I suspected you were a troll, but when I read this I knew.Kabanya101 wrote...
And the voice, the voice, such a little girl's voice. The male sounds like he just hit puberty.
Its an interesting discussion and you could well be right. Its the kind of artful writing based more around theme and form than narrative that you see in arthouse type films and novels obviously. Using it in a big budget game franchise is probably a mistake though even with their constraints.ipgd wrote...
I certainly hope they're allowed more time on future titles, but I think the writing team gets less credit than they deserve for the manner in which they handled the restrictions.
Because DA2 operates off denial and deviation from a standard, it's not exactly a format that could sustain itself on its own (you can't very well subvert the player's expectations for agency if he doesn't expect agency anymore). DA3 will probably (and should be) a return to form, but for what it is and for the restrictions it had, I think DA2's narrative is very well done.
Modifié par Morroian, 06 juin 2011 - 12:56 .
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
mrcrusty wrote...
You're saying this was intentional and not a result of rushed development time and a lack of vision?
That makes it worse, for me.
"Oh, I know! How about we make it so like, the player can't really do anything! That's what RPGs are about, never allowing the player to impact anything! Evolution!"
I personally can like the idea. It's refreshing.
If the story was well written and if Hawke actually did something other than constant massacre and sitting on his ass when he has nothing to kill.
Though I prefer bittersweet. A mix of success and failure, depending on choice. But I can like a story that ends in complete failure if I find that it's well written and interesting (even though I am not a fan of Greek tragedy).
Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 juin 2011 - 12:56 .
Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 juin 2011 - 01:09 .
The problem was they decided to throw resources at modifying the art style. Now I like the new style and I think they're right to try and give the franchise a more unique look, but given the development time it should have been the last thing they'd look at changing. Put those resources into creating a wider variety of environments.mrcrusty wrote...
I don't think 18 months is too short from a writing and narrative perspective. Aside from the previously mentioned New Vegas, we've had Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 2 and various other games created a similar time period. Mask of the Betrayer, while short, far surpasses Dragon Age 2 in terms of writing and story. KotOR 2, which is the poster child for "couldn't get it done on time" stories was completed in 11-12 months. I still consider that better than Dragon Age from a roleplaying perspective.
Modifié par Morroian, 06 juin 2011 - 01:19 .
I don't really think that's the case. I think the writing team had execs set a strict deadline beyond their control, and they had to make a decision to either make a crappy Origins clone that would inevitably fail to live up to its predecessor because of the restrictions (Origins had five years in development), or to make something that was self-aware of those restrictions and operated within their confines.mrcrusty wrote...
Ah, that makes more sense, but I can't see how one can argue that it's a good thing. It's really just soured my opinion. Here I was thinking that the plot was underutilised because they didn't have the time to complete it on their terms. Now it's more of a case that they aimed low from the beginning to get it done on time. Which I'd be okay with, had I liked the direction they went with.
That's a subjective question.But let's leave the time restraints aside. As a concept, removing player agency in an RPG for the sake of upsetting expectations and artificially creating empathy with the player character is like removing the engine block from a car. Yeah, sure, it's "different" to all the others. But is it different in a good way?
ipgd wrote...
I don't really think that's the case. I think the writing team had execs set a strict deadline beyond their control, and they had to make a decision to either make a crappy Origins clone that would inevitably fail to live up to its predecessor because of the restrictions (Origins had five years in development), or to make something that was self-aware of those restrictions and operated within their confines.
ipgd wrote...
That's a subjective question.
I personally think it is. I don't think any narrative has to be a certain way, regardless of its medium. I like games, I like movies, I like television, I like plays, I look books and I like comics and it really doesn't bother me when one breaks conventions; there's value in anything done well. Games that subvert my expectations do not erase games that don't, and I can freely enjoy them alongside more traditional approaches.
I'm certainly not writing ridiculous essays about player agency in Mass Effect, so I clearly find value in what DA2 did
Modifié par mrcrusty, 06 juin 2011 - 01:31 .
Guest_Trust_*
Modifié par AwesomeEffect2, 06 juin 2011 - 02:00 .
That's the thing -- I don't think they could. I think there was a very limited amount of choice they could have put into the game operating under the time constraints; any choices that they would have had in place of the non-choices in which they utilize denial would have been illusionary ones at best. So, instead of making unsatisfactory fake choices, they took it away and hung a giant lampshade on it. Taking a different approach to the narrative wouldn't have given us more choices, realistically.mrcrusty wrote...
I'm not saying make Origins 2, I'm just saying have more meaningful choices. I don't mind the scale, or the conflicts or the lack of a grand world threatening antagonist. Those are pluses for me. But Dragon Age 2's lack of meaningful player-made decisions in regards to the narrative was just disappointing.
And I bring this up constantly, but DA2's narrative approach to sequel expectations and denial is quite similar to my other favorite Game Nobody Else Likes, MGS2 (and the backlash looked exactly like this holy **** I am in a world of deja vu), albeit probably driven more by deadlines than the mad postmodern ****** of the world's biggest troll, so it has a special place in my heart. It's not the first game to do what it did, but when is any story?See, that's where our opinions differ. I've seen virtually everything Dragon Age 2 does in terms of failure and futility with and without removing player agency in other games, done better.
Well, duh. Like, that's the point of my argumentthere's more meaningful choice in Mass Effect 1/2
I liked the gameplay. FACTS AND OPINIONS, MAN.plus the gameplay is actually good.
Modifié par ipgd, 06 juin 2011 - 01:55 .
ipgd wrote...
I was being glib, bra :innocent:
mrcrusty wrote...
Bleh. Obviously it's just my opinion and I'm not going to claim otherwise but I find it a bit annoying to consciously add "I think" or "it's my opinion" or similar things to my sentences. When it comes to these arguments, by default people are stating their opinions and not facts.
It only becomes fact if they are able to prove it via objective means. I didn't, therefore, it's an opinion.
Then again, it's the internet where people treat their opinions as fact all the time. So, I'll be more careful next time.
Then don't charge me for a full game, and don't make promises in the marketing that are clearly meant to key expectations to player agency and consequence.ipgd wrote...
That's the thing -- I don't think they could. I think there was a very limited amount of choice they could have put into the game operating under the time constraints; any choices that they would have had in place of the non-choices in which they utilize denial would have been illusionary ones at best. So, instead of making unsatisfactory fake choices, they took it away and hung a giant lampshade on it. Taking a different approach to the narrative wouldn't have given us more choices, realistically.mrcrusty wrote...
I'm not saying make Origins 2, I'm just saying have more meaningful choices. I don't mind the scale, or the conflicts or the lack of a grand world threatening antagonist. Those are pluses for me. But Dragon Age 2's lack of meaningful player-made decisions in regards to the narrative was just disappointing.
Modifié par Addai67, 06 juin 2011 - 02:17 .
Modifié par Well, 06 juin 2011 - 04:29 .
I'm solely concerned with the writing and narrative of the game in this argument. I've never tried to make any defense for whoever is responsible for deadlines or marketing the game, though I don't think the marketing is necessarily at odds with the narrative themes regarding expectations.Addai67 wrote...
Then don't charge me for a full game, and don't make promises in the marketing that are clearly meant to key expectations to player agency and consequence.
But that's... the point of what I've been going over the past few hours :| The narrative operates off the knowledge that the player expects agency, and then denies it to him. That is the core dramatic theme of the narrative. Without its predecessor, the player defaults to assuming he will not have agency within the narrative (as is true of most games), and therefor does not feel like there was anything to take away in the first place.For that matter, don't call it Dragon Age- which keys expectations that it will be like the game that came before it.
You're saying most games don't allow player agency? Are we talking about RPG's? Because I thought that was pretty much a cornerstone. Like I said upthread, why bother playing a game otherwise?ipgd wrote...
But that's... the point of what I've been going over the past few hours :| The narrative operates off the knowledge that the player expects agency, and then denies it to him. That is the core dramatic theme of the narrative. Without its predecessor, the player defaults to assuming he will not have agency within the narrative (as is true of most games), and therefor does not feel like there was anything to take away in the first place.For that matter, don't call it Dragon Age- which keys expectations that it will be like the game that came before it.
highcastle wrote...
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
ElleMullineux wrote...
I really don't understand people not liking a character which they've created.
If you don't like the Hawke you've made... make one you do like?
Except it goes beyond that. It's Hawke's place and relevence in the story, his passivity, the fact that he can't be shown using his brain once, restrictions vis-a-vis choices, in addition to the world being lifeless and soulless that it makes playing a PC dull no matter how interesting he is (which I didn't feel Hawke was to begin with). Same in regards to what I see as a badly written mess of a story. Such a thing affects how I view the PC through whose eyes I saw the story.
Hawke's place in the story is to subvert the traditional rags-to-riches story as well as the typical hero's journey, which respectively feature a little guy climbing the ranks and defeating a great evil. The story's purpose as a whole is to show you that's not how things work in this world. Honestly, I think this is the crux of why some people dislike DA2. There's no clearly "winnable" scenario. But there's a reason for that. Some conflicts you don't win. Some conflicts you just do the best you can, and even that's not enough.
I don't see these types of narratives in games very often. They crop up more often in literature and a little less often in film. They're also my favorite types of stories, as they seem more realistic than traditional "happily ever after" endings.
As for Hawke being passive, he absolutely isn't. At least, he doesn't have to be. He takes an interest in the Qunari situation. My Hawke found himself angling for viscount. He called out Anders on his shady actions, despite the two of them being in a relationship. That's not passivity. That's also not stupidity. He knows bad things are coming, he tries to thwart them, he fails. I felt pretty much the same at the end of Red Dead Redemption.
The world being lifeless/souless is another opinion. I disagree. I found Kirkwall vibrant and interesting. I loved the atmosphere of the city, the artwork surrounding it, and the people populating it.
How is the story badly written? Granted, writing can be somewhat subjective, but I think DA2 fits the criteria of what's generally considered proper plotting. There's an introduction, rising action, climax, and resolution. Along the way we get character development and foreshadowing. That's good writing.
Like I said before, yes. All games have interactivity, but few games have narrative agency. There are plenty of RPGs with no or minimal core narrative agency.Addai67 wrote...
You're saying most games don't allow player agency? Are we talking about RPG's? Because I thought that was pretty much a cornerstone. Like I said upthread, why bother playing a game otherwise?
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
ipgd wrote...
Redeeming Anders is already impossible (hello Ryzaki how are you today)
Didn't the patch make Anders siding with Templars possible?
Granted, "redemption" is a bad word.
Regardless, that choice could be blocked if Hawke turned Anders to Templars for instance.
Persephone wrote...
As was the "No matter what you do, the world will change and you are tossed into the storm........." feeling I got from the story.
neppakyo wrote...
Giggles_Manically wrote...
Mass Effect 2 beat the player upside the head with its linear plot that lead to only two choices at the end as well.
True, but it was more enjoyable and better written than DA2.
Retour en haut
