60 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Loftian]

...On that note, Act III is where the realism in fantasy actually fell short in my book.

[Faroth]

More realistic, like everyday life? So that's why the story was so boring.

Like others said, when you're a prominent noble in the city, why are you running messenger errands? Shouldn't you be issuing errands to others? No, the story just fell flat to me.

[SpockLives]

When my everyday life is more exciting than DA2, I know the game was seriously lacking.

[Sidney]

Faroth wrote...

More realistic, like everyday life? So that's why the story was so boring.

Like others said, when you're a prominent noble in the city, why are you running messenger errands? Shouldn't you be issuing errands to others? No, the story just fell flat to me.

You are trying to save the world in DAO and you are running fetch quests and a raftload of sidequests as well. No, it doesn't make sense and if anything the DA2 model without the "holy $$%^&%$ move fast to save the world now,  now, now" makes a lot more sense and feels better than DAO.

[fn_outlaw]

fetchquests/sidequests to bloster an army fit with saving the world...it makes sense.

fetchquests to make more money when you're already rich...not so much...

[KennethAFTopp]

dgcatanisiri wrote...

I totally agree. The problem is that everyone was expecting a fantasy epic, which traditionally involve becoming some utterly invincible hero who forces the world to change. DA2 is different because it is NOT about a 'Chosen One.' Just a man (or woman), who is fighting not for some noble purpose but simply to go on.

That wasn't the only problem.

[Must have name]

The premise of making it a character focused story that isn't about "Save the World" is refreshing. The problem was the story was so badly executed in so many ways.

i) The timejumps. Sometimes they're compeltely unwarranted. You don't get to experience any of Hawke's year as a Merc/Smuggler. I'm sure my initial Hawke would have also done something about the Meredith / Orsino situation within a month of the Arishok's defeat, not 3 years! That, and since a lot of the stuff with party members is inferred over those 3 years, you really feel disjointed from Hawke as a PC.

ii) The railroad. Several elements of the story had limited choices since the rest of it needed to be laid out. Petrice in Act I is a prime example of this. Killing her should be a perfectly valid choice - there's no reason Hawke wouldn't be able to. Yet Hawke can't, as Petrice has a required role in Act II that the writers were too lazy to branch off. Then there's others. The fact that a warrior/rogue Hawke can't contest Bethany being taken by the Templars. How Hawke is forced to do a job for Meredith. How the Mage Rebels will KOS any Hawke even if he's ridiculously pro-mage (heck, even a Mage himself!).

iii) The ending. If you make it a personal story, it's all about that character. If the story went as intended, you'd feel a lot for that character, yet at the end you're left with next to no information about both himself and any of his party members?

iv) The world was static. It's a supposed 10 year journey (really, 7 years), yet in that time does Kirkwall change? Does anything around it change? Pretty much no. You don't get a sense that the world is evolving with your character.

TLDR: The basic idea of the story is sound, its execution was poor.

[Nepenthe87]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
I can answer that one about the Phoenix Down.

In
the Final Fantasy games if a party members HP drops to 0 they aren't
dead, they are unconscious. Its only game over if all players fall
unconscious which means the enemy would kill them after they are knocked
out. When Sephiroth stabbed Aerith(Aeris is a translation error in the
original version of FF7) with his Masamune it was a death blow, not a
knock out.

Actually in the japanese version of the game 0 HP means dead. K/O is used in the english version becasue back in the old ps1 days there wasnt enough space to put a full english word into the status text blocks since japanese words are usually only 1 or 2 characters.

Modifié par Nepenthe87, 27 mai 2011 - 04:21 .

[KLGChaos]

DA2 wasn't that realistic to me. It spent way too much time trying to paint all mages in a bad light and forgetting about the good ones like Bethany. I mean, 99% of the mages you encounter end up as blood mages or abominations. It's ridiculous. If that were the case, the world would have been overrun by them a long time ago. And the templars aren't any better. You get maybe one or two sympathizers, but the rest of people who just think every mage should be killed, tortured or made tranquil-- no better than slavers. The real world has both good and evil, even when there's supposed to be shades of grey. This tried too hard to be all grey and it fell flat.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 27 mai 2011 - 04:42 .

[fn_outlaw]

KLGChaos wrote...

DA2 wasn't that realistic to me. It spent way too much time trying to paint all mages in a bad light and forgetting about the good ones like Bethany. I mean, 99% of the mages you encounter end up as blood mages or abominations. It's ridiculous. If that were the case, the world would have been overrun by them a long time ago. And the templars aren't any better. You get maybe one or two sympathizers, but the rest of people who just think every mage should be killed, tortured or made tranquil-- no better than slavers. The real world has both good and evil, even when there's supposed to be shades of grey. This tried too hard to be all grey and it fell flat.

QFT.

[Sidney]

fn_outlaw wrote...

fetchquests/sidequests to bloster an army fit with saving the world...it makes sense.

fetchquests to make more money when you're already rich...not so much...

Rasing the army are the main quests - and ultimately meaningless since you can't advance w/o getting all the aliies and no matter how you end the quests you DO get allies who are interchangable and of minimal value anyways. Finding a lost caravan, running errants for the Mages Guild and mercinary company or stealing crap in Denerim aren't helping make your army any better.

Same thing as ME2 vs ME1. ME1 has a better story but the pacing is wrong in a race to stop the awful reapers you are playing Moon Patrol on empty worlds looking for heavy metals? Really this makes sense? In ME2 the "down time" when you are solving daddy issues at least happens while you are waiting for more intel or the next Collector attack and so the flow feels a lot less "gamey" in that way. Time in non-linear games is usually handled very, very, very badly.

[lionalio87]

No game can be able to achieve the reality. They can only reflect the real life in some certain aspects. And even so, till this day, they are quite few gameplay can be able to do this.

Dragon Age 2, in my point of view, it doesn't reflect much the reality in its main plots, regarding the quests, there are just few elements of the real life that have been added. For example, the treachery (in Act 1), the racism (Act 1+2), the most realistic it can reflect may be its NPC (just my opinion).

On the other hands, the side quests of DA2 seems to reflect the reality better than its own main plot. That's weird, but take a look at the companion's quests. The Aveline'a quest in Act 2, Fenris's quests in Act 3, etc... All we can sense there exists some reality around.

So overall, if someone argues that DA2 is more realistic, I can agree, but not completely.Bring some things of the real life in DA2, it is good, nevertheless this possibly makes DA2 ruin its own genre title: fantasy RPG.

In Dragon Age Origins, I can say that it is the pure fable. It doesn't reflect much the real world isn't it? All the settings based on the pure fantasy, killing darkspawn, slain the dragons, magics, templars, assassins... This is some kind of traveling around and slaying everything you meet on your way, but the story, the gameplay are interesting enough for us to keep us steady in our place to enjoy.

More over, the non-linear story, the moral choice and multiple ending also its advanced points. This can make us want to play this game again to achieve another victory and ending, but I can hardly see anythings reflect the reality in here, we don't even notice some notable events that we can do in DA2.

[XX55XX]

If movies and books reflected reality, then I doubt very many people would be watching or reading them at all.

When people engage a piece of media, they don't want to be reminded by the mundanity of the world they had just departed. They want to be engaged and entertained. 

How do books, media, and video games do this? By presenting a conflict! Dragon Age II has a conflict, but it is so poorly presented to the player that many people, including myself, do not necessarily feel engaged or entertained as a result. 

Hence, realism =/= entertaining.

Dragon Age II failed as a result.

[Sidney]

XX55XX wrote...

If movies and books reflected reality, then I doubt very many people would be watching or reading them at all.

Do you think before writing this? What won the Oscar this year? King's Speech which while not a 100% history certainly "reflects" reality. You want more of the Michael Bay-ian eye-candy a *boom* effect well then what Blackhawk Down which, again, is based on a real story and certainly reflects some sort of reality. See also: Schindler's List, Battleship Potemkin, M, Mutinty on the Bounty, Titanic, Judgement at Nuremberg, Partton, "Tora,Tora, Tora,", Breaker Morant, Gallipoli, Saving Private Ryan and many many others and that is just film we're dealing with. You might not be watching films that reflect on reality but notice plenty of people are. Also notice that in many of those films the people in them aren't the ones making history, they are a part of history - no one saves the Titanic, no one stops Pearkl Harbor, *spoiler* they're dead at the end of Gallipoli and so on.

It IS a different type of story. Maybe one you aren't comfortable with but that remains a reflection on you and others that want/need the "Great Man of History" type of story but certainly not all stories are like that.

[ipgd]

XX55XX wrote...

If movies and books reflected reality, then I doubt very many people would be watching or reading them at all.

When people engage a piece of media, they don't want to be reminded by the mundanity of the world they had just departed. They want to be engaged and entertained.

Speak for yourself.

I highly doubt something like The Wire would have been improved by magic or dragons or unrealistic heroic acts on the part of the characters that managed to actually solve any of the rampant corruption or violence presented by the show. The characters fail in their goals repeatedly, and Baltimore is scarcely any different for the years of efforts from both the police and criminal elements. And it's wonderful, because it's real and uncomfortable.

There is plenty of value in emulating life, even its the bleak aspects concering the reality of personal failure. A personal preference for the fantastical is not a sufficient justification for a sweeping condemnation of an entire narrative theme.

[fn_outlaw]

Sidney wrote...

Do you think before writing this? What won the Oscar this year? King's Speech which while not a 100% history certainly "reflects" reality. You want more of the Michael Bay-ian eye-candy a *boom* effect well then what Blackhawk Down which, again, is based on a real story and certainly reflects some sort of reality. See also: Schindler's List, Battleship Potemkin, M, Mutinty on the Bounty, Titanic, Judgement at Nuremberg, Partton, "Tora,Tora, Tora,", Breaker Morant, Gallipoli, Saving Private Ryan and many many others and that is just film we're dealing with. You might not be watching films that reflect on reality but notice plenty of people are. Also notice that in many of those films the people in them aren't the ones making history, they are a part of history - no one saves the Titanic, no one stops Pearkl Harbor, *spoiler* they're dead at the end of Gallipoli and so on.

It IS a different type of story. Maybe one you aren't comfortable with but that remains a reflection on you and others that want/need the "Great Man of History" type of story but certainly not all stories are like that.

I would have to ask you the same question, considering how much Hollywood glorifies(dare I say streamlines?) many of those very stories your talking about.  The whole reason they say "based on a true story" is because of the Hollywood embellishment.  If all they did was switch the names around and give an accurate accounting of the events, then it would be "the true story of yadda yadda yadda" The Hollywood embellishment would be that little bit of fantasy added in.  Granted, its not dragons or magic, but its fantasy either way and its added in for entertainment value because if someone wanted to see real life, they'd watch the History channel or walk outside.

[Sidney]

fn_outlaw wrote...

I would have to ask you the same question, considering how much Hollywood glorifies(dare I say streamlines?) many of those very stories your talking about.  The whole reason they say "based on a true story" is because of the Hollywood embellishment.  If all they did was switch the names around and give an accurate accounting of the events, then it would be "the true story of yadda yadda yadda" The Hollywood embellishment would be that little bit of fantasy added in.  Granted, its not dragons or magic, but its fantasy either way and its added in for entertainment value because if someone wanted to see real life, they'd watch the History channel or walk outside.

A total non answer. Is the Titanic set around real world problem that the protangonists can't change? Yes. There's no magical moment when they stop the boat from sinking. There never was a Willy Loman but does Willy Loman deal with real issues in a realistic way? Yes, sadly. To say that having tales based in the real world or reflecting some real world issues can't be entertaining ins't mitigated by the fact that something is fiction.  Even though the Hurt Locker is 100% fiction and veers from reality in several areas it does refelect a view of view that is grounded in reality. There's no Schwarzenegger moment when they decide to take down the terrorists all by themselves using a machines gun in each hand. Now in an Ahnold movie there is a distinct protagonist who accomplishes something. He changes the world and everything he does matters. In the Hurt Locker the protagonists choices don't change much, he is part of a historical sweep that is beyond his ability to change and alter. He is a part of history he is not making history. The "Great man" form of litertaure isn't always bad but it certainly isn't alone as a valid style of story telling.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm nauseated that we are seriously discussing the theatrical merits of Titanic alongside Dragon Age.


That is all.

[Sidney]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm nauseated that we are seriously discussing the theatrical merits of Titanic alongside Dragon Age.


That is all.

Not discussing the merits. The movie was only tolerable if you edited out the parts with DiCaprio and Winslet IMHO but about the fact that people can be entertained, rightly or wrongly, by stories that deal with real world type concerns and not only wild flights of fancy.

Again, the best part of DAO had nothing to do with the AD and Darkspawn. In fact, if you had dropped that entire element of the story and the whole point of DAO was to force the murdering usurper off the throne by gathering an army to defeat him would that have been any worse a game? No. Is that scenario a whole lot more "real world" than a magical dragon and his zombie hordes? Yes.

[LobselVith8]

Sidney wrote...

Faroth wrote...

More realistic, like everyday life? So that's why the story was so boring.

Like others said, when you're a prominent noble in the city, why are you running messenger errands? Shouldn't you be issuing errands to others? No, the story just fell flat to me.

You are trying to save the world in DAO and you are running fetch quests and a raftload of sidequests as well. No, it doesn't make sense and if anything the DA2 model without the "holy $$%^&%$ move fast to save the world now,  now, now" makes a lot more sense and feels better than DAO.

In Origins, The Warden is tasked with getting allies through treaties, and has the option of reaching out to other factions - the Mages Collective, the Blackstone Irregulars, ect. The entire point of the quests for Slim is to weaken and upset the nobles who are allied with Arl Howe and Teyrn Loghain. In DA2, Hawke is wearing silk robes and apparently too busy standing in front of a fireplace to be proactive.

As for realistic, what's realistic about having no choices? It's realistic that Hawke finds a letter addressing that Quentin had an accomplice, and Hawke does nothing about it? It's realistic that Hawke can kill an Ancient Rockwraith but does nothing about his sister getting taken away by two templars? It's realistic that Hawke does nothing about Meredith becoming a dictator over Kirkwall when he's earned the title of Champion and plenty of people are displeased? It's realistic that Hawke has wealth and status but does nothing about the plight of the people in Darktown and the Alienage? Hawke is reactive, he doesn't do anything but kill people. I don't find Hawke to be more realistic than The Warden, I find him to be a failure.

[LobselVith8]

Sidney wrote...

Rasing the army are the main quests - and ultimately meaningless since you can't advance w/o getting all the aliies and no matter how you end the quests you DO get allies who are interchangable and of minimal value anyways. Finding a lost caravan, running errants for the Mages Guild and mercinary company or stealing crap in Denerim aren't helping make your army any better.

You have a choice whether you want to aid the people who need assistance during a time of Blight since the protagonist is the best of his (or her) generation, you aren't forced to deal with them the same way you are forced to complete Sister Petrice's quest even when you tell her no. It's not mandatory to aid the Blackstone Irregulars or the Mages Collective, it's optional.

Sidney wrote...

It IS a different type of story. Maybe one you aren't comfortable with but that remains a reflection on you and others that want/need the "Great Man of History" type of story but certainly not all stories are like that.

How about simply a protagonist who does more than kill people and wear silk robes? How about a proactive protagonist who tries to uncover the evidence that Quentin had an accomplice, who tries to help people in the poorer districts of the town since he's now wealthy and is efficient in combat, who actually spends three years helping or trying to remove Meredith from power instead of doing absolutely nothing?

[Xilizhra]

How about simply a protagonist who does more than kill people and wear silk robes? How about a proactive protagonist who tries to uncover the evidence that Quentin had an accomplice, who tries to help people in the poorer districts of the town since he's now wealthy and is efficient in combat, who actually spends three years helping or trying to remove Meredith from power instead of doing absolutely nothing?

Addressed in the other thread, if you want to read it there.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sidney wrote...

Again, the best part of DAO had nothing to do with the AD and Darkspawn. In fact, if you had dropped that entire element of the story and the whole point of DAO was to force the murdering usurper off the throne by gathering an army to defeat him would that have been any worse a game? No. Is that scenario a whole lot more "real world" than a magical dragon and his zombie hordes? Yes.

Actually, I was hoping that something along these lines was going to happen. Anders blows up the Chantry, starts a war between the Templars and Mages... and after the dust settles, a Big Bad comes out of the wood work. This was HEAVILY suggested by the Enigma of Kirkwall writings and other things that point to serious magical instability in and around Kirkwall.

It would have been GREAT to have something insanely bat sh!t crazy to be unleashed with all of the death and destruction being rained down by the characters at the end of Act 3. For something bigger to pop out at the end would have been a good way to tie the realistic and fantasy aspects together in a cohesive story, just like DAO did.

[fn_outlaw]

Sidney wrote...

fn_outlaw wrote...

I would have to ask you the same question, considering how much Hollywood glorifies(dare I say streamlines?) many of those very stories your talking about.  The whole reason they say "based on a true story" is because of the Hollywood embellishment.  If all they did was switch the names around and give an accurate accounting of the events, then it would be "the true story of yadda yadda yadda" The Hollywood embellishment would be that little bit of fantasy added in.  Granted, its not dragons or magic, but its fantasy either way and its added in for entertainment value because if someone wanted to see real life, they'd watch the History channel or walk outside.

A total non answer.

There must first be a question before there can be an answer.

BTW, if you'd read my post, you'd understand my point about how "based on a true story" could mean something like "only the setting is the same" or "only the characters are the same".  It's only based on a true story and commonly embellished by Hollywood for "entertainment" purposes.  Which means, they added a bunch of crap because it wouldn't be interesting otherwise...because the masses would probably be bored by the real stuff.

Modifié par fn_outlaw, 28 mai 2011 - 06:55 .