585 réponses à ce sujet

[Theagg]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

d) Actually the dialogue does not change if Anders is not present. He knows Anders is part of Hawke's crew regardless. And how Cullen would not know your a mage...he knows but doesn't hold it against you because you helped him. You can mention your a mage to him anyway and that you are not all the same. And following Meredith is simply his duty as a Templar. It would actually been more stupid to go against her at the wrong time.

Except he says to a mage Hawke that "mages are not people like you and I".
And the only reason the Tempalrs did not catch Anders is because of the Champion, which is bs if the Champion had always been pro-Templar. So why aren't they doing anything?

I have heard this line expressed in reality, with much the same sentiment as Cullen. Only it wasn't about mages it was about gay people, or black people.

Ie the person making the comment to a gay friend of theirs will say something derogatory about other gays. But then cut in with "But obviously not you because you are my friend". (In other words they see their friend as a 'different' kind of gay..not like those others)

Wether or not David Gaider and co were thinking along those lines when penning that part of the story I don't know but Cullens dialogue is feasible in that context.

As to Cullen ignoring the potential threat that has been presented to him in the form of Anders and not taking action. Yep, perhaps Cullen was stupid but that's no more different than real life cases where members of the authority have ignored the warnings of others about potentially dangerous individuals. Or ignored the intelligence data presented to them.

And people die as a result. It happens in the social services where social workers and care workers fail to "see" what is happening right in front of them when on a case. They ignore the concerns of relatives and friends. And paralleling the case of Anders, it happens with terrorists, where authorities seemingly ignore all the signs and the red flags popping up via their own intelligence gathering networks and an atrocity occurs as a result.

Then, in all cases like these, there are enquiries as to what went wrong, why people ignored the obvious. It makes headline news. (There have been several cases over the last year here). People lose their jobs and so on.

So yep, I can perfectly accept Cullen failing to do anything about the Anders threat, it apes real life perfectly. Now again, wether Gaider meant it that way is another issue. But its not lazy by default.

Modifié par Theagg, 26 juin 2011 - 02:36 .

[Uzzy]

txgoldrush wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I am not sayin the lore is comaprable to the LOTR however, elements of the main plot in DAO are comparable too much so to simply ignore. You cannot deny the Ostagar was inspired and similiar (not the same, similiar) to Osgilith of ROTK.

A fanatsy story should offer something fresh and new, and outside of some of the side plots, DAO just doesn't do that while its peers like The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer did.

Why?

Seriously, what do you have against the use of an excellent formula such as the Heroes Journey? You may not like it, but you cannot deny that Dragon Age: Origins is a very good example of it, creating a deeply involving and well written fantasy epic.

Now, if you prefer a more personal story such as that offered in Mask of the Betrayer, that's great. Mask of the Betrayer was amazing. Dragon Age II, however, was utter cack in comparison, and fails on just about every level.

DAO is NOT well written...its unfocused, with very many tangents, some very silly scenarios, and has a formaulaic main plot. Really, it doesn't even establish a theme until the very end. It was a mish mash of ideas sloppily thrown together. Some of the stories are well written. The Nature of the Beast was one of them and so is Leliana's story. But the main plot is poor, with party members siting on the sideline and not contributing (other than Alistair or Morrigan, very little).
.

You are continuing to miss the point. Why is the 'formulaic' main plot of Origins a bad thing? Why do you dislike the classic formula of the heroes journey?

[Il Divo]

Uzzy wrote...

You are continuing to miss the point. Why is the 'formulaic' main plot of Origins a bad thing? Why do you dislike the classic formula of the heroes journey?

For my own part, my issue with Origin's main storyline is not that it's formulaic as it pertains to the Hero's Journey. My issue is that it's formulaic, as a Bioware story.

Basic formula:

1. Prologue--> 2. Call to adventure---> 3. Choose your own mission order---> 4. ending.

The problem is # 3. For DA:O, this is the 'recruit an army' segment. This makes sense in the context of the main quest, but it's not expanding the storyline. Recruiting an army results in the player becoming involved in random sub-stories which only serve to expand game time, rather than push the narrative forward.

Compare this to Bioware's Jade Empire, which spends far more time developing a linear main quest, and imo it's a much stronger storyline for it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Theagg wrote...
As to Cullen ignoring the potential threat that has been presented to him in the form of Anders and not taking action. Yep, perhaps Cullen was stupid but that's no more different than real life cases where members of the authority have ignored the warnings of others about potentially dangerous individuals. Or ignored the intelligence data presented to them.

Not when he is supposed to be a zealous second in command of a specialized force designed to deal with mage threats. And not when Anders is right in front of him when the game laughibly pretends to give us the choice to turn him over, when the only thing that supposedely protected him from arrest was the Champion's friendship. They doin't even have to investigate, Anders is a mage outside the Circle, period, it's his duty to apprehend him, the Champion's friendship is irrelevent in that scenario.

That imo, is pushing stupidity to another level. And I don't mind stupidity being shown, but when almost no character in DA2 is shown as competent? That for me is a problem.

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...

Aveline plays a significant role in Act II, not only along with Isabela, but she is the one to meet the Arishok before he attacks. Aveline is also bonded with the Hawkes through tragedy, so she is closer to Hawke than ANY OTHER CHARACTER.

NO SHE ISN'T.  I like Aveline, but you're stating something as a universal that is simply not true for every player.  Any given Hawke might give a **** about Aveline and her dead templar husband.

Only really it isn't about him or her growing to become leader of an army...and really in the end its about sacrifices heroes have to make and the grim duty the Warden must undertake (becoming a Warden itself is a sacrifice). And really, delaying the info that it must be a Warden that slays the Archdemon is actually very determental to the plot. Well now you tell me I am very important...lol.. Loghain and Alistair can even be the one to slay the Archdemon, not the Warden, why can't they be the heroes. A problem with DAO is that it doesn't establish its themes until the end. Almost all other Bioware games establish theirs much earlier.

Alright, I call BS right here.  Did you even play Origins?

[txgoldrush]

Il Divo wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

You are continuing to miss the point. Why is the 'formulaic' main plot of Origins a bad thing? Why do you dislike the classic formula of the heroes journey?

For my own part, my issue with Origin's main storyline is not that it's formulaic as it pertains to the Hero's Journey. My issue is that it's formulaic, as a Bioware story.

Basic formula:

1. Prologue--> 2. Call to adventure---> 3. Choose your own mission order---> 4. ending.

The problem is # 3. For DA:O, this is the 'recruit an army' segment. This makes sense in the context of the main quest, but it's not expanding the storyline. Recruiting an army results in the player becoming involved in random sub-stories which only serve to expand game time, rather than push the narrative forward.

Compare this to Bioware's Jade Empire, which spends far more time developing a linear main quest, and imo it's a much stronger storyline for it.

BINGO

That is one of my main criticisms and what I have been saying this entire thread. It is DAO that lacks focus. Really, other bioware games did #3 far far better than DAO did.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

but DA2's story was rubbish, so how is it better?

[Nerevar-as]

Each of the "recruiting your army" sections was good on its own, and introduced more elements of the world to the player. Compare to the missions from ME2, most of which were centered around a character and didn´t add anything to the setting (excepting Mordin, Tali and Legion), resulting in much of the game being pure (if good) filler.

[txgoldrush]

Addai67 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Aveline plays a significant role in Act II, not only along with Isabela, but she is the one to meet the Arishok before he attacks. Aveline is also bonded with the Hawkes through tragedy, so she is closer to Hawke than ANY OTHER CHARACTER.

NO SHE ISN'T.  I like Aveline, but you're stating something as a universal that is simply not true for every player.  Any given Hawke might give a **** about Aveline and her dead templar husband.

Only really it isn't about him or her growing to become leader of an army...and really in the end its about sacrifices heroes have to make and the grim duty the Warden must undertake (becoming a Warden itself is a sacrifice). And really, delaying the info that it must be a Warden that slays the Archdemon is actually very determental to the plot. Well now you tell me I am very important...lol.. Loghain and Alistair can even be the one to slay the Archdemon, not the Warden, why can't they be the heroes. A problem with DAO is that it doesn't establish its themes until the end. Almost all other Bioware games establish theirs much earlier.

Alright, I call BS right here.  Did you even play Origins?

Lets see, yes she is, other than maybe the love interst Hawke picks up, she is the closest to him, and the end of the game really confirms this...she is the first non family party member you meet, she is not only friends with Hawke, but to his or her family as well, she is the one to console him or her that is not a love interest, she keeps the entire party put of trouble as they go around doing questionable activities, as well as she being the final straw the provokes the Arishok. Not only that, Aveline's foil to Isabela is key to the quest before. She is also the party member where scenes change the most in the main plot due to her presence. Not only does the Arishok scene involve her, it questions her effectiveness as captain if she is one.

As for DAO....what the story is about is gathered by the main conflict....and the main conflict is Hero (and other Wardens) vs Blight. In order for the Blight to be stopped, a sacrifice must be made. Thats the story. You are only important because you and three other Wardens are the only ones that can effectively kill the Archdemon. Thats what makes Loghains idiocy so dangerous, he is wiping out the ones who are the only chance of stopping the Blight.

[Addai]

Once again you're stating your playthrough as fact when it isn't. Yes, you have to go to Kirkwall with Aveline. If you choose, though, you don't even have to do her quests, or you can rival her and she kicks your ass. None of it is plot central. Her role in act 2 could easily be taken up by any random NPC guard.

So, Origins is about Wardens vs. Blight... you mean the theme introduced in the game prologue and repeated again in your encounter with Duncan in the origin story? So what's this about the theme not being introduced until the end?

[txgoldrush]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Each of the "recruiting your army" sections was good on its own, and introduced more elements of the world to the player. Compare to the missions from ME2, most of which were centered around a character and didn´t add anything to the setting (excepting Mordin, Tali and Legion), resulting in much of the game being pure (if good) filler.

However, the game establishes itself clearly on its characters. Its the story about his crew and how Shepard gets them ready for a tough mission that they may not care about.

So Jacks story doesn't add anything about the ruthlessness of Cerberus? So Grunt's quest doesn't expand on the krogan people? So Garrus's story doesn't expand much upon him (he who will be a squaddie for all three games)? So Zaeed's quest doesn't expand on th emerc groups you fight the whole game? Not only that, the characters effectiveness and loyalty to Shepard is just as important as the Collector's secrets in the final mission. The most important outcome at the end of the game is who lives and who dies.

And at least ME2 also SHOWED and not just TOLD in regards to its characters.

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...

BINGO

That is one of my main criticisms and what I have been saying this entire thread. It is DAO that lacks focus. Really, other bioware games did #3 far far better than DAO did.

If you just like linear games, then go play those and stop tormenting those of us who like more open RPGs.

[txgoldrush]

Addai67 wrote...

Once again you're stating your playthrough as fact when it isn't. Yes, you have to go to Kirkwall with Aveline. If you choose, though, you don't even have to do her quests, or you can rival her and she kicks your ass. None of it is plot central. Her role in act 2 could easily be taken up by any random NPC guard.

So, Origins is about Wardens vs. Blight... you mean the theme introduced in the game prologue and repeated again in your encounter with Duncan in the origin story? So what's this about the theme not being introduced until the end?

And Morrigan can easily be cut from DAO and not effect the plot except for a loss of a choice...your point.

No, the theme of sacrifice wasn''t properly introduced when you become the Warden...the only sacrifice that can be implied is when recruits fail the Joining. But then, in the midgame, its not touched upon except for twice, and they can be avoided entirely.

DAO's theme of sacrifice is far weaker than the price of revenge theme in BGII, or the journey of personal discovery in KOTOR, the disruption of the natural order in Jade Empire, or the theme of cooperation to overcome a grave threat in Mass Effect.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I agree actually the Origins did a poor job when it came to the overall plot (the blight), and did a poor job at the civil war which is only dealt with at the end (barely decently imo). And the gathering armies part was also not done well as other than Orzammar, I didn't see why I should waste my time with the others (they were fun in and of themselves, but they were integrated poorly in the main plot). So it was basically the same as all Bioware games disguised with a plot of gathering an army that is shown poorly (if at all. We are more told than shown). ME1 was also open, and it had a much more consistent plot.

But I don't see how DA2 does it any better. All 3 acts are more or less disjointed and episodic. Act 1 was about Hawke getting a fortune we never see or use. Act 2 was to shove the Qunari in any way possible, so they had a poor plot twist to justify their presence, which 3 years later everyone seems to have ignored, and to have Hawke stumble into being Champion, a title that is useless and never used. And finally, Act 3 was a disaster. There is barely any overall plot in DA2, the only semblance of that was the mage / Templar conflict which was done in such a pathetic way it's not even funny anymore.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 06:05 .

[erynnar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I agree actually the Origins did a poor job when it came to the overall plot (the blight), and did a poor job at the civil war which is only dealt with at the end (barely decently imo). And the gathering armies part was also not done well as other than Orzammar, I didn't see why I should waste my time with the others. So it was basically the same as all Bioware games disguised with a plot of gathering an army that is shown poorly (if at all. We are more told than shown). ME1 was also open, and it had a much more consistent plot.

But I don't see how DA2 does it any better. All 3 acts are more or less disjointed and episodic. Act 1 was about Hawke getting a fortune we never see or use. Act 2 was to shove the Qunari in any way possible, so they had a poor plot twist to justify their presence, which 3 years later everyone seems to have ignored, and to have Hawke stumble into being Champion, a title that is useless and never used. And finally, Act 3 was a disaster. There is barely any overall plot in DA2, the only semblance of that was the mage / Templar conflict which was done in such a pathetic way it's not even funny anymore.

You, sir, need to stop making sense and being so reasonable! You are giving the forum a bad rap. I love reading your posts.

[Nerevar-as]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Each of the "recruiting your army" sections was good on its own, and introduced more elements of the world to the player. Compare to the missions from ME2, most of which were centered around a character and didn´t add anything to the setting (excepting Mordin, Tali and Legion), resulting in much of the game being pure (if good) filler.

However, the game establishes itself clearly on its characters. Its the story about his crew and how Shepard gets them ready for a tough mission that they may not care about.

So Jacks story doesn't add anything about the ruthlessness of Cerberus? So Grunt's quest doesn't expand on the krogan people? So Garrus's story doesn't expand much upon him (he who will be a squaddie for all three games)? So Zaeed's quest doesn't expand on th emerc groups you fight the whole game? Not only that, the characters effectiveness and loyalty to Shepard is just as important as the Collector's secrets in the final mission. The most important outcome at the end of the game is who lives and who dies.

And at least ME2 also SHOWED and not just TOLD in regards to its characters.

I still have the feeling when ME is finished, hardly anything that happened in ME2 will have mattered in the whole saga. Good filler is still filler, and ME2 has the usual flaw of second parts of trilogies. Filler chapter to set up a few things for part 3. Can be done right, but ME2 is no ESB.

DA2 is probably even worse, as the only world changing event is the end, and Hawke is just a witness (and probably Xanatos Sucker) to that. I admit I want to see what´s going to happen because of that, especially if the Quanari take the chance and whatever GW are involved in also gets to the surface. But I was playing close to 70 hours for something that happened in less than 5.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I agree actually the Origins did a poor job when it came to the overall plot (the blight), and did a poor job at the civil war which is only dealt with at the end (barely decently imo). And the gathering armies part was also not done well as other than Orzammar, I didn't see why I should waste my time with the others. So it was basically the same as all Bioware games disguised with a plot of gathering an army that is shown poorly (if at all. We are more told than shown). ME1 was also open, and it had a much more consistent plot.

But I don't see how DA2 does it any better. All 3 acts are more or less disjointed and episodic. Act 1 was about Hawke getting a fortune we never see or use. Act 2 was to shove the Qunari in any way possible, so they had a poor plot twist to justify their presence, which 3 years later everyone seems to have ignored, and to have Hawke stumble into being Champion, a title that is useless and never used. And finally, Act 3 was a disaster. There is barely any overall plot in DA2, the only semblance of that was the mage / Templar conflict which was done in such a pathetic way it's not even funny anymore.

Disjointed? Not really.

Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing is also episodic where each act has a new goal and a new story for Billy the protagonist, but by theme, they loosely connect. Like DAII, there is huge time skips between each act. You keep failing to put the acts together. In the Crossing, its about Billy growing up and becoming more mature, losing his innocence. In DAII, its about how a city and society falls apart due to the dark side of human nature...and add the outside frame story about how one person is not solely responsible for a crisis, it takes many factors.

While the Crossing is obviously much better written....the format does have focus, its just told much differently.

Guess your gonna whine about how the idol doesn't fit the theme again...lol..when in fact reinforces it.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juin 2011 - 06:14 .

[txgoldrush]

Nerevar-as wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Each of the "recruiting your army" sections was good on its own, and introduced more elements of the world to the player. Compare to the missions from ME2, most of which were centered around a character and didn´t add anything to the setting (excepting Mordin, Tali and Legion), resulting in much of the game being pure (if good) filler.

However, the game establishes itself clearly on its characters. Its the story about his crew and how Shepard gets them ready for a tough mission that they may not care about.

So Jacks story doesn't add anything about the ruthlessness of Cerberus? So Grunt's quest doesn't expand on the krogan people? So Garrus's story doesn't expand much upon him (he who will be a squaddie for all three games)? So Zaeed's quest doesn't expand on th emerc groups you fight the whole game? Not only that, the characters effectiveness and loyalty to Shepard is just as important as the Collector's secrets in the final mission. The most important outcome at the end of the game is who lives and who dies.

And at least ME2 also SHOWED and not just TOLD in regards to its characters.

I still have the feeling when ME is finished, hardly anything that happened in ME2 will have mattered in the whole saga. Good filler is still filler, and ME2 has the usual flaw of second parts of trilogies. Filler chapter to set up a few things for part 3. Can be done right, but ME2 is no ESB.

DA2 is probably even worse, as the only world changing event is the end, and Hawke is just a witness (and probably Xanatos Sucker) to that. I admit I want to see what´s going to happen because of that, especially if the Quanari take the chance and whatever GW are involved in also gets to the surface. But I was playing close to 70 hours for something that happened in less than 5.

so Tali, Miranda, and Garrus dying wouldn't matter? So the genophage choice won't matter? Working with Cerebrus won't matter? We already seen how Wrex's presence changes the culture of the Krogan...imagine Mordin being missing becaus ehe was killed, or their party members that could make a difference.

Like I said, the most important factor in ME2 is the characters.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
Disjointed? Not really.

Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing is also episodic where each act has a new goal for Billy the protagonist, but by theme, they loosely connect. Like DAII, there is huge time skips between each act. You keep failing to put the acts together. In the Crossing, its about Billy growing up and becoming more mature, losing his innocence. In DAII, its about how a city and society falls apart due to the dark side of human nature...and add the outside frame story about how one person is not solely responsible for a crisis, it takes many factors.

Again with human nature. No, I am not going to waste my time and "whine". I've already shown that it's bs.

And I can loosely connect Origins as well with that logic. Hell, I'll do what you're doing.

- Blight: representative of human greed and the desire to take that which was not meant to be taken.  The desire to play God, hubris, turned the magisters into an ugly manifestation of their inner "dark nature". 

- Civil war: a feudal political system that collapses due to old hatreds, political / strategic ambiguity and a man who struggles with his own fears, love for his country and pride.

- Redcliffe: represents a child's love to his father that we would innocently do whatever it takes to save him. Shows the dangers of temptation even when it comes from innocent / benevolent desires. Deals with a mother who would also do anything it takes to keep her son from being taken from her, which tragically causes him harm.

- Dalish: represents man's struggle with his own nature, a line you can actually say to the Lady. Shows a man succumbing to vengeance to the point where it consumes him and makes him ignore the safety of those he once loved.

- Orzammar: represents human struggle when it comes to upholding traditions, or moving forward. Shows inequality in its ugliest form and shows what some are willing to do to protect the empire (Branka).

- Circle: shows revolt gone wrong in a context of oppression, with Libertarians getting sick of being treted like crap. Their own anger and hatred blinded them to what they've become.

And there you go. Origins is this dramatic epic about human nature, with a variety of scenarios all pertaining to the same theme. Human nature and the struggle the Warden has with it.  It doesn't matter that the treaty quests are disjointed, they are loosely associated by theme.

See? I can do the same as you. I can do that to Tom and Jerry if you want. So it's bs.

Hawke does not grow as a character at all, he remains what he is (a useless irresponsable playboy). In the awkward middle between a set protagonist and an open one.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[Melca36]

Addai67 wrote...
Alright, I call BS right here.  Did you even play Origins?

This! 

I don't believe for one second this person played. He's going by what he read.

[Nerevar-as]

txgoldrush wrote...

so Tali, Miranda, and Garrus dying wouldn't matter? So the genophage choice won't matter? Working with Cerebrus won't matter? We already seen how Wrex's presence changes the culture of the Krogan...imagine Mordin being missing becaus ehe was killed, or their party members that could make a difference.

Like I said, the most important factor in ME2 is the characters.

I doubt it. BW seems very clear in the intent of not alienating new players. Thus most choices from ME1 didn´t impact gameplay in any significant way. That, and the fact that they want to continue ME after 3 makes me very exkeptic about how much of an impact the choices would have. Take the E3 demo: Mordin and Wrex. Do you think that whole mission will be different or even in the game at all for someone who got them both killed? Going back to DA, same goes to Morrigan´s son, he won´t be able to shape the world in a way that would result in a significant change in future games. In DA2 there are not even such choices anymore, whatever Hawke chooses, things happen anyway.

I really hope to be proved wrong about all of this.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 26 juin 2011 - 06:34 .

[In Exile]

Il Divo wrote...
The problem is # 3. For DA:O, this is the 'recruit an army' segment. This makes sense in the context of the main quest, but it's not expanding the storyline. Recruiting an army results in the player becoming involved in random sub-stories which only serve to expand game time, rather than push the narrative forward.

Compare this to Bioware's Jade Empire, which spends far more time developing a linear main quest, and imo it's a much stronger storyline for it.

I just wanted to echo this sentiment, as this was my main problem with the story in DA:O (and in many Bioware games, to be honest, aside from JE).

The best test of the strength of the 'call to adventure' section is the extent to which you can remove content without changing the story of the main plot.

In DA:O, you can effectively go to the Landsmeet directly (perhaps by way of Redcliffe) and you've retained the entire main plot. In KoTOR, you can go to Dantoine - Leviathan - Star Forge and keep the plot. In ME, you can just go Citadel  - Ilos.

Bioware hasn't written a narrative since JE, and BGII was their only other narrative.

DA2's disconnected plot is just a symptom of the general writing style at Bioware. It's just that, for whatever reason, people started disliking this approach with DA2. Maybe it made the style too obvious. I don't know.

[In Exile]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Each of the "recruiting your army" sections was good on its own, and introduced more elements of the world to the player. Compare to the missions from ME2, most of which were centered around a character and didn´t add anything to the setting (excepting Mordin, Tali and Legion), resulting in much of the game being pure (if good) filler.

Grunt introduces you to krogan culture almost in its entirety. Jack shows you a brutal side of Cerberus (especially important if you didn't play ME1). Zaeed and Kasumi (as DLC) do the same, and so does Liara. Garrus and Thane show you the seedy underbelly of the Citadel (Garrus), and expand on human-alien politics (Thane).

The only characters you can argue don't expand the world are Jacob and Miranda, but both are character pieces in their entirety.

Sorry, but if DA:O gets a pass for "expanding the lore" ME2 does that in droves.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Disjointed? Not really.

Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing is also episodic where each act has a new goal for Billy the protagonist, but by theme, they loosely connect. Like DAII, there is huge time skips between each act. You keep failing to put the acts together. In the Crossing, its about Billy growing up and becoming more mature, losing his innocence. In DAII, its about how a city and society falls apart due to the dark side of human nature...and add the outside frame story about how one person is not solely responsible for a crisis, it takes many factors.

Again with human nature. No, I am not going to waste my time and "whine". I've already shown that it's bs.

And I can loosely connect Origins as well with that logic. Hell, I'll do what you're doing.

- Blight: representative of human greed and the desire to take that which was not meant to be taken.  The desire to play God, hubris, turned the magisters into an ugly manifestation of their inner "dark nature". 

- Civil war: a feudal political system that collapses due to old hatreds, political / strategic ambiguity and a man who struggles with his own fears, love for his country and pride.

- Redcliffe: represents a child's love to his father that we would innocently do whatever it takes to save him. Shows the dangers of temptation even when it comes from innocent / benevolent desires. Deals with a mother who would also do anything it takes to keep her son from being taken from her, which tragically causes him harm.

- Dalish: represents man's struggle with his own nature, a line you can actually say to the Lady. Shows a man succumbing to vengeance to the point where it consumes him and makes him ignore the safety of those he once loved.

- Orzammar: represents human struggle when it comes to upholding traditions, or moving forward. Shows inequality in its ugliest form and shows what some are willing to do to protect the empire (Branka).

- Circle: shows revolt gone wrong in a context of oppression, with Libertarians getting sick of being treted like crap. Their own anger and hatred blinded them to what they've become.

And there you go. Origins is this dramatic epic about human nature, with a variety of scenarios all pertaining to the same theme. Human nature and the struggle the Warden has with it.  It doesn't matter that the treaty quests are disjointed, they are loosely associated by theme.

See? I can do the same as you. I can do that to Tom and Jerry if you want. So it's bs.

Hawke does not grow as a character at all, he remains what he is (a useless irresponsable playboy). In the awkward middle between a set protagonist and an open one.

However, it is not the MAIN THEME, that is the difference. Does DAO have elements of the theme in it....yes. But is it about it? No.

Why do I gather that the dark side of human nature escalating conflicts and situations is the main theme of DAII? Because characters mention the topic (Bethany for example, as well as the Viscount after his son is killed), that is the conclusion of the story, and thats how who ends up being the main antagonists fall. A duck is a duck.

Hawke can grow as a character, its your choice. He or she is comparable to JC Denton, and really JC doesn't grow either.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juin 2011 - 06:51 .

[txgoldrush]

In Exile wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
The problem is # 3. For DA:O, this is the 'recruit an army' segment. This makes sense in the context of the main quest, but it's not expanding the storyline. Recruiting an army results in the player becoming involved in random sub-stories which only serve to expand game time, rather than push the narrative forward.

Compare this to Bioware's Jade Empire, which spends far more time developing a linear main quest, and imo it's a much stronger storyline for it.

I just wanted to echo this sentiment, as this was my main problem with the story in DA:O (and in many Bioware games, to be honest, aside from JE).

The best test of the strength of the 'call to adventure' section is the extent to which you can remove content without changing the story of the main plot.

In DA:O, you can effectively go to the Landsmeet directly (perhaps by way of Redcliffe) and you've retained the entire main plot. In KoTOR, you can go to Dantoine - Leviathan - Star Forge and keep the plot. In ME, you can just go Citadel  - Ilos.

Bioware hasn't written a narrative since JE, and BGII was their only other narrative.

DA2's disconnected plot is just a symptom of the general writing style at Bioware. It's just that, for whatever reason, people started disliking this approach with DA2. Maybe it made the style too obvious. I don't know.

DaII style is wildly different from Bioware's past games...there is no mid section where you can do major quests in any order. Its more like The Witcher, where you can do smaller quests in the Act in different orders, but you can't choose the order of the acts.

DAII really breaks from Bioware formula.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juin 2011 - 06:49 .