and yes, I'm being a little bit facetious. Hope you'll take it with a grin). 

On the other hand, if Gaider could tighten the continuity and start hammering down lore that stays consistent, I really think Thedas would make a wonderful immersive world MMO (not a grind & raid WoW clone).

A Dragon Age MMO is possibly the only one I'd play.

I won't deny that the game was rushed in development, but the repetitive maps and what-not don't actually bother me at all. If I was a reviewer for a game magazine I suppose I'd feel obliged to mention them and it might cost the game some points, but honestly, when I was playing through the first time, I didn't even notice.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[Faroth]

I played EverQuest, FF XI, WoW, and I tried out D&D, LotR and Vanguard. EQ and Vanguard were the most compelling and immersive with Vanguard seeming it might have been a compelling story (when you have an entire race who proudly look forward to their final victory against the undead also bringing about their extinction, you do grab my interest). I eventually came to realize $15/month is less than a console game a month and even cheaper than one night at the movies. Lately I've grown tired of the WoW formula being copied and wait for an immersive MMO that's more about exploring and fighting than leveling.

Thedas would be so perfect for it, but I think Bioware should flesh out Antiva and Orlais first.

I noticed, but it wasn't a massive smack in my face. I honestly only have one gripe about the reused maps. Origins itself. Seriously, they had some buildings and caves in Origins. I'd have thought Bioware would nab a couple of those maps and use them to vary up DA2 a little. I'm sure the difference in graphical polish has something to do with why they didn't.

The other lack of choice that bit me, however, was combat. My rogue Warden eventually started opting for new abilities and leaving others behind because they were more effective or looked cooler. My 2 hand warrior Hawke, however, had 3 abilities pretty much from start to end and otherwise I just pressed X endlessly. I never set companion tactics (other than Anders not using every sustained skill he had) because it never made any difference. I just mashed X through the whole game. I grabbed party members to tell them what to do on boss fights, but even then...not much (bear in mind, this is with ZERO tactics set up by me).

I'd like to see a return to Origins combat with a set battlefield and enemies that you could scout out, plan a strategy, then fight. I've got no problem with picking up the pace of combat a bit, but DA2 went too hack and slashy with what felt, to me, like less choices in how to approach the fight.