You know you can take the button mashing out as there is a feature in options game to set auto attack. However I realize that isn't your true gripe. Just saying...I never set tactics in origins either, as I never saw my sqaudies use them.
I have only played through once as a mage, and I enjoyed the game railroaded or not. Didn't notice much difference in the combat.
The illusion of choice in DA2, and resulting lackluster storytelling
Débuté par
sugasugaki
, mai 04 2011 08:42
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 06 mai 2011 - 04:29
Viyu
-
- Members
- 493 messages
The impact that you make in DA:O focuses itself more so over the characters you interact with rather than the plot. That's because is a goal you have to meet no matter what or else everyone dies.The difference between DA2 and DA:O is that it was very character driven. DA2 allows neither characters or plot to be seriously impacted by your character. Nothing you do really impacts the choices of the other characters. There is no "hardening" quest like there is for Leilianna and Alistair that affects their decisions. And it's not that I hate games where characters don't change regardless of what you do, but Bioware would hardly stand out from the competition if they did that, and they should have enough common sense to know that kind of story is not what people pay them for.
The problem is that these characters are not serious fan favorites. I'm glad you felt bad for them, but they hardly grew on people for a lot of us to care what happens to them, compared to party members--or at least not Keran or DuPuis or that Werewolf. I mean I would feel bad for turning Feynriel into an abomination, but I could care less
for Keran. The point is that it's haphazard to put all of the choices in whose lives are saved into characters we have little reason to care about. Caring for the sake of caring is just not compelling enough for a lot of people who want a real connection. Feynriel was the only one that I remember. Everyone else, I could care less.
Plaintiff wrote...
I actually found a lot of choices to be extremely significant. You might not be able to alter the overall story
to any great degree (nor do I think you should be able to), but you have plenty of opportunities throughout the game to help people or utterly ruin their lives. I felt awful when I got Keran booted from the Templars and it's possible to make Feynriel into a powerful abomination who goes on a killing rampage. You have the power of life and death over all your companions at one point or another.
The problem is that these characters are not serious fan favorites. I'm glad you felt bad for them, but they hardly grew on people for a lot of us to care what happens to them, compared to party members--or at least not Keran or DuPuis or that Werewolf. I mean I would feel bad for turning Feynriel into an abomination, but I could care less
for Keran. The point is that it's haphazard to put all of the choices in whose lives are saved into characters we have little reason to care about. Caring for the sake of caring is just not compelling enough for a lot of people who want a real connection. Feynriel was the only one that I remember. Everyone else, I could care less.
Modifié par Viyu, 06 mai 2011 - 04:37 .
#53
Posté 06 mai 2011 - 10:37
sugasugaki
-
- Members
- 52 messages
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.
I knew somebody would make this argument, and it simply doesn't fly.
Why? Because I dunno, the whole frikkin story is about the champion ascending from a nobody to a hero that will change the course of history? Even the very end, Cassandra is asking where the champion is, because he has the power and ability to change the events of the future. How is that at all consistent with the purported powerlessness of the protagonist you're asserting? Ironically, the story is saying the exact opposite. This story ISN'T about the inevitability of events, which is why your take doesn't work.
Certain stories and movies do use fate and inevitability as a story-telling tool. The movie La jetee (and the Hollywood remake 12 Monkeys) is a great example of this. But this game tries telling you that you can alter the course of history, but whether due to poor planning, storytelling or plot development, it never happens. The game never used inevitability/fate as a central plot-development tool, so it's absurd to think that that was intentional. If it were, you'd have foreshadowing, reoccuring themes etc. Even with Leandra, the story progressed in a way that didn't center around fate. If anything, you were pretty sure you can get to her in time, because you're the nigh-invincible champion. That made her death all the more shocking, which was great. But she isn't the central part of the story.
The theme of Hawke is a rather staple rags to riches tale. Inevitability in this case is a by-product of lackluster implementation.
Modifié par sugasugaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:53 .
#54
Posté 06 mai 2011 - 10:42
sugasugaki
-
- Members
- 52 messages
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.
Erm? Scan my posts and see where I've ever clamored for an open-world environment. I don't mind that it stays in Kirkwall. But endlessly rehashed dungeons and interior environments point at a rushed game. Open world has nothing to do with poorly-implemented storytelling. Some older Bioware games had a lot more freedom yet with a lot more compelling choices within the plot. Not mutually exclusive.
Modifié par sugasugaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:50 .
#55
Posté 06 mai 2011 - 11:51
Viyu
-
- Members
- 493 messages
sugasugaki wrote...
I knew somebody would make this argument, and it simply doesn't fly.
Why? Because I dunno, the whole frikkin story is about the champion ascending from a nobody to a hero that will change the course of history?
Becomming the champion and ascending from a nobody into a hero is inevitable, that's not really a choice that YOU the player gets to decide. It's possible that you have the power to change history in future games but most people playing a Bioware want to see SOME reflections of the choices they made in the game while they're playing it. It's ok if there are reprocussions present in future installments, but capacity to change the world around you as YOU personally and not a but-thou-must character does not make itself apparent to the player. Developers have only one game to get people hooked or to get people to STAY hooked, so relying on them to wait for the next game would be foolhearted. Having your personality impact the world around, WAS the gameplay and that's what I think you and the developers are not grasping, not Hawke's limited-liner substitutes that ultimately affects neither the characters nor the plot. At least DA:O allowed us to impact the characters we had in our party. Having your personality impact the story and/or characters may not have been neccessary to tell a good story, but it was necessary to preserve Bioware's niche gameplay style that made them popular.
Even the very end, Cassandra is asking where the champion is, because he has the power and ability to change the events of the future. How is that at all consistent with the purported powerlessness of the protagonist you're asserting? Ironically, the story is saying the exact opposite. This story ISN'T about the inevitability of events, which is why your take doesn't work.
Cassandra recognizes Hawke is influential. That doesn't mean that it had anything to do with choices YOU make that reflects your personality.
The game never used inevitability/fate as a central plot-development tool, so it's absurd to think that that was intentional.
No, I think that the illusion of choice WAS intentional because they were too overwhelmed with all the variables they had to consider from the first game.
Modifié par Viyu, 07 mai 2011 - 12:00 .
#56
Posté 07 mai 2011 - 12:38
Lewie
-
- Members
- 963 messages
Its not hard to see why the impact from Da2 was different to Origins.
Origins was meeting everything new, the elves, the dwarves, the qunari the whole world. It that knock on effect that gets people hooked. Walking into Orzammar, meeting the lady, going back to Ostagar, taking shale through the deep roads, watching the cutscenes, and this list could go on for ages but you know what i mean. Basically you really went places.
In 2 we already know all these cultures so the impact is far less, the story was good but very static. I do know that fitting a certain amount of things in, with a certain amount of resources is the case, and when you make changes its a real testing ground.
The qunari storyline was fab, massive improvement and move lol.
Refinement! Refinement! Refinement!
Where the hell did i hear that from *looks around*
Origins was meeting everything new, the elves, the dwarves, the qunari the whole world. It that knock on effect that gets people hooked. Walking into Orzammar, meeting the lady, going back to Ostagar, taking shale through the deep roads, watching the cutscenes, and this list could go on for ages but you know what i mean. Basically you really went places.
In 2 we already know all these cultures so the impact is far less, the story was good but very static. I do know that fitting a certain amount of things in, with a certain amount of resources is the case, and when you make changes its a real testing ground.
The qunari storyline was fab, massive improvement and move lol.
Refinement! Refinement! Refinement!
Where the hell did i hear that from *looks around*
Modifié par louise101, 07 mai 2011 - 12:42 .
