585 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Il Divo wrote...

Theagg wrote...

The dialogue wheel reduced dialogue choices, apparently. Or did it ?

In Origins you may have been presented with perhaps 4, 5 or 6 options of dialogue. But how many of these, if selected, genuinely pointed off down uniquely different dialogue tree branches ? How many of them were simply much the same thing phrased slightly differently, therefore not having much difference in affecting the NPC response. Did each one of those text dialogue selections presented, if selected have different raminfications for how the game unfolded later on ?

And, many people bemoan that what came out of Hawkes mouth didn't match the sentiment they thought they were expressing when clicking the dialogue wheel choice. This is true. However, the text dialogue choices in Origins, all 6 of them say , often left me thinking that none of those text choices presented were how I wanted my Warden to reply anyway. Some of them, written in their full glory were just bizarre.

So both mechanics have problems.

I agree. I think the real problem is that because DA2 began to provide 'tone icons', instead of players now choosing what tone they think is appropriate for a situation, they stick with a single tone and that becomes Hawke's 'character'. People don't like the tone icons because it exposes how basic the Bioware dialogue really is:

1) Good response.
2) Neutral response/questions.
3) Evil response.

And that's the extent of it. DA2 (imo) didn't dumb it down. It just dispels the illusion.

I dislike having to stick to one personality


If it was up to me, you could pick whatever tone choices you want and the game would tally them up. Then if you have chosen enough aggressive choices, you can convince Maraas to fight with you. But if you also chose enough diplomatic choices, you can convince Danyla's daughter to let the guy go.

Instead of a dominant personality, it tallies them up. I respond to different situations in different ways. If I'm an ass to one person, I'm not going to be an ass to a different person 3 quests later.

DA2 made me have to play Hawke like he's constantly got a cactus shoved up his ass just so I could convince Maraas to fight with me.

[Theagg]

txgoldrush wrote...


Loghain is just a moron who didn't know what he was doing. His plans and goals just did not make sense at all. Why would you even divide a kingdom when a looming threat is coming. If he is supposed to be stupid thats fine, but if he was intended to be smart, Bioware fell on its face.

Loghain was presented as stupid because the plot demanded it. Not because he was a figurehead general who should have known better what to do on the battlefield but was having an ego crisis because he was jealous of Cailan's blond locks.

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...

Loghain is just a moron who didn't know what he was doing. His plans and goals just did not make sense at all. Why would you even divide a kingdom when a looming threat is coming. If he is supposed to be stupid thats fine, but if he was intended to be smart, Bioware fell on its face.

The Qun demanded it.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I don't see what Loghain did a sound battle strategdy it was a personal decision that he made to quit the field, because he was scared ****less about Cailins friendship with Orlais and was afraid of it meaning Orlais would take Ferelden again, I think even he knew it was wrong, but his anger and pride wouldn't allow him to admit it.

[Nerevar-as]

txgoldrush wrote...

Saren played  a much better role in the story and had more reasonable goals. Master Li becomes a Maginificant Bastard and is responsible for the disorder in the world. What amkes him truly great is that he doesn't care about anyone...even when you thinbk he did.

Loghain is just a moron who didn't know what he was doing. His plans and goals just did not make sense at all. Why would you even divide a kingdom when a looming threat is coming. If he is supposed to be stupid thats fine, but if he was intended to be smart, Bioware fell on its face.

That Loghain was a moron doesn´t make him badly written either. his plan wasn´t dividing the kingdom, he just didn´t foresee the nobles turning their backs on him during a "massive darkspawn raid". Again, he is a brilliant MILITARY strategist, not a political one. Even then, he still prevented Ferelden becoming an orlesian province by leaving that idiot of a king in Ostagar.

Agreed about Sun Li - man was brilliant, and had no conscience at all. Killing him was incredibly satisfying. My favorite plot twist in a BW game (in Kotor first thing I thought was whether hitting Palpatine hard enough on the head would also give him a clean slate).

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) I sLogain the main antagonist? No he is not. Yes, the story features the theme, but it isn't ABOUT THE THEME!!!!. And in DAO's case, is the sacrifcies of being a Warden.

a) Loghain is a main antognist yes. And yes, it's about the theme. Self-sacrifice is part of human nature, just like greed is. No amount of capital letters and exclamation points is going to change that.

When you rely on nonsense like that, anything can be made into a theme about human nature.

Meredith reveals her backstory if you side with her in the argument (or remain nuetral) at th eacts BEGINNING and complete the first main quest in the act. .

At the beginning of the last Act of the game. That's nto development as she already had the idol by that point. We do not see her evolve. So it's character exposition.

Inhuman elements coming in lieu of character development and making them be insane lunatics, is not really about human nature. It's just a lazy way to avoid writing a human story that involves a lot more effort.

A) Loghain by definition is NOT the main antagonist, the Archdemon is. Self sacrifice is not the dark side of human nature, it is a more virtous side, rendering your point moot.

Notice how she uses the idol to the EXTREME at the end, putting lyrium in her blood. Her quest for power to realize her zealot goals undid her. Not the lyrium artifact. And she does evolve from the Meredith we know in Act II to the one in Act III.

In Bartrand's case, it went to show how weak minded he really was when they used the plot device. Then it comes upon Varric what to do with him. In fact, rage turns to sorrow after we find out what happened to Bartrand. A simple mission of revenge can become one of love and forgiveness and thats when the plot device is used perfectly. Its Varric now that has to deal with his dark side.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
A) Self sacrifice is not the dark side of human nature, it is a more virtous side, rendering your point moot.

So a story can't be about "positive" sides of human nature? Why not? I said it was about human nature, not its dark side. Whether it's its dark side or not is what's moot (and the entire concept is way too cliched for its own good).

Furthermore, when there is a way out of the sacrifice, it could also be the "dark side of human nature", whatever that nonsense means.

Notice how she uses the idol to the EXTREME at the end, putting lyrium in her blood. Her quest for power to realize her zealot goals undid her. Not the lyrium artifact. And she does evolve from the Meredith we know in Act II to the one in Act III.

We know nothing of Meredith when she showed up in the last 5 minutes of Act 2 except she didn't have red eyes and didn't act lik a power ranger villain.
It is the lyrium artifact because it "sang" to her and influenced her mind even before the end. She started hearing voices and talking to herself because she was driven nuts. That useless plothammer could have been removed entirely and have Meredith be what she was supposed to be without it. Be a real story about human development, not a laughable excuse of it.

So again, little to no character development and even those who love DA2 concede it, except you.
Heck, even Gaider concedes.

In Bartrand's case, it went to show how weak minded he really was when they used the plot device. Then it comes upon Varric what to do with him. In fact, rage turns to sorrow after we find out what happened to Bartrand. A simple mission of revenge can become one of love and forgiveness and thats when the plot device is used perfectly. Its Varric now that has to deal with his dark side.

Origins had moments like that too. And?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 08:25 .

[Nerevar-as]

The Blight was the background conflict and setting for the different plots of Origins, putting them in a more or less cohesive whole. In DA2 that was to be Hawke´s RtP, but the writing just didn´t deliver this time.

[txgoldrush]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Theagg wrote...

The dialogue wheel reduced dialogue choices, apparently. Or did it ?

In Origins you may have been presented with perhaps 4, 5 or 6 options of dialogue. But how many of these, if selected, genuinely pointed off down uniquely different dialogue tree branches ? How many of them were simply much the same thing phrased slightly differently, therefore not having much difference in affecting the NPC response. Did each one of those text dialogue selections presented, if selected have different raminfications for how the game unfolded later on ?

And, many people bemoan that what came out of Hawkes mouth didn't match the sentiment they thought they were expressing when clicking the dialogue wheel choice. This is true. However, the text dialogue choices in Origins, all 6 of them say , often left me thinking that none of those text choices presented were how I wanted my Warden to reply anyway. Some of them, written in their full glory were just bizarre.

So both mechanics have problems.

I agree. I think the real problem is that because DA2 began to provide 'tone icons', instead of players now choosing what tone they think is appropriate for a situation, they stick with a single tone and that becomes Hawke's 'character'. People don't like the tone icons because it exposes how basic the Bioware dialogue really is:

1) Good response.
2) Neutral response/questions.
3) Evil response.

And that's the extent of it. DA2 (imo) didn't dumb it down. It just dispels the illusion.

I dislike having to stick to one personality


If it was up to me, you could pick whatever tone choices you want and the game would tally them up. Then if you have chosen enough aggressive choices, you can convince Maraas to fight with you. But if you also chose enough diplomatic choices, you can convince Danyla's daughter to let the guy go.

Instead of a dominant personality, it tallies them up. I respond to different situations in different ways. If I'm an ass to one person, I'm not going to be an ass to a different person 3 quests later.

DA2 made me have to play Hawke like he's constantly got a cactus shoved up his ass just so I could convince Maraas to fight with me.

Other than the wild and wonky dialogue of the sarcastic option...the personality system was well done. It allowed a dominant personality to show while letting you be free to deviate when the situation demands it. I was easily allowed to set my personality but be able to go out of it without risking losing it. And the system is set by the more you build your personality, the harder it is to change it. its more of an exponential tally than a numerical one. You really have to steer very hard to change your personality.

[TEWR]

people don't have a personality set in stone. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving.


I've woken up some days and I've been a sarcastic guy. The next day something will happen where I'm just pissed the entire day, or a good portion of it.


Forcing me to stay true to one personality tone to get certain things available instead of allowing me to numerically tally them up is something I despise about it.


It also doesn't help that most of the dialogue choices led to the same conclusion.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 juin 2011 - 08:31 .

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
A) Self sacrifice is not the dark side of human nature, it is a more virtous side, rendering your point moot.

a) So a story can't be about "positive" sides of human nature? Why not? I said it was about human nature, not its dark side. Whether it's its dark side or not is what's moot (and the entire concept is way too cliched for its own good).

Furthermore, when there is a way out of the sacrifice, it could also be the "dark side of human nature", whatever that nonsense means.

Notice how she uses the idol to the EXTREME at the end, putting lyrium in her blood. Her quest for power to realize her zealot goals undid her. Not the lyrium artifact. And she does evolve from the Meredith we know in Act II to the one in Act III.

We know nothing of Meredith when she showed up in the last 5 minutes of Act 2 except she didn't have red eyes and didn't act lik a power ranger villain.
It is the lyrium artifact because it "sang" to her and influenced her mind even before the end. She started hearing voices and talking to herself because she was driven nuts. That useless plothammer could have been removed entirely and have Meredith be what she was supposed to be without it. Be a real story about human development, not a laughable excuse of it.

So again, little to no character development and even those who love DA2 concede it, except you.
Heck, even Gaider concedes.

In Bartrand's case, it went to show how weak minded he really was when they used the plot device. Then it comes upon Varric what to do with him. In fact, rage turns to sorrow after we find out what happened to Bartrand. A simple mission of revenge can become one of love and forgiveness and thats when the plot device is used perfectly. Its Varric now that has to deal with his dark side.

Origins had moments like that too. And?

a) and your moving the goal posts...notice I summed up DAII very specifically..."about how the DARK side of human nature escalates either a bad situation or a conflict". Its more specific than just "human nature".

what does the dark side of human nature mean...easy...the greed, the zealotry, the madness, the obsession, the weakness (notice how the Arishok likes to use the word "weakness" when describing the nature of the city), Notice how almost every plot and secondary and companio quest carries this theme.

so? does it prove your point? Nope

[txgoldrush]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people don't have a personality set in stone. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving.


I've woken up some days and I've been a sarcastic guy. The next day something will happen where I'm just pissed the entire day, or a good portion of it.


Forcing me to stay true to one personality tone to get certain things available instead of allowing me to numerically tally them up is something I despise about it.

Actaully, in the beginning of every act, it allows you to change your personality much easier, so you don't have to have your personality set in stone. I managed to turn my aggressive Act I Hawke to a diplomatic Act II one.

The personality system is necessary for the flow of the conversations. The dialogue flows very well for the most part, with its downfall being the sarcastic option. Its by far the hardest of the personalities to handle for the writers, so there is an excuse there.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juin 2011 - 08:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) and your moving the goal posts...notice I summed up DAII very specifically..."about how the DARK side of human nature escalates either a bad situation or a conflict". Its more specific than just "human nature".

Read again. I said it was about the world and the Warden struggling against their human nature and dealign with the consequences of their human weaknesses / greed / pride / hubris...etc.
And I explained all treaty quests.

so? does it prove your point? Nope

Does it prove yours that DA2 is better than DA:O? Nope.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 08:35 .

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) and your moving the goal posts...notice I summed up DAII very specifically..."about how the DARK side of human nature escalates either a bad situation or a conflict". Its more specific than just "human nature".

Read again. I said it was about the world and the Warden struggling against their human nature.

so? does it prove your point? Nope

Does it prove yours that DA2 is better than DA:O? Nope.

a) which the story isn't specifically about in DAO. The story like I said is about the duty and the sacrifice of a hero.

moves the goal post again..lol

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) which the story isn't specifically about in DAO. The story like I said is about the duty and the sacrifice of a hero.

Duty and self-sacrifice is a constant struggle against our human nature. And no, the story is not what you say it is.
The Blight is the result of human hubris, so the Warden has to unite Ferelden and other people, by helping them deal with their own problems that stem from their human nature. So it might as well be about a struggle to fight human nature to win the day, the main atagonist being human hubris made manifest. The DR is the ultimate test to your own personal commitment.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 juin 2011 - 08:40 .

[TEWR]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

people don't have a personality set in stone. It's constantly changing, constantly evolving.


I've woken up some days and I've been a sarcastic guy. The next day something will happen where I'm just pissed the entire day, or a good portion of it.


Forcing me to stay true to one personality tone to get certain things available instead of allowing me to numerically tally them up is something I despise about it.

Actaully, in the beginning of every act, it allows you to change your personality much easier, so you don't have to have your personality set in stone. I managed to turn my aggressive Act I Hawke to a diplomatic Act II one.

The personality system is necessary for the flow of the conversations. The dialogue flows very well for the most part, with its downfall being the sarcastic option. Its by far the hardest of the personalities to handle for the writers, so there is an excuse there.

I know I can change it in every act, but personality doesn't change every few years or so. It constantly changes.

I should've been a bit clearer, and for that I apologize (that's what I get for babysitting my brother and being online). I roleplay my Hawkes as diplomatic until they land, aggressive with slight snark for Act 1, Diplomatic with slight snark for Act 2, and fully sarcastic for Act 3.

But a personality isn't something that just changes like that. It isn't "Well, I was a jackass 3 years ago. Let's be a goody two shoes now!"

[Nerevar-as]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) which the story isn't specifically about in DAO. The story like I said is about the duty and the sacrifice of a hero.

Duty and self-sacrifice is a constant struggle against our human nature. And no, the story is not what you say it is.
The Blight is the result of human hubris, so the Warden has to unite Ferelden and other people, by helping them deal with their own problems that stem from their human nature. So it might as well be about a struggle to fight human nature to win the day, the main atagonist being human hubris made manifest. The DR is the ultimate test to your own personal commitment.

We don´t even know if the Blight is what we are told, only the Chantry version. And I see DR as defiance against the Maker, Fate, nature or whatever decided someone must lose his/her soul for something s/he is absolutely not responsible for.

[TEWR]

The fact that the dwarves encountered the Darkspawn first and said they were creatures in their own image (genlocks) was enough for me to confidently call BS on the Chantry version.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) which the story isn't specifically about in DAO. The story like I said is about the duty and the sacrifice of a hero.

Duty and self-sacrifice is a constant struggle against our human nature. And no, the story is not what you say it is.
The Blight is the result of human hubris, so the Warden has to unite Ferelden and other people, by helping them deal with their own problems that stem from their human nature. So it might as well be about a struggle to fight human nature to win the day, the main atagonist being human hubris made manifest. The DR is the ultimate test to your own personal commitment.

Is the purpose of the Warden to deal with human nature or to defeat the Blight? Its the latter. Now the Warden will have to deal with human nature and that the Blight was caused by human nature, but thats not the purpose of the main plot. The theme is something specific, not broad....and the specific is duty and sacrifice.

This is what makes Loghain so dangerous, not because he is a meanie, but he is killing off the ones that can stop the Blight, the ones whose duty and sacrifice are required to stop it.

The Wardens only goal is to kill the Archdemon....not play diplomat. And really it wouldn't even matter if it was caused by human hubris are not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

txgoldrush wrote...
Is the purpose of the Warden to deal with human nature or to defeat the Blight? Its the latter. Now the Warden will have to deal with human nature and that the Blight was caused by human nature, but thats not the purpose of the main plot. The theme is something specific, not broad....and the specific is duty and sacrifice.

It is, because not only is it a personal struggle with their own nature, to the point where they become something barely human, in order to safeguard humanity, they also have to deal with allies and help them get over their own problems to devote themselves to fight the blight. 

Struggling against our own natures, when it comes to greed, vengeance, ambition, fear, hatred is as specific as "the dark side of human nature" making everyone an idiot.

It's funny how you are grasping at straws so desperately, instead of just admitting that both DA:O and DA2 had very weak plots.

The Wardens only goal is to kill the Archdemon....not play diplomat. And really it wouldn't even matter if it was caused by human hubris are not.

And it doesn't matter that the debacle in Kirkwall was caused by "dark side of human nature", what we ended up with is a cesspool of idiocy and lunacy.

Yes, wardens can and are diplomats, read about the previous blight will you. They brokered a peace between Tevinter and Orlais. And that's a major point of the entire game that now I am starting to doubt you even played.

[TEWR]

to be honest I think Lothering should've been destroyed after the 2nd main quest is done, and we should've also seen the Darkspawn branching out to the east and west destroying villages.


Hell some random encounters with darkspawn should've happened in villages.


Awakening did a much better job of showing how dangerous Darkspawn running rampant was, though only by a little bit.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 juin 2011 - 09:21 .

[Dormiglione]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Theagg wrote...


Hmm, strong plot for Origins. Debatable. I still can't get over how the miltary saviour of Ferelden abandons the field, knowing full well this would allow the Darkspawn to gain the upper hand and wipe out a large section of the forces required to deal with it. And decimate some of his beloved country in the process. Given the great strategist he is supposed to be his actions certainly were dramatic but not exactly smart. Or believable.

Well, perhaps someone can point me to a real life historical battle where a general has abandoned an army to the oncoming advance of an invading force and what that means strategically. Because of a personal grudge.

Military strategist. The game shows clearly that as a political one, Loghain is quite bad.

I found Loghain to be quite poorly written, unlike some other prominent major Bioware antagonists like Saren, Sun Li, Malak, or Irenicus.

You found Loghain poorly written but Meredith a deep interesting personality? Well Loghain was introduced at the very beginning of DAO. You see his betrayal of Cailan, you get discussion between him and Anora. You see how Loghain struggles to believe that there is a real blight. All the intrigues that he starts, poisons the Arl, allows slave hunters to deport elves as slaves. How he defamed the wardens, spreading lies about who betrayed Cailan.

I dont like Loghain, but he was certainly not poor written. And thats not subjective.

[Addai]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

to be honest I think Lothering should've been destroyed after the 2nd main quest is done, and we should've also seen the Darkspawn branching out to the east and west destroying villages.


Hell some random encounters with darkspawn should've happened in villages.


Awakening did a much better job of showing how dangerous Darkspawn running rampant was, though only by a little bit.

You didn't get the road encounters or do the Chantry Board quests where you see darkspawn attacking refugees?  Shale's DLC with darkspawn attacking Honnleath?

Modifié par Addai67, 26 juin 2011 - 09:49 .

[TEWR]

No I did them, but that's not enough. Those are isolated incidents of the Darkspawn. More like roving bands of the Blight's army. Except for Honnleath. They're situated close to the horde.

Honnleath was the best showing of the Blight in Origins, but it could've been better. Throw in a few ghouls for good measure.

And since Honnleath was the only village we visit outside of Lothering where the Darkspawn attacked....


I'm not saying Origins didn't try to show the Blight's pace. It did. It just could've been better.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 juin 2011 - 09:57 .

[Whatsupnewyork]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No I did them, but that's not enough. Those are isolated incidents of the Darkspawn. More like roving bands of the Blight's army. Except for Honnleath. They're situated close to the horde.

Honnleath was the best showing of the Blight in Origins, but it could've been better. Throw in a few ghouls for good measure.

And since Honnleath was the only village we visit outside of Lothering where the Darkspawn attacked....


I'm not saying Origins didn't try to show the Blight's pace. It did. It just could've been better.

How?