585 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

Persephone wrote...

ItsTheTruth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I didn't accuse the OP of anything. As for my description of DA2, it is very accurate: story is the DA:O Circle tower but set in a Denerim-like city, extended with 50 fecth quests in The Cave or on The Coast, and with Dynasty Warriors combat. I.e flaming piece of crap and the worst game I have ever played to the end (just because of the DA name).

so the Qunari is part of the Circle Tower quest?

Lol

The Qunari in DA2 is like Flemeth, irrelevant and meaningless. Bioware couldn't even bother mentioning whatever happened to either at the end. That says to me: "Buy our next games to see what the hell this was about!"

And people think the OP hasn't played DAO.........

Flemeth is in DA2.  What makes you think he was referring to her  DA:O appearance?

[Persephone]

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

ItsTheTruth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I didn't accuse the OP of anything. As for my description of DA2, it is very accurate: story is the DA:O Circle tower but set in a Denerim-like city, extended with 50 fecth quests in The Cave or on The Coast, and with Dynasty Warriors combat. I.e flaming piece of crap and the worst game I have ever played to the end (just because of the DA name).

so the Qunari is part of the Circle Tower quest?

Lol

The Qunari in DA2 is like Flemeth, irrelevant and meaningless. Bioware couldn't even bother mentioning whatever happened to either at the end. That says to me: "Buy our next games to see what the hell this was about!"

And people think the OP hasn't played DAO.........

Flemeth is in DA2.  What makes you think he was referring to her  DA:O appearance?

Sarcasm. Implying that you obviously haven't played DAII either.

[txgoldrush]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

I didn't accuse the OP of anything. As for my description of DA2, it is very accurate: story is the DA:O Circle tower but set in a Denerim-like city, extended with 50 fecth quests in The Cave or on The Coast, and with Dynasty Warriors combat. I.e flaming piece of crap and the worst game I have ever played to the end (just because of the DA name).

so the Qunari is part of the Circle Tower quest?

Lol

The Qunari in DA2 is like Flemeth, irrelevant and meaningless. Bioware couldn't even bother mentioning whatever happened to either at the end. That says to me: "Buy our next games to see what the hell this was about!"

Why do they need to...they either a) get killed off by Hawke and the city in the counterattack or leave but get the book stolen from them by Isabela again. Its open.

Flemeth is an ongoing series character, whats the problem in that?

[Gunderic]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Not to mention they CONTRIBUTE to the story, unlike their DAO counterparts.

Oh indeed. Just like Morrigan. She's not part of DA:O's story at all. And Neither is Alistair! I mean, if you ignore the whole  Next-in-line-for-the-throne  thing LOL

Bizzarro argument is bizzare. Good job OP.

We just ignore him over at Gamespot. 

[Yrkoon]

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative?.

To present the story as something that took place in the past-  and more importantly, to let the player know that in the present, something nasty is  going on  -Ie.  there's been no ending.  No resolution.  No conclusion.

One need only read Mike Laidlaw's recent posts about this subject to confirm this FACT.

So a cliffhanger/open ending is NO ENDING.

It wasn't an open ending.  It was a cliff hanger.  To use  your book comparison, it'd be like  someone  quit reading
 Gone with the Wind  halfway through.

A cliffhanger ending IS an ending.

No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

[txgoldrush]

Gunderic wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Not to mention they CONTRIBUTE to the story, unlike their DAO counterparts.

Oh indeed. Just like Morrigan. She's not part of DA:O's story at all. And Neither is Alistair! I mean, if you ignore the whole  Next-in-line-for-the-throne  thing LOL

Bizzarro argument is bizzare. Good job OP.

We just ignore him over at Gamespot. 

Too bad he didn't read my first post, that makes him the bizzaro. I stated that Morrigan and Alistair are the only characters to significantly contribute in the main plot.

[Persephone]

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative?.

To present the story as something that took place in the past-  and more importantly, to let the player know that in the present, something nasty is  going on  -Ie.  there's been no ending.  No resolution.  No conclusion.

One need only read Mike Laidlaw's recent posts about this subject to confirm this FACT.

So a cliffhanger/open ending is NO ENDING.

It wasn't an open ending.  It was a cliff hanger.  To use  your book comparison, it'd be like  someone  quit reading
 Gone with the Wind  halfway through.

A cliffhanger ending IS an ending.

No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

Based on THAT logic, NO story is ever completely done.

Cliffhanger ending. It's a word. A plot device. A perfectly acceptable one. According to many their Warden's story isn't done yet either.

So?

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative?.

To present the story as something that took place in the past-  and more importantly, to let the player know that in the present, something nasty is  going on  -Ie.  there's been no ending.  No resolution.  No conclusion.

One need only read Mike Laidlaw's recent posts about this subject to confirm this FACT.

So a cliffhanger/open ending is NO ENDING.

It wasn't an open ending.  It was a cliff hanger.  To use  your book comparison, it'd be like  someone  quit reading
 Gone with the Wind  halfway through.

A cliffhanger ending IS an ending.

No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

however in DAII's case, they are done with that particular story....the franchise at the whole isn't done, but DAII's story and its themes have wrapped up.

[ItsTheTruth]

Every bit of the story in DA2 was a cliffhanger, and not the good kind. For example, the God Child in DA:O is a good cliffhanger because:
- it actually happens near the end
- it is a surprise but not out of the blue considering the character of Morrigan
- it promises an exciting sequel

But in fact DA:O is not that great, because the actual sequel was... DA2. It seems the DA series was not carefully planned, in DA:O you are given a lot of real choices but Bioware just couldn't deal with all the possible endings. So DA:A was inferior, the last DLC a joke, and DA2 is a really awful game* at the end of which nothing has been explained (Flemeth, Qunari...) and you just know that whatever you did won't affect the storyline of DA3.

* only talking about the cliffhanger aspect of DA2 here; but DA2 is awful in general.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 25 juin 2011 - 09:03 .

[Gunderic]

Persephone wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative? If thats not the story, then what is then?

Hawke's rise to power was the inside story of the frame, but the outside is about what I just said earlier.

If it was soley about his or her rise to power than there would be no Cassandra.

Lol, why the framed narrative indeed...

I think that's where our opinions differ. I think of the framed narrative as a superfluous gimmick, whereas you're trying to ascribe meaning to it.

No need to try, that IS exactly its purpose and meaning. 

It has the purpose of a superfluous gimmick...?

[txgoldrush]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

Every bit of the story in DA2 was a cliffhanger, and not the good kind. For example, the God Child in DA:O is a good cliffhanger because:
- it actually happens near the end
- it is a surprise but not out of the blue considering the character of Morrigan
- it promises an exciting sequel

But in fact DA:O is not that great, because the actual was... DA2. It seems the DA series was not carefully planned, in DA:O you are given a lot of real choices but Bioware just couldn't deal with all the possible endings. So DA:A was inferior, the last DLC a joke, and DA2 is a really awful game* at the end of which nothing has been explained (Flemeth, Qunari...) and you just know that whatever you did won't affect the storyline of DA3.

* only talking about the cliffhanger aspect of DA2 here; but DA2 is awful in general.

However the god child does not always happen.

DAII's cliffhanger actually makes the lore of the series actually more interesting and unique, instead of just kill the orcs. It will make one hell of a DAIII.

And killing enemies that only grunt is boring when so much more can be explored.

[ItsTheTruth]

txgoldrush wrote...

DAII's cliffhanger actually makes the lore of the series actually more interesting and unique, instead of just kill the orcs. It will make one hell of a DAIII.

You mean, the Mage/Templar conflict as explained during the DA:O Circle tower is interesting and unique? Not really unique (it reminded me of the psykers in Warhammer 40k for example), but it is pretty good indeed, and DA2 didn't add anything to this aspect of the lore. DA:O actually gave more background on the different mage factions.

Modifié par ItsTheTruth, 25 juin 2011 - 09:11 .

[txgoldrush]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DAII's cliffhanger actually makes the lore of the series actually more interesting and unique, instead of just kill the orcs. It will make one hell of a DAIII.

You mean, the Mage/Templar conflict as explained during the DA:O Circle tower is interesting and unique? Not really, but it is pretty good indeed, and DA2 didn't add anything to this aspect of the lore. DA:O actually gave more background on the different mage factions.

so The Circles rebeling against the Templars don't add anything? All DAO introduced were the factions however there was no real conflict between the two and the first enchanter and the head templar were quite freindly to eachother. Its DAO:A that introduced more of the conflict and DAII that put the conflict in full scope and fleshed it out.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

DA 2's ending was okay, objectively speaking. Yes it was a cliffhanger/sequel hook, but it was presented well enough without feeling like a rip. The epilogue slides/ending for Neverwinters Nights 2, now that felt like a rip.

"But that is a tale for another time..."

Really, Obsidian? Really?

But then they followed it up with Mask of the Betrayer, so all was forgiven.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 25 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[Yrkoon]

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

Based on THAT logic, NO story is ever completely done.

You mean ended.  Uh, no.     A story  ends when  its primary conflict is resolved in some way.  It doesn't have to tie up every single miniscule loose end.  The  thing about  DA2 is that it had  one primary conflict for each chapter - for a total of 3.  The first two were rather well resolved IMO    (Deep roads expedition; Qunari threat).  The game could have ended  at the conclusion of either one and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

The problem though, is  that this game had a chapter 3,   which tried to crecendo to some huge epic conflict that  completely overshadows the first two.... but then  the game ends before that conflict  is  even remotely resolved.  In fact, it technically ends before the conflict even peaks!

No, man.  Don't even try to justify DA2's ridiculous non-ending by pretending    "normalcy"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 juin 2011 - 09:22 .

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative?.

To present the story as something that took place in the past-  and more importantly, to let the player know that in the present, something nasty is  going on  -Ie.  there's been no ending.  No resolution.  No conclusion.

One need only read Mike Laidlaw's recent posts about this subject to confirm this FACT.

So a cliffhanger/open ending is NO ENDING.

It wasn't an open ending.  It was a cliff hanger.  To use  your book comparison, it'd be like  someone  quit reading
 Gone with the Wind  halfway through.

A cliffhanger ending IS an ending.

No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

Based on THAT logic, NO story is ever completely done.

Um... no.    A story  ends when  its primary conflict is resolved.  It doesn't have to tie up every single miniscule loose end.  The  thing about  DA2 is that it had  one primary conflict for each chapter - for a total of 3.  The first two were rather well resolved IMO    (Deep roads expedition; Qunari threat).  The game could have ended  at the conclusion of either one and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

The problem though, is  that this game had a chapter 3,   which tried to crecendo to some huge epic conflict that  completely overshadows the first two.... but then it ends before that conflict  is  even remotely resolved.  In fact, it technically ends before the conflict even peaks!

No, man.  Don't even try to justify DA2's ridiculous non-ending by pretending    some "normalcy" of some kind.

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

Except we don't know whether he lost or not, since he disappears.  lol  Also,  Hawke could be a wacky, dark-natured Blood mage or  radical Templar type too... and where's that put him on your so-called win-lose conflict scale?

This is no different than if DA:O had ended and gone to the credits  just as the warden goes up the staircase to the roof of Fort Drakon.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 juin 2011 - 09:35 .

[philippe willaume]

Hello
you really are flogging a dead horse.

The vast majority of us un-enlightened, slow witted, short-sighted partial DA:0 loves have agreed for month that DA:II was potentially a better designed game and that it just failed to deliver, IMNSHO, the core issue being the design not being pushed to its rational conclusion.


DA:0= lords of the rings
well you could make the same analogy with gilganesh ie DA:0=Giganesh. yes you are right there are thematic resemblance, but provided you are read enough, you will see much more resemblance with the theme of genres.

if were transpose your proposition it would be to say that Romeo and Juliet is Tristan and Isolde.
And whilst it is true, just as saying that all martial arts are doing the same thing, you have to take in consideration so many paradims that made it just as clear that they way to go about thing is just ass important as defining things that what the said things is actually about.
And from that angle no DA:0 is not the lords of the rings nor is Romeo and Juliet the same as Tristan and Isolde

As far as the combat or the companion
You will have no argument with the fact that the companion are better developed and the combat mechanism are easier to fathom in DA:2 that the same items in DA:0

Now you can turn it anyway you like, combat in DA:O require you to be smart and gave the possibility of at least two strategy per character type and the type of engagement were varied as in DA:II it is all about gear , maxing out and kitting.
That just makes DA:II combat tedious even though it is better designed and that I a very perverse way I liked the fact that in DAII the special attack from boss were easier to dodge which should make the fight even more fun.

The same goes for companion, better companion quest but you end up not really caring as much about them.

Phil

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

Except we don't know whether he lost or not, since he disappears.  lol

This is no different than if DA:O had ended and gone to the credits  just as the warden goes through the doorway to the roof of Fort Drakon.

no he or she lost...especially if he or she tried to mediate between the two. His or her disappearance doesn't matter when it comes to the main conflict as of now.

The city is in flames, the war starts, and cliffhangers are endings.

[txgoldrush]

philippe willaume wrote...

Hello
you really are flogging a dead horse.

The vast majority of us un-enlightened, slow witted, short-sighted partial DA:0 loves have agreed for month that DA:II was potentially a better designed game and that it just failed to deliver, IMNSHO, the core issue being the design not being pushed to its rational conclusion.


DA:0= lords of the rings
well you could make the same analogy with gilganesh ie DA:0=Giganesh. yes you are right there are thematic resemblance, but provided you are read enough, you will see much more resemblance with the theme of genres.

if were transpose your proposition it would be to say that Romeo and Juliet is Tristan and Isolde.
And whilst it is true, just as saying that all martial arts are doing the same thing, you have to take in consideration so many paradims that made it just as clear that they way to go about thing is just ass important as defining things that what the said things is actually about.
And from that angle no DA:0 is not the lords of the rings nor is Romeo and Juliet the same as Tristan and Isolde

As far as the combat or the companion
You will have no argument with the fact that the companion are better developed and the combat mechanism are easier to fathom in DA:2 that the same items in DA:0

Now you can turn it anyway you like, combat in DA:O require you to be smart and gave the possibility of at least two strategy per character type and the type of engagement were varied as in DA:II it is all about gear , maxing out and kitting.
That just makes DA:II combat tedious even though it is better designed and that I a very perverse way I liked the fact that in DAII the special attack from boss were easier to dodge which should make the fight even more fun.

The same goes for companion, better companion quest but you end up not really caring as much about them.

Phil

However DAO borrows heavily from LOTR and doesn't be subtle about it. Its more than just using genre conventions, its ripping it off. No story is completely original, but some are more original than others. There is no real twist to make it unique as well. Mass Effect is clearly influenced by major sci fi works and even shouts them out  and pays homage to them however,, the plot, the lore, and the threat are more unique. While the genre conventions are followed, it does have its uniqueness. DAO lacks this.

Major's Mask is a saves the world plot, however, what makes it unique was its three day timer, its atmosphere, and its themes. This in turn sets the game's story apart from the others. Now its the least generic and the most unique of the Zelda titles.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 25 juin 2011 - 09:47 .

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

Except we don't know whether he lost or not, since he disappears.  lol

This is no different than if DA:O had ended and gone to the credits  just as the warden goes through the doorway to the roof of Fort Drakon.

no he or she lost 

Lost what?    Lost against the so-called dark side of human nature?  My last Hawke was a blood mage  that just wanted to sow chaos and kill stuff  (since that's basically the ONLY THING the game rewards you for)  So tell me,  how did I lose?   And more importantly, how did I "resolve" the conflict.... since I disappeared  before its peak?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 juin 2011 - 09:47 .

[Monica83]

mh no DAO was a lot better

[philippe willaume]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Rise to Power? Story of Kirkwall? I thought those were the major narrative elements, not Cassandra realising that Hawke was not to blame for the conflict. That felt more like a sequel hook than anything.

Then why the frame narrative?.

To present the story as something that took place in the past-  and more importantly, to let the player know that in the present, something nasty is  going on  -Ie.  there's been no ending.  No resolution.  No conclusion.

One need only read Mike Laidlaw's recent posts about this subject to confirm this FACT.

So a cliffhanger/open ending is NO ENDING.

It wasn't an open ending.  It was a cliff hanger.  To use  your book comparison, it'd be like  someone  quit reading
 Gone with the Wind  halfway through.

A cliffhanger ending IS an ending.

No.  it isn't.   And the fact that Books and TV shows contain unresolved  cliff hangers,  does not make it so.

All three are story mediums.  And they use cliff hangers to specifically tell the reader/viewer/player that they're not done with the story... that the story  has not ended yet. 

Based on THAT logic, NO story is ever completely done.

Um... no.    A story  ends when  its primary conflict is resolved.  It doesn't have to tie up every single miniscule loose end.  The  thing about  DA2 is that it had  one primary conflict for each chapter - for a total of 3.  The first two were rather well resolved IMO    (Deep roads expedition; Qunari threat).  The game could have ended  at the conclusion of either one and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

The problem though, is  that this game had a chapter 3,   which tried to crecendo to some huge epic conflict that  completely overshadows the first two.... but then it ends before that conflict  is  even remotely resolved.  In fact, it technically ends before the conflict even peaks!

No, man.  Don't even try to justify DA2's ridiculous non-ending by pretending    some "normalcy" of some kind.

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

Hello
thanks to get it that right for me I always though it was is because of the speed PCI-E bus out of the north-bridge compared to latency of the cache memory of the GPU.
honestly, the greed, the madness, the extremism, kind of like in DA:O for the Urn, the nature of the beast, the circle, the.... wait now that i come to think of it pretty much every story arc in DA:0 or in DA:2 for that matter.
That is what makes and made Bioware game what they are

Is that rhetoric lack of insight or I am right to start to be surprised that you can function in daylight?

[LyndseyCousland]

In a word: no.

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The primary conflict in DAII is not Mage vs Templar....its Hawke vs. the dark side of human nature...the greed, the madness, and the extremism. However, its the primary conflict which the protagonist loses. While the mage vs templar battle will continue and if Hawke returns he may still battle the dark side of human nature, however, the conflict in DAII wraps up with the protagonist losing.

Except we don't know whether he lost or not, since he disappears.  lol

This is no different than if DA:O had ended and gone to the credits  just as the warden goes through the doorway to the roof of Fort Drakon.

no he or she lost 

Lost what?    Lost against the so-called dark side of human nature?  My last Hawke was a blood mage  that just wanted to sow chaos and kill stuff  (since that's basically the ONLY THING the game rewards you for)  So tell me,  how did I lose?   And more importantly, how did I "resolve" the conflict.... since I disappeared  before its peak?

you lost by giving in to the dark side.....a more extremist Hawke can pick a side and become extreme himself, That doesn't mean the conflict isn't there, that means he loses by giving in. in a man vs nature story, a hero can lose by nature overpowering the situation the portagonist is in (Moderate Hawke) or lose by succumbing to it (extremist Hawke).