585 réponses à ce sujet

[zeypher]

what worries me is when you realize this is the new type of gamers bioware is trying to go after. scary thought isnt it and doesnt bode well for their future projects.

[phoenixgoddess27]

zeypher wrote...

what worries me is when you realize this is the new type of gamers bioware is trying to go after. scary thought isnt it and doesnt bode well for their future projects.

Not all of them are like this. However, a few who posted in this thread are diehard, slit-your-throat DA2 fans. Speak badly about their precious and prepare to have insults slung at you.

I just hope the mods close this thread soon since it's just as bad as any other attack/troll thread, no matter the game. I've reported it two or three times already since it was created. I understand they sleep at night... but hell, someone should close this soon.

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 25 juin 2011 - 05:54 .

[xkg]

I dont understand this "I hope mods will lock this thread" concept. It is so easy to avoid reading it if you don't like it.

[txgoldrush]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

all i have to say is wow..... on this topic... so far all i see is DA:O bashing, imo you didn't like the game becase it wasn't "action" packed like it was in DA2 and you didn't like the fact that the protagonist's voice wasn't voiced.

Then your comparing things like how the chacters fight... yea I'll give you that one, DA:O combat is boring (at least not with melee finishers, which IMO FAR FAR out classes exploding badguys) But DA:O combat is more realistic than DA2 combat is (well mage combat looks more realistic but thats about it) DA2 combat is more animish in its fighting. don't get me wrong I like DA2 twohanded fighting better but thats about it for melee. Sword and shield fighting in DA2 is the most boring thing out there.

IMO i really hate when people compare games to other things like movies and such because imo there hasn't been 1 game that has matched its movie counterpart. And you can say that Author and Camelot is like LOTR because it has swords and shields and people fighting and killing eachother. So really, thats nice thats your opinion and from the looks of it your not going to back down from it, thats fine, just stop trying to convince me and others that it IS a 100% rippoff of LOTR.

If it is SOO much a ripoff why hasn't anyone tried sueing Bioware?? Oh wait they can't because in reality it isn't a full ripoff. LOTR was all about the ring, This game was about a "speical blooded guy" having to deal with a civil war, idiot power hungery Drawves, and a minor Templar vs Mage issue, with a Elf vs Werewolf problem about revenge and letting go of the past, with trying to get allies by looking for the holy grail... I mean sacred ashs, to heal a sick man.

Now as for the Chacters.

IMO Zev didn't really give a crap about what the Warden did because well he killed people for a living so either choice doesn't matter the fact that you spard him int he first place did. So I don't think he is about to do anything really against the Warden without having a good plan. And he doesn't really care about Ferladen because its not his home country.

Shale couldn't care less what happens in the world because he/she, thinks its imortal so it doesn't matter.

Sten doesn't care about most of the thing because he just wanted infomation about the blight and nothing else. The fact that you bring him along only helps him complete his task.

Also all the chacters you said yea they may be copies from other games, but so what? Its there games and let them copy them. I haven't played the Baulder gate series so your comparisons are lost on me, But again so what?

Your saying that all the DA2 chacters are orginal? They aren't go to tvtropes and you will quickly see those kinds of chacters are not new to stories.

Yes there are improvents, but there are still flaws and issues that we did not like in DA2, like the fact that your choices didn't really have any impact on the game at all. All of it lead down to was the part that the story ended on... you still end up missing and the world is still at war. The only "real" diffeance is what chacters where avalable later. Having your Brother/sister be there or not didn't matter for at least 3/4 the game, and ended up only being partly useful to boot.

DA:O was still a good game. You don't like the combat stlye fine, you don't like it just stop trying to convice people you are "right" about it. Because you can never be right about what people should like or dislike.

DAO is a good game, but good games CAN BE OVERRATED,. Overrated doesn't always means it sucks.

I never said that DAII characters were original, I just said they weren't CLONES like the DAO characters were, Merill being the exception (to Tali). It shows lack of creativity and the lack of risk taking when you have very similiar characters. Bioware kept using the same plot threads and the same character types, one chart later, and they got burned.

http://rampantgames....2/bwcliches.png

Is it a full ripoff of LOTR? No...but it rips HEAVILY from it and you can't not see that. Borrowing from other works is okay, borrowing from works so heavily that it feels cliched and far more unoriginal is not. Is it the exact same story, no, but there is so many common elements that you cannot brush off this criticism.

[txgoldrush]

phoenixgoddess27 wrote...

zeypher wrote...

what worries me is when you realize this is the new type of gamers bioware is trying to go after. scary thought isnt it and doesnt bode well for their future projects.

Not all of them are like this. However, a few who posted in this thread are diehard, slit-your-throat DA2 fans. Speak badly about their precious and prepare to have insults slung at you.

I just hope the mods close this thread soon since it's just as bad as any other attack/troll thread, no matter the game. I've reported it two or three times already since it was created. I understand they sleep at night... but hell, someone should close this soon.

Don't be a hypocrite....if it wasn't for haters trashing the game over and over, there wouldn't be backlash from the DAII fans.

[txgoldrush]

alex90c wrote...

I can't believe the OP honestly thinks Flemeth mumbling some random crap at the top of Sundermount makes her more in-depth than the DA:O companions.

and how is giving Hawke (and Merill) some MAJOR advice random?

Did I say that Flemeth is more in depth than DAO companions?

No I didn't.

[FieryDove]

/Thread

[txgoldrush]

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

[txgoldrush]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I'm sure DAO got 91/100 on Metacritic for no reason. I'm sure all of these professional critics are wrong, and you are right.

No. You're free to believe that DAO has a bad plot - personally I think it was the best part of the game. But no matter your opinion on that, DA2 doesn't even have a plot, which is surely even worse.

You comically comment on one-dimensional characters, but I challenge you to give ANY non-Bioware game created in the last 10 years with more in-depth characters than DAO. In DA2, how much can you say about Anders or Isabella, or any of them? Anders = pro-mage. Fenris = anti-mage. And that's it. Every time they open their mouth, that's all they talk about. I could tell you about Morrigan or Leliana's past for longer than I could talk about the entire DA2 game. The DAO characters had personality.

I just don't see where you're coming from. In my opinion, the dialogue was far better in DAO, as was the combat too. I accept your opinion, but I don't accept the way you state it as fact. The fact is - more people disagree with you than agree with you. DA2 is by far Bioware's worst ever RPG critically.

First off...yes, Anders is extremist pro-mage, but what does he think about mages using blood magic and consorting with demons? must not be pro- everything mage then. And really, its not about the past that makes DAII characters memorable, its what they do iN THE STORY. In DAO, none of the characters really do anything except for Morrigan and Alistair. They are divorced from the plot. In DAII, Isabela's depth is revealed through her struggle to do the right thing, not from her being a glorified codex entry on her past. In fact, DAO involves the characters LESS in the plot than ANY OTHER BIOWARE GAME. That is a fact. Personality is overrated...when a character shows extreme distinct personality, its not always a good thing. Sometimes more subtle personalities are better. Really, many DAO character's personalities are too extreme, Zervan and oghren for instance. Its ok to have a Black Whirlwind every once in awhile, but too many extreme personalities are a determent.

Oh, and many RPGs and games have had more in depth characters than DAO the last 10 years. The two Witcher games, Fallout New Vegas, NWN2,  And just because they may be deep, doesn't mean they aren't one dimensional.

[Lord_Valandil]

DA: O isn't perfect. Far from perfect.
But it's still better than DA2. The framed narrative...just stinks. What was the point?
The plot itself...while there are some good ideas, it's an unfocused mess full of holes and lack of direction. Which is the motivation of the characters anyway?
Fleshed out characters? Multidimensional characters? Oh, please. Most of them are one trick ponies.
The combat has a lot of problems as well, it just isn't fun. And I don't even want to start with the over-simplification of the dialogue system and the lack of polish and care. Recycled environments, boring npc, all in all...a terrible game.

Not the "MOST TERRIBLE GAME EVEEERRR"...but certainly a very disappointing one.

In a few words: I don't agree with you. If you prefer DA2, that's OK, it's not like I'm going to send an assault team to your house just because of that.

[mordarwarlock]

successful troll is successful

seriously guys, It was hinted the minute the OP compared Alistair to aragorn....

[billy the squid]

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

Yes, if one ignores the fact that Aragorn is the descendent of the kings of Arnor not of Gondor before the split of the numenorean realm , and the legitimate heir, not actually human, but a dunidain, his quest was to protect the ring bearer and will always become king of Gondor ad unite the lands of men. 

Whereas Alistar is the bastard son of Maric and a star struck maid, he was always in Ferelden as far as we know and has never been the legitimate or rightful king, he is a bit of a lovable goof and isn't going to unite the country without some serious political clout from Arl Eamon, Anora, The Human Noble or his chancellor, his future is entirely at the player's discretion varying from wandering drunk, staying as a warden, marring Anora, marrying the Human noble, ruling alone, or even ending up dead.

But, keep grasping at straws.

DAO is guilty of being similar to most high fantasy games in the context of broad strokes, looking at the detail it is different, but familiar. DA2, the nobody rises to power, wow so original.

[Nerevar-as]

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

And that´s about it. I don´t think they have much more in common, and nothing personality wise (talking about book Strider, not movie).

[txgoldrush]

bobthecrusher wrote...

You have several valid points, but things like this are really just a matter of opinion. I personally disagree, so I'm going to respond to each assertion made.

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

a) The story was, I'll admit, very cliched, but at least it was a story. Dragon age 2 saw you stumbling about in random directions for 10 years, with things happening around you. The Warden is not comprable to Frodo, in that he actually does something, actually chooses, sets off to make things better on his own. Frodo was just kinda tossed into the middle of things with no skills or knowlegde before hand. One of my personal favorite quests in the game was paragon of her time. I thought that it reached a good emotional level and managed to have a new, entertaining monster halfway through and at the end, not to mention that by the end you have to make an actual decision that makes a difference (which never happened in DII)

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.

You want to talk about one dimensional? 'I'm a female pirate who really just needs someone to love.' 'I'm a mage, and everyone hates me for it' 'I'm a guard.......and I happen to have a friend that's really talented.' 'I'm an elf! I'm also a mage, but I don't really understand the dangers of blood magic, hope that doesn't come back to bite me!' The only one dimensional characters in Origins were Oghren (and even he had some cool backstory and motives) and maybe Allistar. Even with the Archetyped Allistar, I still cared for the characters in Origins, and thought of them more as actual characters as apposed to scripted lines on a page. DAII was never unpredictable, never really entertaining. The trailer told you how one of the major plot lines was resolved.

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.

C) Rogues and mages in DAII can beat anything, especially rogues. i played all of DAII with a party of Isabela, Varric, my hawke (a rogue) and Anders to heal. DAII was so easy it wasn't even funny. Gameplay and combat in DA:O was slow (I'll admit) and needed to be sped up, but all three classes stood on even footing. You needed at least one of each class to really be successful, and spells actually had some weight behind them, as opposed to little puffs of smoke, and flags with the word bang on them like they were in DAII. DAII's combat was also very boring, though at first it was exciting and new it lacked it any change from place to place, it was just the same battle over and over. Warriors actually had the ability to do DPS in Origins, while in DAII they're only purpose is to tank. The dialogue system is not better, you only ge three choices, Good nuetral and evil, no matter how you describe them, that's what it is. there's no choices. no matter which dialogue you chose it always ends the same way. Not to mention that Hawke is the biggest Mary Sue in the video game world, with everyone around him loving him for no apparent reason, and everything he does succeeding. 

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.

d) You used Geralt as an example of bad character design earlier. Just saying. The side quests in origins made sense, and had impact, while the 'side quests' in number two were errands that you HAD to do to progress in the game.

a) No DAII is a story as well, but it is told far differently and far more unorthdox. You see, stories play by different rules. The first was a traditional epic tale, the second was a frame story on the life of Hawke and the fall of Kirkwall. Far different rules on how the tale is told. Paragon of Her Kind was a letdown...the decision between Bhelen and Harrowmont isn't a good one because if you are not a dwarf, you know nothing about them. Had it been set up in Orizimmar in that you have to choose between a ruthless progressive or the more noble conservative, thewn the decision would have been more complelling. Missed oppurtunity there, especially for first playthroughs. The Cardin/Branka choice only affects the fodder you bring in the final battle and the ending card, nothing more. Thats the only difference you make, the plot doesn't change. In both DA games, the plot doesn't change from your decisions...and thats why the DA series is staring at the Witcher series behind.

Actually, Isabela's angle is mostly on how she struggles to do the right thing. But then, the same character that supports shady actions is also the best one to console Hawke. Even Isabela and Aveline's relationship is not one dimensional. In DAO, none of the relationships change, they either like eachother (Leliana and Wynne) or they don't (Alistair and Morrigan). Its none of the dynamics you see in DAII.

c) No if anything that is overpowered, its 2H Fighters. But 1.3 rebalanced the game. At least in DAII, especially 1.3, I can't exploit the game nearly as much as I can in DAO. DAO becomes laughable once you exploit the game. Its far from the tactical genius everyone makes it out to be. And both games share the weakness of simple lack of enemy types. Untrue that you only get three choices in the dialogue tree and in fact, there can be more dialogue options in DAII than in DAO. Also many times I have seen 4 choices, such as telling the Arishok your views on Kirkwall. The only major weakness of DAII's dialogue is that inconsitancy that the sarcastic option offers. And when is it good, nuetral, evil...in fact, sometimes the aggressive option can be the more morally justified one. There is very little black and white in DAII, unlike in DAO where you can run the Leliana/Morrigan test. If Leliana approves its good, if Morrigan approves, its evil. And how does people love Hawke for no apparnt reason? He is a famous merc or smuggler in Act I, a noble in Act II, and Champion in Act III. He is already known when Act I starts. And in fact, some people question his status as Champion or even brush it off.

d) never gave Geralt as an example of bad character design, when did I do that?

[txgoldrush]

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

Yes, if one ignores the fact that Aragorn is the descendent of the kings of Arnor not of Gondor before the split of the numenorean realm , and the legitimate heir, not actually human, but a dunidain, his quest was to protect the ring bearer and will always become king of Gondor ad unite the lands of men. 

Whereas Alistar is the bastard son of Maric and a star struck maid, he was always in Ferelden as far as we know and has never been the legitimate or rightful king, he is a bit of a lovable goof and isn't going to unite the country without some serious political clout from Arl Eamon, Anora, The Human Noble or his chancellor, his future is entirely at the player's discretion varying from wandering drunk, staying as a warden, marring Anora, marrying the Human noble, ruling alone, or even ending up dead.

But, keep grasping at straws.

DAO is guilty of being similar to most high fantasy games in the context of broad strokes, looking at the detail it is different, but familiar. DA2, the nobody rises to power, wow so original.

No I a m not grasping at straws....the fact remains that Alistair can play a very similiar role that Aragon does, that just cannot be denied. Is there differences, yes, but the role can be the same.

[txgoldrush]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

DA: O isn't perfect. Far from perfect.
But it's still better than DA2. The framed narrative...just stinks. What was the point?
The plot itself...while there are some good ideas, it's an unfocused mess full of holes and lack of direction. Which is the motivation of the characters anyway?
Fleshed out characters? Multidimensional characters? Oh, please. Most of them are one trick ponies.
The combat has a lot of problems as well, it just isn't fun. And I don't even want to start with the over-simplification of the dialogue system and the lack of polish and care. Recycled environments, boring npc, all in all...a terrible game.

Not the "MOST TERRIBLE GAME EVEEERRR"...but certainly a very disappointing one.

In a few words: I don't agree with you. If you prefer DA2, that's OK, it's not like I'm going to send an assault team to your house just because of that.

No the problem is that people just do not play by DAII's narrative rules. They are so used to traditional style told narratives that when something is different, they accuse it of not having any focus.

WELL IT DOES

The frame narrative gives most of the focus and so does its themes. It has direction, but it just doesn't reveal the destination until the end (in Hawke's story), not every story does. As I have said earlier, the frame narrative is how CASSANDRA CHANGES HER VIEWS ON HAWKE!!!!!!!! If you ignore the frame story, yeah, then the narrative loses focus.

Sorry, but most DAII characters aren't one trick ponies like the cast in DAO are. Is Isabela a one trick pony? Hell no. Look at how she consoles Hawke if the player is romancing her. Look how she looks after Merril. Many times I find the companions doing unexpecting things or hold unexpected views, you don't see this in DAO. Does Aveline believe that every criminal should have a trail? No And DAII and DAO:A proves how one dimesnional Zervan and Oghren really are.

And how is the dialogue oversimplified, its not. The personality of the character that is set can affect what decisions you can make in certain situations, and all RPGs could use the "call on companion" dialogue option.

The prblem with DAII bashers is that they critcize the game for things it doesn't do wrong, or base their opinions on things that are not true.

[DragonRageGT]

FieryDove wrote...

/Thread

One for the thread, one for the OP! (who loves to write write write but actually says nothing! Well, nothing related to reality at least)

Modifié par RageGT, 25 juin 2011 - 07:34 .

[danteliveson]

Yup, the love for Origins is so ridiculous.

[txgoldrush]

RageGT wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

/Thread

One for the thread, one for the OP! (who loves to write write write but actually says nothing! Well, nothing related to reality at least)

so its reality that DAO isn't generic? Please. Its just YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT I AM SAYING, so you write me off...lol

Oh, I thought DAO is the holy grail, you can't bash that. And you can't praise DAII, its the spawn of the devil, so praising it is sacrilidge or idiotc.

Thats the culture the board is in and I am sick of it.

DAII does plenty thing wrong, I am not debating that. But I am saying DAII is far from terrible but DAO aint no classic.

[billy the squid]

txgoldrush wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

Yes, if one ignores the fact that Aragorn is the descendent of the kings of Arnor not of Gondor before the split of the numenorean realm , and the legitimate heir, not actually human, but a dunidain, his quest was to protect the ring bearer and will always become king of Gondor ad unite the lands of men. 

Whereas Alistar is the bastard son of Maric and a star struck maid, he was always in Ferelden as far as we know and has never been the legitimate or rightful king, he is a bit of a lovable goof and isn't going to unite the country without some serious political clout from Arl Eamon, Anora, The Human Noble or his chancellor, his future is entirely at the player's discretion varying from wandering drunk, staying as a warden, marring Anora, marrying the Human noble, ruling alone, or even ending up dead.

But, keep grasping at straws.

DAO is guilty of being similar to most high fantasy games in the context of broad strokes, looking at the detail it is different, but familiar. DA2, the nobody rises to power, wow so original.

No I a m not grasping at straws....the fact remains that Alistair can play a very similiar role that Aragon does, that just cannot be denied. Is there differences, yes, but the role can be the same.

So, because there is an outcome where Alistar can become king, despite all the other endings, he plays the same role as Aragorn? Even though as I have given resons and stated explicitly his character and the actions are not similar in the slightest.

Please illuminate for me how you came to the conclusion they are similar, apart from Alistair who may become king dependent on the player's choices.

[csfteeeer]

txgoldrush wrote...

RageGT wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

/Thread

One for the thread, one for the OP! (who loves to write write write but actually says nothing! Well, nothing related to reality at least)

so its reality that DAO isn't generic? Please. Its just YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT I AM SAYING, so you write me off...lol

Oh, I thought DAO is the holy grail, you can't bash that. And you can't praise DAII, its the spawn of the devil, so praising it is sacrilidge or idiotc.

Thats the culture the board is in and I am sick of it.

DAII does plenty thing wrong, I am not debating that. But I am saying DAII is far from terrible but DAO aint no classic.

nobody said DAO is a classic, it's just better.

and even then, who are you to say if it is or not?
nobody.

[csfteeeer]

double post

[Druss99]

While I don't agree with all the OP's points I do agree with the overall sentiment. DA:O wasn't that great, DA2 isn't that bad. I enjoyed both games but I wouldn't call either of them a classic or hold them up as the pinnacle of RPG's, I've played better. The bashing from both sides is getting tiresome.

[Uzzy]

Some writers write the same sort of thing excellently, and are among the best at their craft in that genre. Bioware have proven time and time again that they are masters at writing the fantasy epic, the latest of which was Dragon Age: Origins, an amazingly written fantasy epic. To compare it to LoTR, the greatest fantasy epic of all time, is quite the compliment, OP. Sometimes, a formula is used often cause it works and is actually quite good.

In DA2, Bioware tried writing a more personal story, something they've never tried before. It was ambitious, but ultimately a disaster of highly amusing proportions. It's a disjointed mess that is unclear on it's themes. Many personal stories in gaming, specifically RPG's, have turned out brilliantly. I'd highlight Obsidian as masters of that, as shown in KoTOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer. Bioware didn't even get close with DA2, which was tragic really.

[txgoldrush]

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

Yes, if one ignores the fact that Aragorn is the descendent of the kings of Arnor not of Gondor before the split of the numenorean realm , and the legitimate heir, not actually human, but a dunidain, his quest was to protect the ring bearer and will always become king of Gondor ad unite the lands of men. 

Whereas Alistar is the bastard son of Maric and a star struck maid, he was always in Ferelden as far as we know and has never been the legitimate or rightful king, he is a bit of a lovable goof and isn't going to unite the country without some serious political clout from Arl Eamon, Anora, The Human Noble or his chancellor, his future is entirely at the player's discretion varying from wandering drunk, staying as a warden, marring Anora, marrying the Human noble, ruling alone, or even ending up dead.

But, keep grasping at straws.

DAO is guilty of being similar to most high fantasy games in the context of broad strokes, looking at the detail it is different, but familiar. DA2, the nobody rises to power, wow so original.

No I a m not grasping at straws....the fact remains that Alistair can play a very similiar role that Aragon does, that just cannot be denied. Is there differences, yes, but the role can be the same.

So, because there is an outcome where Alistar can become king, despite all the other endings, he plays the same role as Aragorn? Even though as I have given resons and stated explicitly his character and the actions are not similar in the slightest.

Please illuminate for me how you came to the conclusion they are similar, apart from Alistair who may become king dependent on the player's choices.

If Alister becomes king..he plays the same role. The rightful heir of the throne comes and helps save the kingdom from the orcish threat. Is his personalty different, yes, is some of his actions, yes, but the role is very similiar if he ceomes king.