585 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Jon Jern wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Loghain along with Howe were better antagonists in DAO. The ArchDemon was anti-climatic.

Sorry, I have a hard time looping my head around this... Killing the leader of the blight and thus saving Ferelden was anti-climatic? 

Yes an enemy that you have seen once in the Deep Roads, at Denerim in Act 3 and calling you in your dreams. The ArchDemon is basically in the background and your character has very little interaction with the ArchDemo. The ArchDemon does not really bother your party that much in the entire game.

[Jon Jern_]

But the archdemon isn't an antagonist. The archdemon is a plot device.

[Realmzmaster]

Jon Jern wrote...

We have different interpretations of "cliche" then. In my opinion (Holy **** I hate using this phrase) DAO was cliche but it was great as hell, DA2 tried a little  (read : LITTLE) different approach but fell short.

Both were cliched which means they overused elements, expressions or ideas to the point they lose their original meaning or effect.

You are taling about execution. Execution and cliche are not the same thing.

[Jon Jern_]

What can I say, I'm a sucker for cliches.

[Morroian]

Aaleel wrote...

Morroian wrote...

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

Orsino had just given this rousing speech and helped handily beat back the first wave of Templars, why would he give in to despair then, it did not make sense.  If anything he should have done it right when they were cornered before any Templars ever attacked.

Hence the reason it wasn't presented very well. They were still cornered and with Meredith to contend with. He became a harvester to give himself more power.

Aaleel wrote...

But where it fell apart for me the most.  Every other mage that turns into a demon, abomination, and the harvester you fought previously all seem to know friend from foe, but Orsino somehow can't and just attacks you.  

He lost control as a harvester, probably lost the ability to reason. 

[Realmzmaster]

Jon Jern wrote...

But the archdemon isn't an antagonist. The archdemon is a plot device.

The Blight is a plot device. The ArchDemon is suppose to be controlling the Blight. But very little of that controlling is seen anywhere in the game except for the one time in the Deep Roads. The ArchDemon is not that great of a plot device or antagonist.

[Jon Jern_]

Fair enough.

[Realmzmaster]

Morroian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Morroian wrote...

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

Orsino had just given this rousing speech and helped handily beat back the first wave of Templars, why would he give in to despair then, it did not make sense.  If anything he should have done it right when they were cornered before any Templars ever attacked.

Hence the reason it wasn't presented very well. They were still cornered and with Meredith to contend with. He became a harvester to give himself more power.

Aaleel wrote...

But where it fell apart for me the most.  Every other mage that turns into a demon, abomination, and the harvester you fought previously all seem to know friend from foe, but Orsino somehow can't and just attacks you.  

He lost control as a harvester, probably lost the ability to reason. 

He was not a harvester when he lost it. He was still able to listen to reason. Orsino simply did not. It would have been better if he was unable to continue fighting because he was ingured and he turn to blood magic to fight. But even that would be weak.
It would have been better if Orsino was killed during the fight.

[Aaleel]

Morroian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Morroian wrote...

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

Orsino had just given this rousing speech and helped handily beat back the first wave of Templars, why would he give in to despair then, it did not make sense.  If anything he should have done it right when they were cornered before any Templars ever attacked.

Hence the reason it wasn't presented very well. They were still cornered and with Meredith to contend with. He became a harvester to give himself more power.

Aaleel wrote...

But where it fell apart for me the most.  Every other mage that turns into a demon, abomination, and the harvester you fought previously all seem to know friend from foe, but Orsino somehow can't and just attacks you.  

He lost control as a harvester, probably lost the ability to reason. 

If you're going to give into despair it would be right away when you're looking at something you think is insurmountable.  But after you've beaten back the enemy and forced them to retreat, if anything you'll start getting a feeling of maybe we CAN do this with the champion helping us. 

And like I said.  I can't think of any other time in either game where any kind of abomination, harverter, demon, shade or anything just went crazy and started attacking anyone in the area friend or foe. 

[billy the squid]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Morroian wrote...

It does to me it just wasn't presented well at all, Orsino gave in to despair.

Orsino had just given this rousing speech and helped handily beat back the first wave of Templars, why would he give in to despair then, it did not make sense.  If anything he should have done it right when they were cornered before any Templars ever attacked.

Hence the reason it wasn't presented very well. They were still cornered and with Meredith to contend with. He became a harvester to give himself more power.

Aaleel wrote...

But where it fell apart for me the most.  Every other mage that turns into a demon, abomination, and the harvester you fought previously all seem to know friend from foe, but Orsino somehow can't and just attacks you.  

He lost control as a harvester, probably lost the ability to reason. 

He was not a harvester when he lost it. He was still able to listen to reason. Orsino simply did not. It would have been better if he was unable to continue fighting because he was ingured and he turn to blood magic to fight. But even that would be weak.
It would have been better if Orsino was killed during the fight.

Isn't the whole turning into a Harvester a bit of a plot hole, as the original Harvester was composed of stitched together dwarven corpses imbued with a fade spirit. I know Orsino is supposed to combine with the fallen bodies but isn't this rather weak.
I think turning to blood magic would have been okay, but things like the harvester and some of the character retconns in DA2are realy quite jarring and are one of my big issues with DA2

[Sidney]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The Blight is a plot device. The ArchDemon is suppose to be controlling the Blight. But very little of that controlling is seen anywhere in the game except for the one time in the Deep Roads. The ArchDemon is not that great of a plot device or antagonist.

It remains true that Act III of both DAO and DA2 were weaker because the best antangonists (Loghain and the Arishok) died (usually) in Act 2 and then you get the non-entity AD and the clumsy Meredith/Orsino ending in DA2.

[FieryDove]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Morroian wrote...

In DA2 while you lack the big choices the character of Hawke is still the catalyst for change.

No, he isn´t. That´s the problem. He is a supporting character to qunari, Anders, Meredith & Orsino and the people whose actions really shape things.

This is pretty much how I felt as the game ended. Doesn't matter what was marketed or should have been. That and my character disappeared again.

[Morroian]

Realmzmaster wrote...

He was not a harvester when he lost it. He was still able to listen to reason. Orsino simply did not. It would have been better if he was unable to continue fighting because he was ingured and he turn to blood magic to fight. But even that would be weak.
It would have been better if Orsino was killed during the fight.

He was in despair when he gave in and became the harvester. He wasn't intending to attack Hawke before he became the harvester he just lost control as the harvester.

[In Exile]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Both games have faults. The faults in DAO are a little more tolerable given its length. The faults in DA2 are more glaring because of its focus.

Wait, what? If a game is longer, the faults are less bad?

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
As I said, Anora and Arl Eamon do give you some information although it is quite brief, but I think it could have been expanded on and we don't learn a great deal of what Loghain has been up to until the Landsmeet section of the game, but this is one of issues in the way in DAO was conveyed, the different parts of the main quest to secure allies feels more seperated from the main plot, only linked to the overarching theme of the blight in a rather loose manner. 

I'm not saying you don't get information - I'm saying DA2 handles it the same way.

I have never claimed DAO is a classic or a shining beacon of how things should be done, it has numerous problems from how it handles the plot to the actual gameplay itself. But, I don't think that DA2's faults are entirely derived from DAO's reception, particularly considering the shift in design direction to DA2, there is a problem in that DA2 didn't fix many of the problems of the original and added more

DA2 was a game designed just like any other Bioware game. The flaws in DA2 (story-wise) are the same as in DA:O, or KoTOR, or ME, or ME2. My point is that Meredith was given about as much attention and build up (story wise) as Loghain. Arguing that Loghain as better because of more screen time is just not true. Loghain was better received, sure, but in the end he didn't get a weird plot-hole justification (like the archdemon controlling his mind) and there was an 'epic' enemy after that the audience was a sucker for.

Now, Loghain vs Meredith, I think Loghain was handled better in terms of the character potrayal rather than the amount of content, inspite of the limited information there was enough to draw some conclusions as the motivation behind his current actions at Ostagar  where he is first introduced as the antagonist and remains present throughout even if whilst recruiting allies he dissapears somewhat, but, this is an issue with how the plot progresses. The Arch demon for me was a plot device to create an overarching theme to bind the game together, it was okay, but not particularly good.

Meredith had as much slow build up, all pushing to the same conclusion. As I said: if you remove the idol, it's just the story of a woman who, in her quest to keep everyone safe, slowly has her sanity slip out from under her.

Whereas Meredith doesn't appear until the end of Act 2, considering she is supposed to be one of the most important figures in Kirkwall, I would have though we would see her influence earlier, even if it remains subtle. The issue with info about Meredith it is only able to be gained through the completion of certain quests particularly in Act 3, otherwise one is left with several question marks over why she acts in this manner. This is exacerbated by the way in which DA2's plot progresses with each act feeling disjointed from the others.

Meredith appears in Act I. She's alluded to right at the start of the prologue, when the guards tell you the templars actually control Kirkwall, and again when you talk to Bethany or Carver before the expedition about cracking down, and then Cullen talking to you about her after Enemies Among Us. In Act II we hear more about the templars cracking down on the mages via Varric, all before we finally meet Meredith.

DAO had an overarching theme even if the many of the main quests were only loosely associated with the plot, his  subsequent disappearance in the middle of the game with the exception of some cutscenes didn't seem to damage Loghain to the same degree, as his involvement and some of his motivations had already been established at Ostagar and the meeting with the Bannorn where he declares himself regent. Whilst more information is revealed later towards the end when events start to reach a head

DA2 didn't focus on Meredith until Act III. If Loghain gets a pass because of DA:O's disjointed story, so should Meredith.

Modifié par In Exile, 27 juin 2011 - 01:38 .

[furryrage59]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
As I said, Anora and Arl Eamon do give you some information although it is quite brief, but I think it could have been expanded on and we don't learn a great deal of what Loghain has been up to until the Landsmeet section of the game, but this is one of issues in the way in DAO was conveyed, the different parts of the main quest to secure allies feels more seperated from the main plot, only linked to the overarching theme of the blight in a rather loose manner. 

I'm not saying you don't get information - I'm saying DA2 handles it the same way.

I have never claimed DAO is a classic or a shining beacon of how things should be done, it has numerous problems from how it handles the plot to the actual gameplay itself. But, I don't think that DA2's faults are entirely derived from DAO's reception, particularly considering the shift in design direction to DA2, there is a problem in that DA2 didn't fix many of the problems of the original and added more

DA2 was a game designed just like any other Bioware game. The flaws in DA2 (story-wise) are the same as in DA:O, or KoTOR, or ME, or ME2. My point is that Meredith was given about as much attention and build up (story wise) as Loghain. Arguing that Loghain as better because of more screen time is just not true. Loghain was better received, sure, but in the end he didn't get a weird plot-hole justification (like the archdemon controlling his mind) and there was an 'epic' enemy after that the audience was a sucker for.

Now, Loghain vs Meredith, I think Loghain was handled better in terms of the character potrayal rather than the amount of content, inspite of the limited information there was enough to draw some conclusions as the motivation behind his current actions at Ostagar  where he is first introduced as the antagonist and remains present throughout even if whilst recruiting allies he dissapears somewhat, but, this is an issue with how the plot progresses. The Arch demon for me was a plot device to create an overarching theme to bind the game together, it was okay, but not particularly good.

Meredith had as much slow build up, all pushing to the same conclusion. As I said: if you remove the idol, it's just the story of a woman who, in her quest to keep everyone safe, slowly has her sanity slip out from under her.

Whereas Meredith doesn't appear until the end of Act 2, considering she is supposed to be one of the most important figures in Kirkwall, I would have though we would see her influence earlier, even if it remains subtle. The issue with info about Meredith it is only able to be gained through the completion of certain quests particularly in Act 3, otherwise one is left with several question marks over why she acts in this manner. This is exacerbated by the way in which DA2's plot progresses with each act feeling disjointed from the others.

Meredith appears in Act I. She's alluded to right at the start of the prologue, when the guards tell you the templars actually control Kirkwall, and again when you talk to Bethany or Carver before the expedition about cracking down, and then Cullen talking to you about her after Enemies Among Us. In Act II we hear more about the templars cracking down on the mages via Varric, all before we finally meet Meredith.

DAO had an overarching theme even if the many of the main quests were only loosely associated with the plot, his  subsequent disappearance in the middle of the game with the exception of some cutscenes didn't seem to damage Loghain to the same degree, as his involvement and some of his motivations had already been established at Ostagar and the meeting with the Bannorn where he declares himself regent. Whilst more information is revealed later towards the end when events start to reach a head

DA2 didn't focus on Meredith until Act III. If Loghain gets a pass because of DA:O's disjointed story, so should Meredith.

I must have missed the disjointed bit on all my playthroughs of DA:O. DA2 wasn't disjointed, it was spazmodicily reticulated.

[Yrkoon]

Yeah, DA:O wasn't at all disjointed. If anything, it veered a little too far in the *opposite* direction.   It was too focussed. EVERYTHING was about the blight. Even in the rare instances when an antagonist like Logain would try to change the subject and add some variety, there'd always be another character  there, in the same room, to chastize him for changing the subject.

And that goes for even the flavor dialogue you have with your companions.  They'll almost always end their chats with you by saying something to the effect of  "we've talked enough, lets go  kill some  darkspawn now"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 27 juin 2011 - 02:04 .

[Addai]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Jon Jern wrote...

But the archdemon isn't an antagonist. The archdemon is a plot device.

The Blight is a plot device. The ArchDemon is suppose to be controlling the Blight. But very little of that controlling is seen anywhere in the game except for the one time in the Deep Roads. The ArchDemon is not that great of a plot device or antagonist.

Archie did pretty well at Ostagar and in the end game, feinting towards Redcliffe and then actually swinging around for a mass attack on the capital.  You also have the shriek attack after 3 treaty quests, which is even more diabolical for a Dalish PC.  There are some gaps regarding the archdemon (he should sense you in the Dead Trenches etc.) but all in all I thought it was well executed.

[Giggles_Manically]

First time I played through as a Dalish PC I went:
Who the hell..... TAMLEN!

I was literally staring at my screen in shock for a whole minute.

[DAO MAdhatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Why does everyone hold this game in such high regard than bash DAII?

Really DAO is highly overrated, while DAII while having some serious flaws, is underrated.

Lets start with story. DAO is basically LOTR's with gore. Thats it. The Darkspawn are gonna burn everything, we must stop them. Its very generic, very cliched, very boring. Its also a Lord of the Rings rip...compae the Warden to Frodo (and The Ring his Wardeness), while Loghain is the regent of Gondor, Alistair is Aragorn, The Archdemon is Sauron, and the Darkspawn are the orcs of Mordor, while Denerim is Minas Tirith. Lets not also forget the lack of focus in that the 4 main mid quests's narratives overpower the main quests, while Nature of the Beast and the Urn Of The Sacred Ashes were great, the Broken Circle and  Paragon Of Her Kind stumble due to pacing and poor game design. Its also too bad that they have nothing to do with the story except for gathering plot coupons. Very little reminders of the main threat as well. Its like the Spawn aren't even attacking. ME3 will have a similiar story, but at least The Reapers and indoctrinated Cerberus troopers will remind Shepard of the main threat. And then, unlike its sequel, the party members have barely anything to do with the main plot outside of Alistair and Morrigan.

Now for the characters....one dimensional clones of Bioware characters. Its that Carth? No, its Alistair. Hey Oghren is Black Whirlwind as a Dwarf and if HK47 was an elf, he'd be Zervan. Morrigan and Viconia are like twins, Leliana is Dawn Star. Sten is just like Sagacious Zu, a very untalkative character with a dark past. Only Wynne and Shale seem to be like original characters and Shale has HK47 qualities as well. And almost all of them are one dimensional to boot, or sometimes two dimensional in the case of Morrigan and Allistair. The exceptions are Wynne and Leliana, who is really one of Bioware's best written characters. Everyone else has one personality, one angle, nothing more, and Zervan's DAII appearance proves how one dimensional he is. DAII on the other hand, has more fleshed out and more multi dimensional characters. Varric, along with Leliana, is the most multidimensional character in the series. Isabela has multiple angles on her and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect. Aveline has complex views on law and order and is not afraid to extrajudically execute criminals. Anders becomes a true dynamic character and someone that goes from likable to unlikable as the game progresses, thats profound. Only Fenris do I say is more one dimensional and he has more dynamics to him than most of Origins cast. The friendship/rivalry system also gives the characters new angles. Far better cast than the one in Origins or Awakenings. And except for Merril, no clones either.

Gameplay and combat in DAO is so broken and clunky its not even funny. This is far from Baldur's Gate II it tries to be. The skills are so unbalanced especially for a mage that it ceases to be any sort of a tactical masterpiece it wants to be. Mana clash for instance is telling a mage, your dead. Its too easy when you know what you are doing. Not only that, why does my Arcane Warrior fight like she has a pole shoved up her butt? DAII is far from perfect, but its better, especially with patch 1.3. I like how you are actually encouraged to use class combos and that the classes are more balanced. Lets not forget that the dialogue system is much better in DAII (except for the sarcastic option) and Hawke is now actually a character. Far from Geralt of Rivia or Nameless One level, but much better than the listless Warden who was a step back from Shepard. Character customization is overrated anyway...Id rather be a real more fleshed out protagonist  with emotions that can make decisions than a listles splayer avatar who every character talks AT, and not WITH.

Fans that hate on DAII while praising the first just fail to admit that DAO has significant flaws. DAO played it safe and as a result its a boring effort, especially compared to games like The Witcher and NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer which tells a far better written tale with better characters. DAII isn't afraid to fail and in many cases it does, but it also succeeds overall. While the recycled environments and the rushed production values is a huge determent, the story is smarter, has more soul, with better characters, better written side quests, etc. While DAII was rushed to release, DAO was in development too long and got surpassed in quality long before release.

The Dragon Age franchise has yet to achieve greatness...its just not there yet.

FINALLY! Some else sees some sense! I agree completely,

[csfteeeer]

^^^^ Ha, Trolls agree with Trolls.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 27 juin 2011 - 03:04 .

[Realmzmaster]

In Exile wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Both games have faults. The faults in DAO are a little more tolerable given its length. The faults in DA2 are more glaring because of its focus.

Wait, what? If a game is longer, the faults are less bad?

No the faults are still bad just less glaring because I may encounter more good parts with a longer playthrough. Unfortunately I could also encounter more bad points.

[Realmzmaster]

Addai67 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Jon Jern wrote...

But the archdemon isn't an antagonist. The archdemon is a plot device.

The Blight is a plot device. The ArchDemon is suppose to be controlling the Blight. But very little of that controlling is seen anywhere in the game except for the one time in the Deep Roads. The ArchDemon is not that great of a plot device or antagonist.

Archie did pretty well at Ostagar and in the end game, feinting towards Redcliffe and then actually swinging around for a mass attack on the capital.  You also have the shriek attack after 3 treaty quests, which is even more diabolical for a Dalish PC.  There are some gaps regarding the archdemon (he should sense you in the Dead Trenches etc.) but all in all I thought it was well executed.

The ArchDemon must be a poor general not to followup his/her win at Ostagar by marching forth across the land. There was nothing in the way. Like you said the ArchDemon is at the battle of Ostagar and appears in the final Act . Where was the army for the rest of the time. Most armies I have studied would be moving forward scroching the land.

[Il Divo]

furryrage59 wrote...

I must have missed the disjointed bit on all my playthroughs of DA:O. DA2 wasn't disjointed, it was spazmodicily reticulated.

I didn't miss it on my first playthrough.

1. Stopping Uldred
2. Crowning a new Dwarven King
3. Murdering the Werewolves
4. Urn of Sacred Ashes

Aside from 'building an army', what do any of these things have to do with the main plot of DA:O, which revolves around stopping the darkspawn/Archdemon, and deposing Loghain?

Most of them are well-written, fun sub-stories, but sub-stories they remain. None of these listed above develop the narrative. Bioware gave us four recruitment missions because that sounds like a good amount of content. They could have given us three, twenty, or none. The main plot does not change, making it disjointed because the majority of the game focuses on content which isn't centered on the storyline.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juin 2011 - 03:26 .

[In Exile]

furryrage59 wrote...
I must have missed the disjointed bit on all my playthroughs of DA:O. DA2 wasn't disjointed, it was spazmodicily reticulated.

Interesting. Care to argue why it wasn't disjointed?

Yrkoon wrote...

Yeah, DA:O wasn't at all disjointed. If
anything, it veered a little too far in the *opposite* direction.   It
was too focussed. EVERYTHING was about the blight. Even in the rare
instances when an antagonist like Logain would try to change the subject
and add some variety, there'd always be another character  there, in
the same room, to chastize him for changing the subject.

Well, no. Nothing was about the blight. The blight was just there as a general goal, with all of the action unrelated to it. The Tower of Magi didn't relate to the blight. Redcliffe didn't. Haven certainly didn't. The Landsmeet didn't. The Brecilian Forest didn't. Hell, even Orzammar didn't really relate to the blight - not more so than the Deep Roads expedition in DA:O did.

And that
goes for even the flavor dialogue you have with your companions. 
They'll almost always end their chats with you by saying something to
the effect of  "we've talked enough, lets go  kill some  darkspawn
now"

But that's all an overlay. The actual plot (compared to say DA:A, where darkspawn are everywhere) has very little contact with the darkspawn.