510 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

"Don't do anything you'll regret Anders".

KA-BOOM!!!

"You should abandon your thirst for vengeance".

*Fenris does his magic-fisting thing in Danarius chest*

"Orsiono, we will fight for the mages freedom!"

*turns into Harvester*

Anders is easily the most reactive character, even if you can't influence that one action. He changes more radically than any of the other companions on his respective paths.

Let's just forget the Harvester exists.

[Dragoonlordz]

nerdage wrote...

Just buy it. What's the worst that'll happen? Nothing's going to catch fire, you won't catch plague. Worst case: You're out ~£30, but considering the hours of entertainment that seems to buy everyone in coming here and bi*ching about it, it seems like good value for money either way.

Don't buy it, rent it first is the right answer it will save you money and if like can buy after. Also moaning and bi*ching about it here is free so you don't have to spend any money for that.

[Zjarcal]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
The majority of the companions did listen to Hawke's advice.

Than tell them to change their clothes I dare you because they have been wearing the same thing day in day out for years.

That's not what Zjarcal was talking about and you know it.

For God's sake the quests are even labeled, "Questioning Beliefs."

Indeed... <_<

Merrill, while at first reluctant, accept's that Hawke is right about the mirror.

Isabela only returns in act 2 if Hawke has actually bothered to talk to her and most importantly, did the "Questioning Beliefs" convo from act 2. The fact that that conversation is what decides whether she'll return or not is proof that she was influenced by Hawke.

Fenris literally asks you what to do with his life at the end of his questline in act 3.

Sebastian can be pushed into retaking Starkhaven at Hawke's behest (even if his rivalry path is quite crappy).

Alistairlover94 wrote...
"Don't do anything you'll regret Anders".

KA-BOOM!!!

"You should abandon your thirst for vengeance".

*Fenris does his magic-fisting thing in Danarius chest*

"Orsiono, we will fight for the mages freedom!"

*turns into Harvester*

Note that I said MOST of the companions, because I know Anders doesn't really follow Hawke's advice (at least as far as changing his actions). Funny how you ignore that and choose to focus on the one companion who really doesn't listen to Hawke.

And I was talking about companions so I'm not even sure why you bother bringing Orsino into the conversation.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 21 mai 2011 - 11:38 .

[Slugwood]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

But I can't really make Anders NOT perform his al-Qaeda act, now can I? Even if it is "in-character", i'm still rail-roaded by the plot.

No, but you decide your Hawke's moral/relational stance—and thus his/her character.

Also, holy almost-spoilers, Batman.

[Dragoonlordz]

Also isn't the world supposed to have ended by now? It's past 6pm... I was so looking forward to having the last word on the matter.

Lets put it another way if the game was as truly amazing as some people claim (though most here are no so insane) then they wouldn't have to be here defending it so much.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 11:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

But I can't really make Anders NOT perform his al-Qaeda act, now can I? Even if it is "in-character", i'm still rail-roaded by the plot.

You're not so much railroaded as Anders is, but that makes sense because Anders' fate was basically decided the second he decided to merge with Justice.

Would my Hawke have turned Anders in to the Templars before then?  Probably.  But then, my Warden would have bailed after Ostagar and used the battle as an excuse to be presumed dead.  Some stuff has to happen though in a story-driven RPG or else the game's narrative cohesion would fall apart.  These are not sandbox RPGs BioWare is making.

So I mean, would it have been cool if say, you were able to turn Anders into the Templars but he escaped and kaboom'd anyway?  Sure.  But I feel like refusing to help him when he asks you to help him infiltrate a civic building is enough for my character to feel like he's washed his hands of the guy.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 11:40 .

[Auroras]

No, I don't think it's that bad at all, really.

[Mr.House]

Fenris don't kill your sister!
*Fenris does not kill her*

Izzy you can't get the ship
*she does not get teh ship and calms down*

Varric don't keep the shard!
*Varric does not keep the shard*

I can go on.

[ipgd]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

But I can't really make Anders NOT perform his al-Qaeda act, now can I? Even if it is "in-character", i'm still rail-roaded by the plot.

I think there's a point where we have to accept that some things are so massive and gamechanging that there can't be a choice unless the developers are willing to make two entire games in one to branch off from it -- or ignore it entirely, ala the OGB, which I personally find much less compelling than giving themselves the freedom to follow through with one interesting plot thread.

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Lamest. Argument. Ever.

"You're wrong" isn't a very good argument either, guy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
I disagree, ergo it is open to interpretation, ergo comparing it to different colors or even using phrases like "complete opposite" don't hold up.[/quote]

Tell me where was the rise to power then.
Important, distinguish between fame and power.

[quote]

He listed it as a hypothetical possibility.  Context is important.  Were he to have listed an actual event from the game it would be what we on the forums call a "story spoiler" and in general, people hate those.[/quote]

He stated it as an example, which implies that similar things might happen. Nothing similar happened.
Furthermore, it implied choice and decision, which were not there.



[quote]

What he did was important, to Kirkwall and Thedas.  [/quote]

Except he did nothing. 
The conflict was entirely not dependent on him in any way. The key players were Orsino, Meredith, Anders, Elthina and the Divine.

The only thing that connects Hawke to the conflict barely is the idol. Barely, because Bartrand could get more credit for this (for finding it, taking it and selling it).

So Hawke did nothing. And the end choice has no real effect, it results in the exact same situation. His removal from the sotry, would have resulted in the same thing.

Indeed, the entire point of the story Varric is telling is that Hawke was not the main player in this event as Cassandra, quite naively, believed.

[quote]
So yes, I'd equate wanting to radically alter the path of the Champion for the sake of choice to having the Warden be able to abandon Ferelden and let it burn to cinders.  Both games call for certain events to have taken place by certain people.  [/quote]

Except no one is saying that Hawke should leave Kirkwall, even if it is a logical choice. Nor is anyone saying that Hawke has to succeed. He could fail, if he even tried.
But in Origins, we had a lot more free space to maneuvre and not only in internalized roleplaying.

[quote]
Who Hawke was was important to me.  If it wasn't important to you then you simply weren't hooked by the narrative, and that's perfectly fine. [/quote]

And that's fine by me, I never claimed people should hate the game. I've always said it's my opinion.

I would be interested in who Hawke was if I felt he was relevant.

[quote]

My Hawke got to express his internalized thinking through choices in almost every quest in the game.  That we weren't picking kings, but determining how Hawke would respond in various situations, doesn't detract from the experience for me.  It does for some people, some of whom don't care about a choice unless it sets a plot flag for the sequel.[/quote]

But there was no real variety of choices to test his character. So you're trying to fit the roleplaying strictly into what the game gives you (which I find very limited). Not suggesting that Origins had you impose your roleplaying in the game, but it certainly offered more space and flexibility. Not in everything, but in the Landsmeet and epilogue choices (more than 2).


[quote]
Actually, you were.

You said laziness was masked as powerlessness.[/quote]

I was responding to this


[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...
Where does Hawke specifically demonstrate laziness?
[/quote]

And I claimed that laziness is masked by powerlessness, but my main criticism was laziness.
And like I said, it could have offered power or an excercize of power.


[quote]
And at what point does "the public" have any say over what ultimately happens to Kirkwall?

The people of any significant influence are either EVENTED in a cutscene or gathered to witness it.[/quote]

When you hear, read and see that the populace, because of their disliking of Meredith, start supporting mages and spitting on Templar faces, which is one of the root causes of the instability and Templar powerlessness which leads to more violent crackdowns, I think you vastly underestimate the power of the public.

Furthermore, who I was referring to now were the nobility. They are not useless. At least if he assembled from the start,

[quote]
And why doesn't the mine count?  Because it doesn't support your argument?  He's employing Ferelden refugees.[/quote]

Because it's the only choice available and you'd have to be pretty stupid to keep employing them there after several unnatural cases and accidents and that's well before Act 3.

There could have been a lot more investment opportunities. Ones that could have played a moe direct role in a Rise to Power that never happened as it stands.    

[quote]
This just reads to me like all your points could be boiled down to, "I just didn't buy in to the story at any point."  Which is fine, but entirely different from "This story is fundamentally flawed and the issues are X, Y, Z."[/quote]

Me not liking the story is something I have said and I did stress on it being my opinion.

What I am saying is that there is no rise to power objectively, which the game claims it has. A rise to fame maybe. But no rise to power.
And passivity, but I have also said that's my personal opinion.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 mai 2011 - 11:45 .

[TEWR]

I wonder.... if friend Anders embraces his merging and blows up the Chantry, and Rival Anders fails to control himself and blows up the Chantry.... what does neutral Anders do?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

 Meredith would never allow an audience with Orsino.

Except she does and we do meet him in Act 3.

[tariq071]

Mr.House wrote...

Fenris don't kill your sister!
*Fenris does not kill her*

Izzy you can't get the ship
*she does not get teh ship and calms down*

Varric don't keep the shard!
*Varric does not keep the shard*

I can go on.

Feel free and please add how any of  that exactly changed any gameplay in dramatical way or changed any destiny.Otherwise it's purely cosmetic.

[Mr.House]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wonder.... if friend Anders embraces his merging and blows up the Chantry, and Rival Anders fails to control himself and blows up the Chantry.... what does neutral Anders do?

Blows it up for laughs.

[ipgd]

Zjarcal wrote...

Note that I said MOST of the companions, because I know Anders doesn't really follow Hawke's advice (at least as far as changing his actions). Funny how you ignore that and choose to focus on the one companion who really doesn't listen to Hawke.

And I was talking about companions so I'm not even sure why you bother bringing Orsino into the conversation.

He does, though. He's the one companion that is basically an entirely different person on each of his paths. You can't stop what he does, but you do immensely influence his motivations for doing it.

[Aesri]

Slugwood wrote...
(And that brings up lots of other questions, like if something can be art if the author did not intend it as such.)

Granted, this is a page late and all, but it bears pointing out that there's a bunch of "stuff" some artists would (and do) love prancing around as "art" that is as obviously so far from "art" that the light from "art" won't reach it for the next few billion years.

It being or not being "artistically derived" means less and less the longer there is no objective record of intent and design.  For this, we've got marketing and the finished product.

I don't see much room for any metric of measure regarding artistic merit here outside the subjective, and then the question above becomes kinda moot.  *shrug*

[Mr.House]

tariq071 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Fenris don't kill your sister!
*Fenris does not kill her*

Izzy you can't get the ship
*she does not get teh ship and calms down*

Varric don't keep the shard!
*Varric does not keep the shard*

I can go on.

Feel free and please add how any of  that exactly changed any gameplay in dramatical way or changed any destiny.Otherwise it's purely cosmetic.

Seeing as how that changes dialog or in Izzys case, is part of the end of her character arc in DA2 and changes her last conversation alot. Also with Varric, the shard does change him in terms of gameplay. You can influnce your companions, not all but you can.

[Slugwood]

tariq071 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Fenris don't kill your sister!
*Fenris does not kill her*

Izzy you can't get the ship
*she does not get teh ship and calms down*

Varric don't keep the shard!
*Varric does not keep the shard*

I can go on.

Feel free and please add how any of  that exactly changed any gameplay in dramatical way or changed any destiny.Otherwise it's purely cosmetic.

Because Personal Decisions Always Result Immediately In Radical Changes.

<_<

[billy the squid]

ipgd wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

There is such a thing over analysis, a spade is still a spade no matter how one looks at it. Trying to legitimise DA2's flaws with florid prose as a design choice is absurd. EA is a business and will treat all assets as revenue producing material, companies do not move from tried and tested designs unless they believe that the potential profits outweight the percieved risk of doing so.

Again:

I don't think it has to be either or. I think the writing team was trying to accomplish something within the revenue-motivated constraints of the executives. In other words, they may have gone that direction because of the outside pressure of people themselves pressured by money, but I don't think the narrative itself was specifically  concerned with it, if you get what I'm saying?

Bioware isn't just a big singular faceless entity, it's made up of separate parts that may have differing goals. I'm only speaking to the writing aspect of it.

I felt that the scope of the narrative was constrained by the issues of time rather than it having an effect on the type of narrative being told, a single voiced protagonist, using a framed narrative is a viable way to tell a story and could have worked very well, although I disliked it in this game.

I would agree to a certain extent that within chapter 1 the choices of Hawke as a refugee may be limited due to his standing as a refugee. However, once he has begun to achieve some sort of social standing within the city state of Kirkwall his lack of ability shape certain events becomes rather more jarring, as one would expect individuals of to have certain political influence, whereas Hawke appears to have very little despite earning the title of champion.
Generating more the feeling of impotence and general apathy towards events as they will occur, regardless of player input, compunded by certain characters returning from the dead.

It gave me more the impression that the writing team had run out of time, in what they were attempting to do, rather than trying to convey a sense of individual limitations in the events that occured. 

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 mai 2011 - 12:04 .

[upsettingshorts]

tariq071 wrote...

Feel free and please add how any of  that exactly changed any gameplay in dramatical way or changed any destiny.Otherwise it's purely cosmetic.

Please describe how say, picking the King of Orzammar changes any gameplay in "dramatical" way.  You get different town crier audio.

Oh, and the "destiny" is changed in an epilogue card.  So epilogue cards are the key to a decision mattering, then?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Please describe how say, picking the King of Orzammar changes any gameplay in "dramatical" way.  You get different town crier audio.

Oh, and the "destiny" is changed in an epilogue card.  So epilogue cards are the key to a decision mattering, then?

Except the epilogue in DA2 is only relevent to how  Hawke is percieved by history (either hated or loved by mages / Templars) and not the actual outcome.

Whereas Harrowmont's Orzammar is vastly different from Bhelen's. And it could also include how history, or at least the dwarves, would view the Warden.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 mai 2011 - 11:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tell me where was the rise to power then.
Important, distinguish between fame and power.

The easiest and most obvious example is that Hawke determines who wins the first battle of the mage revolution. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He stated it as an example, which implies that similar things might happen. Nothing similar happened.
Furthermore, it implied choice and decision, which were not there.

I didn't read either from his statement.  He asked "what does Champion of Kirkwall mean?" and then ran off some hypotheticals that a player, who hasn't played the game, might offer up as guesses.

By the end of the game we do know what the Champion is.  Or at least I did, and was okay with it.  The Champion in my game was someone who tried to prevent the current worldstate and failed.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except he did nothing.

In my case, it certainly wasn't due to lack of trying.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The conflict was entirely not dependent on him in any way. The key players were Orsino, Meredith, Anders, Elthina and the Divine.

Yeah, but I don't see the problem with this. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except no one is saying that Hawke should leave Kirkwall, even if it is a logical choice. Nor is anyone saying that Hawke has to succeed. He could fail, if he even tried.
But in Origins, we had a lot more free space to maneuvre and not only in internalized roleplaying.

Free space to maneuver?  You had to use the treaties, had to put an infertile monarch(s) on the throne, had to cure Eamon, and had to end a Blight.  The free space to maneuever was, at best, a more effective illusion.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But there was no real variety of choices to test his character. So you're trying to fit the roleplaying strictly into what the game gives you (which I find very limited).

We disagree on what a "choice to test character" is.  Quite wildly.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

(snip about power and laziness)

It really just seems like you're saying, "Hawke didn't always do everything I think he should have been able to."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 mai 2011 - 11:57 .

[Aesri]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Aesri wrote...

The genre of game is changing, granted. But then, evolution isn't always comfortable and linear.

*shrug* YMMV....

And it (change) isn't always for the better either. DA2 is not evolution at all its a regression, that place it is trying to blend its way into is an overflooded marketplace. That of cinematic games with action and/or rpg elements.

Actually, it's not.  It's merely not a title that's designed via your (and I'd suppose those of others) demands of what a modern RPG must have for it to be of merit.  To put it another way....

"It's supposed to be this way (or better by my subjective metrics) and if it's not it's wrong."

That's an apt description of an evolutional dead-end.  A closed loop.  Find comfy spot and only develop in ways that preserve exactly what has come before while adding only that which is adherent to....what exactly?  How is there evolution at all if change is the safe and tested path well worn by every single thing that's come before with minor revision? 

Nature calls your assertion that it's "regression" a load.  Of what, the TOS won't let me expand on.

Modifié par Aesri, 21 mai 2011 - 11:56 .