33 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I really dislike it when people resort to DAO bashing to try and make DA2 look better. I remember posts by you when the game first came out, just trying to defend the game, while accepting it's flaws. Now you, like many others, have resorted to bashing the previous game to prove your point. It's the same with ME and ME2, people just can't seem to criticise or praise either without bashing the other.

I really dislike it when people use DAO to bash DA2 and then get all afronted when someone does the reverse. Persephone did not open that particular door in this thread. Yet people jump on her for responding to it.

Back on topic, as much as I liked DA2, the best part about the ending was sailing off with Isabela. I found the fight with Meredith to be entertaining. But having to kill nearly everyone on my own side getting to sucked all the fun out of making a choices getting to that fight.

If I were to compare DAO to DA2, I didn't think either one's ending was all that great. But comparing them doesn't really work, because DAO was an actual ending that wrapped up things. DA2 was more like the end of the prologue to a much bigger story.

DA2's ending felt more like the Arrival DLC (ME2) to me. Where an end result is completely forced upon the user to set up the next tale. Which I really hate when done in a heavy handed fashion.

[Morroian]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It depends. My Canon ending (Pro Templar with Romanced Anders on rivalry fighting Vengeance) hit an emotional punch. Siding with the Mages....not so much. That ending needs A LOT of work. Or imagination.

As for DAO's endings.... The Redeemer Ending still moves me. The others are too cliché for me to care, never mind the bugged as hell slideshow with the supposed "consequences". [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]

I really dislike it when people resort to DAO bashing to try and make DA2 look better. I remember posts by you when the game first came out, just trying to defend the game, while accepting it's flaws. Now you, like many others, have resorted to bashing the previous game to prove your point. It's the same with ME and ME2, people just can't seem to criticise or praise either without bashing the other.

Did you even read Perse's post? She said both games had 1 good ending and the others needed work.... for both games.

[por favor]

Sajuro wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Compared to origins, DA2's ending was about as epic as me eating my cereal.

That slide show must have really blown you away.

The slideshow discusses the events that happened long after the ending. It wasn't the actual ending.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but there was a huge battle in Denerim, a bigass Archdemon, you/your team sacrificing themself or a morbidly dark ritual taking place, a funeral to mourn you if you fell in battle, a new leader ruled, etc, etc etc.

10x more epic than DA:II, imo.

[Gibb_Shepard]

highcastle wrote...



Actually, you have it backwards. Anders did what he did because the Right was already sent for. Talk to Ser Kerras in the Gallows Courtyard. Couple it with Leliana's news about a Divine March. Anders feels the Circle is screwed, so he does something desperate. Not doing anything would be out of character for him.

The thing with DA2 is that so many events are beyond Hawke's control. Intentionally. This isn't a wake-up-save-the-world game. It's a game about getting swept up in events bigger than yourself, trying to make a difference, and ultimately failing in many respects. It shows how ineffective a single person can be when you're dealing with societal issues. There's no easy solution. Sometimes things just go to hell. And that's not an interpretation of life that I see too often in games. In books and film? Yes. But not games. So that, to me, is refreshing and emotional.

Plus, my very first playthrough (and pretty much every one after), I romanced Anders. That adds so much weight to his ultimate actions. The only other game I've played recently that hit just as hard was Red Dead Redemption.

It's a game. An RPG at that.. I don't want things to be "out of my control". All that does is impact replayability.

[highcastle]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It's a game. An RPG at that.. I don't want things to be "out of my control". All that does is impact replayability.

Things are going to be out of your control in any cRPG. It's a limitation of the medium. In Origins, as a human noble, I couldn't go after my brother in the wilds. I couldn't swear vengeance on Howe and make finding him my number one priority. I couldn't confront Loghain directly. These things were all "out of my control" and they frustrated me because the rest of the game screamed at me to make choices. But the ones I wanted to make weren't open to me.

DA2, on the other hand, stresses your choices after the crap hits the fan. What do you do when everything goes to hell? Rather than "save the world" it's in large part about "pick up the pieces after the world's been worked over." And I personally find that refreshing.

[Ryzaki]

por favor wrote...
The slideshow discusses the events that happened long after the ending. It wasn't the actual ending.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but there was a huge battle in Denerim, a bigass Archdemon, you/your team sacrificing themself or a morbidly dark ritual taking place, a funeral to mourn you if you fell in battle, a new leader ruled, etc, etc etc.

10x more epic than DA:II, imo.

 

Agreed. 

DAO felt like I was making a difference. DA2 felt lie I was being drowned and trying to get to safety. Interesting for some people but not me. 

[Big I]

highcastle wrote...
The thing with DA2 is that so many events are beyond Hawke's control. Intentionally. This isn't a wake-up-save-the-world game. It's a game about getting swept up in events bigger than yourself, trying to make a difference, and ultimately failing in many respects. It shows how ineffective a single person can be when you're dealing with societal issues. There's no easy solution. Sometimes things just go to hell. And that's not an interpretation of life that I see too often in games. In books and film? Yes. But not games. So that, to me, is refreshing and emotional.

This is not a game about historical inevitability, or social pressures forcing society to spiral out of control. This is a game about how the bad choices of a handful of people led to catastrophe. The only reason any of Act 3 happens is because of Bartrand, Meredith and Anders. Bartand stole an artifact that made him crazy, Meredith bought the idol and started a crackdown on mages, and Anders committed wanton murder. Had theses things not happened in that particular sequence then the status quo of an uneasy truce between the Circle and the templars would have continued.


As for Hawke, I find the fact that there are essentially two portrayals of Hawke annoying beyond belief. The first Hawke is the person who can't save their family, can't get out of Lowtown except through the expedition (WTH?), and can't do anything to stop the crisis before it happens (such as killing Meredith). The other Hawke is the person who can destroy a powerful Tevinter Magister, help apostates escape from the Circle, earn the respect of foreign leaders, and slay high dragons. The first person is someone without a plan or much in the way of intelligence swept up by events beyond their control, while the second person is a hero of legend whose accomplishments are only limited by their imagination. The problem is they're supposed to be the same person.

[Dreadwing 67]

The implications of the ending are far more staggering than the end of DAO (I dearly love both games). Regardless of what you decide, the land of Thedas is set ablaze and the Champion may be the only hope. DAO, Archdemon dead, que the celebrations. We have seen the DAO ending a hundred times, DA2 was something new and has larger implications.

Only complaint I have is Orsino.
Orinso "What are we to do."
Hawke "****, I am the champ. I will slaughter them all. Honestly, these templars are cake walk."
O "Meredith expects blood magic. Then I will give it to her."
H "I.....F***ing......hate Kirkwall."

[Rifneno]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

This is not a game about historical inevitability, or social pressures forcing society to spiral out of control. This is a game about how the bad choices of a handful of people led to catastrophe. The only reason any of Act 3 happens is because of Bartrand, Meredith and Anders. Bartand stole an artifact that made him crazy, Meredith bought the idol and started a crackdown on mages, and Anders committed wanton murder. Had theses things not happened in that particular sequence then the status quo of an uneasy truce between the Circle and the templars would have continued.

I disagree actually. Bartrand stole the idol but I doubt it made any difference. That it was discovered at all means it was only a matter of time before it could stain the world with its dark power once again.   The entire expedition was the real problem.  As for Meredith, she was already cracking down before the idol was even unleashed, let alone sold to her. In Act of Mercy, Thrask talks about Meredith's heavy-handed methods and how they might be creating more dissent than obedience. Since it's an Act I quest, it's pre-expedition. So the idol only increased her madness rather than drove her to it. How much? We'll never know. But I do think it's telling that the templars didn't notice a big change. I think Cullen is the only one who mentions noticing anything at all, and he still followed her for another 3 years. Anders? Well, I doubt he made much of a difference at all really. He didn't know it, but Meredith was already over the edge. She was desperately trying to get the RoA and she was accusing anyone who looked at her funny of being a blood mage thrall. If she had another week, I wouldn't be surprised if she killed Elthina herself, thinking she was a blood mage thrall, and called for the RoA.