510 réponses à ce sujet

[Aesri]

Slugwood wrote...

Aesri wrote...

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*

Oh, I didn't mean to imply author intention is the only defining characteristic of art, but that it might be one of them.  Certainly I can't think of any examples of an artist creating art without intending to, unless you go to Dadaism and still that represents a very intentional statement.  Even artists who use chance as their primary artistic tool do so intentionally.

In any case I must say I would tend to disagree with your first statement, but perhaps that is coming from my perspective as an artist (well, musician) myself.  Not to say you can't be, either.

I'm sorry if I came across as if I thought that you implied such.  Just thought to shine a light on a point for the interest of discorse.  Pardon any unclear statement I may have made in regards to such.

And let me be clearer.  What artist is GOING to come out and say "Heh, I just (Random act X) and there it was...like a weapon-of-mass-impressionism."?  That's right, none would.  I couldn't ask for an example of one that would, as that's more "Diogenes" than I care to allow myself to be.

As a teen, I walked into the St. Louis Art Museum with my mother and bore witness to a 20' tall, square white canvas with three or four bundled industrial cables jutting out from the center of it to lay down onto the floor and extended out to a distance of 10' or so.  It was labeled as "modern art" and was the biggest draw for the museum for that year.

It was a couple of cables affixed to a canvas and haphazardly strewn onto the floor.  It was crap.  It showed all the composition and artistic merit of a 7 year old boy's tread-marked underwear.  I'm anything other than a liar as to the forethought some Amerian curators put into what they'll hang and extol the virtues of.  Might make me bland Colonial...but then I can live with that.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar; readily admitted.  Othertimes, that Havana hand-rolled is just a Philly Blunt stuffed with dried oak leaves.  Still other times a "sequel" is just a shared-IP exploration.  Art be damed.

I appreciate the feedback, however.  Thank you, kindly!

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Hell you can even side with Petriceif you want to be a Qunari hater.

IIRC she survives and could be promoted (and her radical views as such could have mroe weight especially after what happened). This, I could see as one of the rare few important choices (one I hope, but doubt, will be explored later on). But I've always said that Act 2 is the only thing I find redeeming about the game.

nope. She tells you that she gets her title of Mother taken away from her for her involvement in the whole thing. She got demoted.

Really? Drat.
Just when I was trying to be positive.

If held under closer scrutiny, I also find Act 2 lacking, but I do not deny enjoying it. It was a mix of everythign really. Characters, build up (with character development), intrigue, soundtrack (Qunari on the Rise ftw!). It was a satisfying experience and quite honestly, I would have been happy if DA2 ended with Act 2. IT would not have left as bad a taste on my mouth as Act 3 did. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 12:29 .

[Zjarcal]

ipgd wrote...

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.

I know he does, which is why I added the "at least as far as changing his actions". But yes, I'm aware that he changes a lot based on whether you friended him or rivaled him.

[TEWR]

Mr.House wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Hell you can even side with Petriceif you want to be a Qunari hater.

IIRC she survives and could be promoted (and her radical views as such could have mroe weight especially after what happened). This, I could see as one of the rare few important choices (one I hope, but doubt, will be explored later on). But I've always said that Act 2 is the only thing I find redeeming about the game.

nope. She tells you that she gets her title of Mother taken away from her for her involvement in the whole thing. She got demoted.

And she probaly died when Anders went boom happy.

And that makes Anders justified. He's a saint

[upsettingshorts]

Merced652 wrote...

I'm sure if i were to ask i'd already know the answer, its quite cliche at this point. From everything i've read DA2 is to you what this type of game was always supposed to be at its core. Which is to say that if i were a betting man you'd march out nothing more than reused maps, and waves. But given the circumstances, i'm sure you can come up with some other very minor annoyance you might have faced in your beloved da2.

Actually I have a rather significant issue with DA2.

Gameplay/story segregation. The short explanation is I genuinely believe that BioWare's engine is woefully inadequate to the task of delivering the story the game tries to tell us. This manifests itself in a number of ways, from Kirkwall being empty and mostly static, to tradesman's stalls being empty of goods, to having events described to us - such as the Templars "closing in" on Anders - that we never actually see. My "favorite" example of this is how we are able to be mobbed by dozens of bandits at Night, and never actually get to see who they were intending to rob or kill except us.

By contrast, The Witcher 2 does not have this issue in the slightest. In the Prologue you are are present for and take part in an assault on a keep. And look, there's the massive siege camp, all the soldiers, the working siege equipment, and the castle in the background.

The reason gameplay/story segregation is especially bad in cRPGs, especially BioWare cRPGs, is that they are story driven. If story and gameplay are therefore in conflict, it creates a disconnected and flawed experience.

I'm not sure what you were expecting, however. Maybe pacing problems? The game had those, too. Poorly implemented but-thou-must quest choices? Them aswell.  I also think the enemies exploding into blood is silly (I have it modded out) and really didn't like how the weapons looked - but I didn't in DAO either.  I suppose those are "very minor," though.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 12:35 .

[Mr.House]

The Qunari threat should have been the main story of DA2 imho, would have been better.

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Hell you can even side with Petriceif you want to be a Qunari hater.

IIRC she survives and could be promoted (and her radical views as such could have mroe weight especially after what happened). This, I could see as one of the rare few important choices (one I hope, but doubt, will be explored later on). But I've always said that Act 2 is the only thing I find redeeming about the game.

nope. She tells you that she gets her title of Mother taken away from her for her involvement in the whole thing. She got demoted.

Really? Drat.
Just when I was trying to be positive.

If held under closer scrutiny, I also find Act 2 lacking, but I do not deny enjoying it. It was a mix of everythign really. Characters, build up (with character development), intrigue, soundtrack (Qunari on the Rise ftw!). It was a satisfying experience and quite honestly, I would have been happy if DA2 ended with Act 2. IT would not have left as bad a taste on my mouth as Act 3 did. 

what did you find lacking in Act 2? I thought it was perfect.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Hell you can even side with Petriceif you want to be a Qunari hater.

IIRC she survives and could be promoted (and her radical views as such could have mroe weight especially after what happened). This, I could see as one of the rare few important choices (one I hope, but doubt, will be explored later on). But I've always said that Act 2 is the only thing I find redeeming about the game.

nope. She tells you that she gets her title of Mother taken away from her for her involvement in the whole thing. She got demoted.

And she probaly died when Anders went boom happy.

And that makes Anders justified. He's a saint

That makes me dislike Anders even more...

Poor poor sexy Petrice.

[Mr.House]

Petrice deserved it

[tariq071]

Mr.House wrote...
You can save Carver/Beth if you brought them and Anders to the Deep Roads.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/policeman.png[/smilie]

And you don't even have to save him/her if you don't take them at all. In either case they are there in final battle.Their being there or not really doesn't change anything story wise or more importantly tacticaly in the end battles.

Mr.House wrote...

You do get diffrent dialog, just because it's not what you wanted means nothing. You have also not answered the other questions about DAO that others have asked you. The only choices in DAO that really changed how the game played was choices made before the Landsmeet, killing all the Dalish(you loose a merchant) and leaving Redcliffe to it's fate. Everything else changed little in game. You where given the illusion of cohice in DAO, that was all, DA2 didn't do a good job with the illsuion but it's still an illusion.

So having , possibly, completely different tactical approach after with your army (which composition is effected by your previous actions) is an illusion, but gaining one single rune slot for one companion(which he really doesn't need since game is easy as it is even on highest lvl) is significant?

err, ..ok...then..

[Merced652]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

I'm sure if i were to ask i'd already know the answer, its quite cliche at this point. From everything i've read DA2 is to you what this type of game was always supposed to be at its core. Which is to say that if i were a betting man you'd march out nothing more than reused maps, and waves. But given the circumstances, i'm sure you can come up with some other very minor annoyance you might have faced in your beloved da2.

Actually I have a rather significant issue with DA2.

Gameplay/story segregation. The short explanation is I genuinely believe that BioWare's engine is woefully inadequate to the task of delivering the story the game tries to tell us. This manifests itself in a number of ways, from Kirkwall being empty and mostly static, to tradesman's stalls being empty of goods, to having events described to us - such as the Templars "closing in" on Anders - that we never actually see. My "favorite" example of this is how we are able to be mobbed by dozens of bandits at Night, and never actually get to see who they were intending to rob or kill except us.

By contrast, The Witcher 2 does not have this issue in the slightest. In the Prologue you are are present for and take part in an assault on a keep. And look, there's the massive siege camp, all the soldiers, the working siege equipment, and the castle in the background.

The reason gameplay/story segregation is especially bad in cRPGs, especially BioWare cRPGs, is that they are story driven. If story and gameplay are therefore in conflict, it creates a disconnected and flawed experience.

I'm not sure what you were expecting, however. Maybe pacing problems? The game had those, too. Poorly implemented but-thou-must quest choices? Them aswell.  I also think the enemies exploding into blood is silly (I have it modded out) and really didn't like how the weapons looked - but I didn't in DAO either.  I suppose those are "very minor," though.

I referenced this point earlier in some other thread about atmosphere and how TW2 put both DA games to shame with it. So i find it somewhat heartening that you'd acknowledge that. (indeed your other points falling in to the very minor category). Perhaps it took a game like TW2 to show us that. 

I think theres something to be said for immersion in games and just how much the actual atmosphere and gameplay impact that. That might go some ways to explaining why i loathed hawke and everyone else in the game. I saw no basis on which this particular little world was founded and therefore couldn't empathize or relate on the smallest of levels. I do feel though that the writing and voiced protags were both significant hinderences to immersion in DA2 as well. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
what did you find lacking in Act 2? I thought it was perfect.

- We don't know if the Aishok was contacting Meredith, which if he was not, would be pretty idiotic as it's obvious who was calling the shots. This would have been a pretty good opportnity to introduce Meredith early on.

- I am not really sure I understand the tome of Koslun. Is it the original? If so, how in the world did the Oerlesians steal it in the first place? If it's a copy, then why is it so important for the Qunari that they'd risk war over it?  It wasn't explained and it was kind of a meh plot twist.

- Related to that. It felt that it was more about having the cool badass Qunari without any real relevent story to tell. Very little was at stake in the plot and 3 years later, apparently no one is bothered by the Qunari virtually breaking the treaty and declaring war. It didn't feel like there was something important going on, just that the Qunari want to retrieve some Tome which importance is not really that explained. Felt more like a preview of the Qunari "returning" in the future.

- I don't understand how a small compound in Kirkwall could house hundreds of soldiers, enough for them to compeltely plough through the guards with ease.  But Bioware always sucked with logistics.

- I don't quite understand what the Arishok was doing. Why didn't he use his explosives? Worried about civilian casualties? Ok, then why didn't he use it or the madness enducing gas on say the Gallows, where Kirkwall's largest military force is based? And where the mages are, whom we know are the one thing that turned the tide of the previous war.

- Hawke's "rise to power" here was only a rise to fame by just killing. Hawke didn't rally up defenders, or use his brain. He just killed a lot of qunari and possibly the Arishok. In other words, he acted like a superhero and not really like a leader. This was an opporunity for Hawke to have a real rise to power, via leadership capabilities and higher brain functions. 

But all in all, I still like Act 2 and I was pumped at the climax (sounds wrong, but adequate).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mai 2011 - 12:43 .

[Chickenhawked]

ExaltedReign wrote...




Is DA2 really that bad?

Yes.

Thread's over.  I answered his question.  You can all stop bickering now.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
If held under closer scrutiny, I also find Act 2 lacking, but I do not deny enjoying it. It was a mix of everythign really. Characters, build up (with character development), intrigue, soundtrack (Qunari on the Rise ftw!). It was a satisfying experience and quite honestly, I would have been happy if DA2 ended with Act 2. IT would not have left as bad a taste on my mouth as Act 3 did. 

Even if I don't dislike Act 3 as passionately as you do (I do have qualms with it), I do agree that having DA2 end with the Qunari battle would've been much more satisfying. My feelings when finishing Act 2 were of pure joy, whereas finishing Act 3 left me with mixed feelings.

And hell yes, "Qunari on the Rise" FTW indeed! 

[Zjarcal]

tariq071 wrote...
So having , possibly, completely different tactical approach after with your army (which composition is effected by your previous actions) is an illusion, but gaining one single rune slot for one companion(which he really doesn't need since game is easy as it is even on highest lvl) is significant?

err, ..ok...then..

If we're taking difficulty into the equation, I would say that the armies in Origins are irrelevant since I was able to do the entire final battle on Nightmare without calling a single army.

[Dragoonlordz]

Mr.House wrote...

You do get diffrent dialog, just because it's not what you wanted means nothing. You have also not answered the other questions about DAO that others have asked you. The only choices in DAO that really changed how the game played was choices made before the Landsmeet, killing all the Dalish(you loose a merchant) and leaving Redcliffe to it's fate. Everything else changed little in game. You where given the illusion of cohice in DAO, that was all, DA2 didn't do a good job with the illsuion but it's still an illusion.

I'm pretty sure my Warden (choosing) sacrificing her/himself and being you know... dead at the end was a pretty big choice that affected the result of the game for my character in a big way. In DAO the choices regardless of illusion or not and how big or small, they affected the 'main' plot. If your not content with how much or how little thats different but doesn't change the fact they did whether ruler of kingdom or country, race or final battle allies (all are part of the main plot). DA2 the only major choice is the order in which you kill the last bosses that is all and the result is the same and for me it wasn't that they didn't try to pretend was a choice at end it was more a slap in the face showing that there in fact was not that adds to the flaws of the title for me.

Hence like I said DA2 is a game designed on premise of being a bystander of events for the most parts and being powerless, for some they might get a kick out of it but for a lot of us thats just plain depressing and creates a level or resentment and anger as we don't get our kicks/jollies from being worthless or having our hands tied. Thats what generic JRPG stories are about a single plot no choices and DA2 has more in common with them plot wise than other Bioware titles.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 mai 2011 - 12:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
And hell yes, "Qunari on the Rise" FTW indeed! 

I've made it my life's goal (for a few days) to find a remix of it that I swear I heard in the game (more emphasis on the chorus I believe), but I couldn't find it

[mesmerizedish]

Zjarcal wrote...

If we're taking difficulty into the equation, I would say that the armies in Origins are irrelevant since I was able to do the entire final battle on Nightmare without calling a single army.

So was I, but I've been told that doesn't matter, the different armies are still examples of huge gameplay variation dependent on my choices

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
what did you find lacking in Act 2? I thought it was perfect.

- We don't know if the Aishok was contacting Meredith, which if he was not, would be pretty idiotic as it's obvious who was calling the shots. This would have been a pretty good opportnity to introduce Meredith early on.

Meredith didn't care about the Qunari. She viewed the real threat as being the mages. A couple of Hanged Man patrons, who weren't drunk, say that this is what Meredith explicitly said.

- I am not really sure I understand the tome of Koslun. Is it the original? If so, how in the world did the Oerlesians steal it in the first place? If it's a copy, then why is it so important for the Qunari that they'd risk war over it?  It wasn't explained and it was kind of a meh plot twist.

Probably when the Qunari invaded they brought the original farther in to help convert people and serve as a morale boost, and then when the war started to turn I guess it just got lost in the shuffle.

- Related to that. It felt that it was more about having the cool badass Qunari without any real relevent story to tell. Very little was at stake in the plot and 3 years later, apparently no one is bothered by the Qunari virtually breaking the treaty and declaring war. It didn't feel like there was something important going on, just that the Qunari want to retrieve some Tome which importance is not really that explained. Felt more like a preview of the Qunari "returning" in the future.

I'm not sure I understand. The Qunari landed not of their own volition, and didn't want to sack Kirkwall. It wasn't their objective. It was only after zealots and fanatics attacked the Qunari behind closed doors that the Arishok grew fed up with it.

- I don't understand how a small compound in Kirkwall could house hundreds of soldiers, enough for them to compeltely plough through the guards with ease.  But Bioware always sucked with logistics.

How do 50 clowns fit into a tiny car?

In all seriousness we don't know how big the buildings in the compound are, so they might be able to house hundreds of soldiers. There are also cots and mats present in the Compound so I assume some Qunari sleep outside in order to keep watch.

Also keep in mind he kept losing men to the Tal-Vashoth and zealots.

- I don't quite understand what the Arishok was doing. Why didn't he use his explosives? Worried about civilian casualties? Ok, then why didn't he use it or the madness enducing gas on say the Gallows, where Kirkwall's largest military force is based? And where the mages are, whom we know are the one thing that turned the tide of the previous war.

The gas kills too. He tells you this. The Qunari do not waste resources, human life being among them. Sten says this in banter with Loghain.

- Hawke's "rise to power" here was only a rise to fame by just killing. Hawke didn't rally up defenders, or use his brain. He just killed a lot of qunari and possibly the Arishok. In other words, he acted like a superhero and not really like a leader. This was an opporunity for Hawke to have a real rise to power, via leadership capabilities and higher brain functions. 

But all in all, I still like Act 2 and I was pumped at the climax (sounds wrong, but adequate).

Hmmm.... well a rally of some City Guard and Darktown militia would've been nice, even if they didn't help in the battles. I'll give you that one.

But considering he can say to Meredith and Orsino that he would lead, I'd say he did act like a leader.

[ipgd]

Zjarcal wrote...

tariq071 wrote...
So having , possibly, completely different tactical approach after with your army (which composition is effected by your previous actions) is an illusion, but gaining one single rune slot for one companion(which he really doesn't need since game is easy as it is even on highest lvl) is significant?

err, ..ok...then..

If we're taking difficulty into the equation, I would say that the armies in Origins are irrelevant since I was able to do the entire final battle on Nightmare without calling a single army.

I soloed the entire final battle on Nightmare without a single army :|

Origins Nightmare is much, much, much easier than DA2 Nightmare.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
DA2 the only major choice is the order in which you kill the last bosses that is all and the result is the same

Actualy, I think you kill them in th same order.

and for me it wasn't that they didn't try to pretend was a choice at end it was more a slap in the face showing that there in fact was not that adds to the flaws of the title for me.

I don't mind taking choice away from the players at some instances. I liked the DR in that Morrigan pushed us into a corner where choice is very limited (3, but still). But the whole story was just bad and Hawke's powerlessness looks more like laziness to me.

Maybe it's the whole 3 years gap between Act 2 and 3 that really pisses me off. If it was a few months, I could buy him not doing much if anything. I still wouldn't like him as a protagonist, but I'd be more forgiving.

[Xilizhra]

- I don't quite understand what the Arishok was doing. Why didn't he use his explosives? Worried about civilian casualties? Ok, then why didn't he use it or the madness enducing gas on say the Gallows, where Kirkwall's largest military force is based? And where the mages are, whom we know are the one thing that turned the tide of the previous war.

I think that a lot of this is because he was nearly insane himself with rage by this time.

[Inverness Moon]

DA2 is an okay game that doesn't live up to what people expect from BioWare. It seems obvious to me that DA2 is the result of influence by EA. I regret buying it and wasn't even interested enough to finish playing it. I got hooked on Morrowind instead after hearing so many great things about it. And now with the Witcher 2 out, there is such an amazing difference in quality.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

- I am not really sure I understand the tome of Koslun. Is it the original? If so, how in the world did the Oerlesians steal it in the first place? If it's a copy, then why is it so important for the Qunari that they'd risk war over it?  It wasn't explained and it was kind of a meh plot twist.

It is explained. Orlais acquired it during the Exalted Marches against the Qunari and were about to hand it back over as some sort of peace offering when it was stolen.

Modifié par ipgd, 22 mai 2011 - 12:59 .