225 réponses à ce sujet

[kglaser]

Whatsupnewyork wrote...

The parts in the game that I thought I was going to cry on (Before they happened I was thinking "Crap, better get the tissues) really disappointed me, especially one of the deaths near the end, that I'm not going to spoil(a certain blood mage did it) which was just funny how bad it was. I thought Bioware was good at this sort of thing, I mean, just look at Duncan's death in DA:O...

Hell, look at Jory's death...I hardly even knew the guy, and that still hurt.

[Mike 9987]

MorrigansLove wrote...

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

It certainly pulled a few heartstrings here.

I can honestly say that Merrill's final companion quest is one of the most genuinely harrowing experiences I've ever endured in a video game.

Pffffffffffffft, you obviously haven't witnessed Henry's Death in Mafia 2.

i have to admit, my heart sank when i saw that, but not so much that i cared, but i was imagining it happening to me. 

[orpheus333]

 Hawke as a character has no real emotional attachment to the key events in the story...other than the prologue there are 3 or 4 moment that actively engage with Hawke's history the rest are extended fedex quests (getting 50 gold for the expedition) or an over arching 'big plot' (The Qunari and Templars/Mages) that has no particular connection to Hawke other than her growing wealth and power. Its a very shallow way of get any of the Hawke personalities involved.  Also because the chopiness of the plot is so jaring its very difficult to maintain that emotional investment across multiple acts.

If they had made the family connections more involved and brought them into the story and used Hawke's siblings and family history to develop the plot through the game we would have something more engaging i think.

Alsp i'd like to know when Bioware will stop making Lawful Stupid & Chaotic Nutcase dialogue options as two of the three standard responses. 

[Chiramu]

There's too much death. It's desensitized us to anything emotional when someone important dies.

Hawke is a mass murderer with the amount of people that he/she slays. So when something important happens with a lot of people dying it's like "meh", or the same thing if one person dies.

Bioware needs to stop killing so many people because it's seriously lessens the impact when we are suppose to feel something when someone we care about dies.

But the Bioware player base sees too much human death in the games to be saddened by anything else.

[Aaleel]

One thing I was shocked by was how they made Aveline having to kill her husband a stronger event than your sibling dieing. They developed the relationship between Aveline and Wesley in that short time better then they did you and you first lost sibling.

They absolutely dropped the ball with the family component.

Modifié par Aaleel, 23 juin 2011 - 02:06 .

[orpheus333]

Chiramu wrote...

There's too much death. It's desensitized us to anything emotional when someone important dies.

Hawke is a mass murderer with the amount of people that he/she slays. So when something important happens with a lot of people dying it's like "meh", or the same thing if one person dies.

Bioware needs to stop killing so many people because it's seriously lessens the impact when we are suppose to feel something when someone we care about dies.

But the Bioware player base sees too much human death in the games to be saddened by anything else.

I don't think thats necessarily true. In general the events leading upto the deaths play a larger role IMO. Your brother/sisters death at the beginning has about 15 minutes of lead in. The same goes for the death scene and quest line leading upto it in act 2. The entire quest doesn't really allude to what is happening until the very end and ultimately it feels cheap not like a dramatic struggle or an extended period of genuine worry over the NPCs safety. 

It all just leads me to believe that the complexity of a family and the depth of the emotions involved are just behond the scope of a video game at the moment. Or at least a video game developed in a year. 

Modifié par andyr1986, 23 juin 2011 - 02:21 .

[phoenixgoddess27]

kglaser wrote...

Hell, look at Jory's death...I hardly even knew the guy, and that still hurt.

Well, they gave a little background on him the short time he was with you. He had a wife back home who was with child, correct? I felt a bit emotional when he died cause he's never going to see her again, never see his child be born and they won't know what happened to him.

With Carver at the beginning of the game(My Hawke was a rogue), I felt nothing. He was whining and when he died, all he got from me was a head tilt. Your mother doesn't really give you any real credit until before she dies. She only cares about money, moping(Which I don't blame her for) and the safety of her other child. What do you get? "Why did you let Carver die?" and "We need our nobility back." Sure, I felt... something when she died, but it didn't have me emotional longer than 30 seconds.

Then Bethany blames you for her fate and it's just a bunch of blame game for everyone. Everyone was angry and there was hardly any attachment to anyone.

I agree with one poster, the Aveline scene with her husband was a bit emotional. The most emotion I had while playing was wanting to strangle my companions and some "important" characters.

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 23 juin 2011 - 02:31 .

[dcinroc]

Chiramu wrote...

There's too much death. It's desensitized us to anything emotional when someone important dies.

Hawke is a mass murderer with the amount of people that he/she slays. So when something important happens with a lot of people dying it's like "meh", or the same thing if one person dies.

Bioware needs to stop killing so many people because it's seriously lessens the impact when we are suppose to feel something when someone we care about dies.

But the Bioware player base sees too much human death in the games to be saddened by anything else.

I disagree. I've played death-dealing video games for a long time, yet can be easily moved by a good story. Same with books, movies or tv.

It really depends on how "personal" it is. A character that is known to me or represents some archetype (innocent child, for example) is far more likely to engage my sympathies than nameless, faceless dudes in armor.

[Romantiq]

This game was very emotional.

I laughed when Hawke's family members died one by one and when I killed Merrill and Fenris at the end. Also, when Anders blew up the chantry and that priest with it.  Oh god, did I burst out laughing when Sebastian started whining.

See? It's just positive emotions - laugh and smiles. The only question that remains is ... was it intended to be funny or sad?

Modifié par Romantiq, 23 juin 2011 - 02:26 .

[Chiramu]

andyr1986 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

There's too much death. It's desensitized us to anything emotional when someone important dies.

Hawke is a mass murderer with the amount of people that he/she slays. So when something important happens with a lot of people dying it's like "meh", or the same thing if one person dies.

Bioware needs to stop killing so many people because it's seriously lessens the impact when we are suppose to feel something when someone we care about dies.

But the Bioware player base sees too much human death in the games to be saddened by anything else.

I don't think thats necessarily true. In general the events leading upto the deaths play a larger role IMO. Your brother/sisters death at the beginning has about 15 minutes of lead in. The same goes for the death scene and quest line leading upto it in act 2. The entire quest doesn't really allude to what is happening until the very end and ultimately it feels cheap not like a dramatic struggle or an extended period of genuine worry over the NPCs safety. 

It all just leads me to believe that the complexity of a family and the depth of the emotions involved are just behond the scope of a video game at the moment. Or at least a video game developed in a year. 

Yet when your brother/sister die you don't shed a tear.

[Abispa]

The only thing I LIKED about it was that it was emotional. I would have loved for it to be LOGICAL, too...

[orpheus333]

Chiramu wrote...

Yet when your brother/sister die you don't shed a tear.

Like i said though that is down to developing those emotional connections with the player rather than establishing them with the character. Although you're right there is not ability in dialogue options for Hawke to properly mourn.

[Chiramu]

andyr1986 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Yet when your brother/sister die you don't shed a tear.

Like i said though that is down to developing those emotional connections with the player rather than establishing them with the character. Although you're right there is not ability in dialogue options for Hawke to properly mourn.

Mass Effect 2 actually had people crying in their emotional sequences. Where did that go? Dragon Age 2 came after Mass Effect 2 O_o.

[Cyne]

Some parts actually were emotional for me, like when the mother died and Hawke was standing over the fireplace thinking about it. I agree though that a deeper emotional connection would have been made had the character been fleshed out a little bit and given a deeper history. That kind of thing is what endears you to a person in real life, finding out where they are coming from and their unique perspective and history, and it is probably the same in video games.

[Agamo45]

Attempting a third playthrough, I'm afraid I just can't take the game seriously anymore, therefore I have little emotional connection. The amount of people that Hawke and his crew kill is just ridiculous. Hawke isn't a hero like the Warden in DA:O, or Shepard in Mass Effect, he's just a peasant trying to make a name for himself for much of the game. Yet he's able to massacre legions of bandits in the streets on a daily basis without even thinking about it. I would think that someone who sees so much death so often would be changed, but Hawke and his companions never even mention it. It's just not believable at all.

[Abispa]

Granted the waves of slavers in DA2 can be a bit much, but how the hell is the body counts of the ME series and DA:O move believable? My Warden killed dogs, wolves, bears, darkspawn, dwarves, mages, abominations, dragons, cultists, elves, werewolves, spirts, wisps, demons, soldiers, suspicious people I never really was able to identify, and was at least partially responsible for the death of one chicken. My Shepard outdid the Warden and Hawke with a single nuke.

[ademska]

i thought it plenty emotional, thanks.

i actually haven't been this emotionally invested in a game or its characters in a good while.

i do find it funny people complain about death in videogame, though. sure, the waves of enemies were a bit ridiculous in da2, and i hope they tone it down for da3, but, guys? you're playing a medium primarily centered around combat...

hell, it was origins that introduced "persistent gore" in the first place.

[Agamo45]

Abispa wrote...

Granted the waves of slavers in DA2 can be a bit much, but how the hell is the body counts of the ME series and DA:O move believable? My Warden killed dogs, wolves, bears, darkspawn, dwarves, mages, abominations, dragons, cultists, elves, werewolves, spirts, wisps, demons, soldiers, suspicious people I never really was able to identify, and was at least partially responsible for the death of one chicken. My Shepard outdid the Warden and Hawke with a single nuke.

In DA:O, you're an elite warrior attempting to unite the lands(currently in a civil war) to fight against the Blight. It makes sense to have alot of fighting. Shepard is an elite special forces soldier, he's a killing machine on a specific mission.  Hawke by contrast is just a peasant who couldn't have had too much weapons training, by the end of Act 1 he's killed hundreds maybe thousands of men, mostly thugs in the streets of Kirkwall who attack him for no reason other than to have combat thrown in whenever you can. Doesn't make any sense from a story/setting point of view.

Modifié par Agamo45, 23 juin 2011 - 03:43 .

[ademska]

Agamo45 wrote...
In DA:O, you're an elite warrior attempting to unite the lands(currently in a civil war) to fight against the Blight. It makes sense to have alot of fighting. Shepard is an elite special forces soldier, he's a killing machine on a specific mission.  Hawke by contrast is just a peasant who couldn't have had too much weapons training, by the end of Act 1 he's killed hundreds maybe thousands of men, mostly thugs in the streets of Kirkwall who attack him for no reason other than to have combat thrown in whenever you can. Doesn't make any sense from a story/setting point of view.

except by the end of act 1 he's a mercenary and/or smuggler in an extremely crime-ridden town who's made a name for himself and by extension enemies.

i'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not nonsensical.

[Chiramu]

jollyorigins wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

andyr1986 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Yet when your brother/sister die you don't shed a tear.

Like i said though that is down to developing those emotional connections with the player rather than establishing them with the character. Although you're right there is not ability in dialogue options for Hawke to properly mourn.

Mass Effect 2 actually had people crying in their emotional sequences. Where did that go? Dragon Age 2 came after Mass Effect 2 O_o.

Because Mass Effect 2 had you know your companions all throughout the game before getting possibly killed in the final mission, which makes them dying much more emotional because it is your fault. In DA2 my first playthrough was a mage, I didn't know Bethany for five minutes before she died.

I meant the characters actually had tears flowing down their cheeks during the emotional sequences. So what happened during Dragon Age 2? 

[ipgd]

Agamo45 wrote...

In DA:O, you're an elite warrior attempting to unite the lands(currently in a civil war) to fight against the Blight. It makes sense to have alot of fighting. Shepard is an elite special forces soldier, he's a killing machine on a specific mission.  Hawke by contrast is just a peasant who couldn't have had too much weapons training, by the end of Act 1 he's killed hundreds maybe thousands of men, mostly thugs in the streets of Kirkwall who attack him for no reason other than to have combat thrown in whenever you can. Doesn't make any sense from a story/setting point of view.

It's established within the first 5 minutes of the game that it is a framed narrative with an unreliable narrator. Much of the combat can be explained by Varric's exaggerations.

[Agamo45]

ipgd wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

In DA:O, you're an elite warrior attempting to unite the lands(currently in a civil war) to fight against the Blight. It makes sense to have alot of fighting. Shepard is an elite special forces soldier, he's a killing machine on a specific mission.  Hawke by contrast is just a peasant who couldn't have had too much weapons training, by the end of Act 1 he's killed hundreds maybe thousands of men, mostly thugs in the streets of Kirkwall who attack him for no reason other than to have combat thrown in whenever you can. Doesn't make any sense from a story/setting point of view.

It's established within the first 5 minutes of the game that it is a framed narrative with an unreliable narrator. Much of the combat can be explained by Varric's exaggerations.

That's a cheap excuse for having the waves mechanic thrown in.

[ipgd]

Agamo45 wrote...

That's a cheap excuse for having the waves mechanic thrown in.

Hate it if you want, but you can't exactly say it "doesn't make any sense". They made the narrative this way and they took advantage of it.

Modifié par ipgd, 23 juin 2011 - 05:04 .