725 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

So, for the people that thought DA2's plot was good, I ask you... how..?

Short version =

Political struggle > Monster killing

That's not covering the issues with execution in the former.

Political struggle…really?

DA2’s story was rags to riches, Giant’s at the door, and templar vs. mages. Basically, three short stories that had its plot cohesion butchered by the frame narrative. And what's even sadder is how overused these stories are in our media, yet people imagine that it has never been done and that is somehow different from Origins.

Personally, I'd rather have an epic story than three short stories that pretend to be innovative. Yup, threes that word again, Bioware’s new buzzword after they tossed Awesome to the curb.

When has DA series had an epic story?

[hoorayforicecream]

alex90c wrote...

I'm not saying "I agree, if you liked DA2 it means you as a result liked bad things X, Y and Z", just that of the 11 issues raised, I felt to just call it out as a strawman post was wrong since some of the points while not being what "liking DA2 meant you liked" were still valid concerns on their own.

The presentation was what John was talking about. Monica83 didn't say "These are the things I felt was wrong with DA2". Monica83 said "Anyone who likes DA2 must like these things", and that's the textbook definition of a strawman argument. 

[upsettingshorts]

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Political struggle…really?

Yes, really.

Serpieri Nei wrote...

Giant’s at the door, and templar vs. mages.

There you go.

No matter how you'd prefer I describe DA2's story (or three stories) it was inherently more interesting to me than being kidnapped into a the service (Grey Wardens) of killing a big bad monster (the Archdemon) so I can restore the status quo of a place I don't care about (Ferelden).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 08:42 .

[Fortlowe]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

alex90c wrote...

I'm not saying "I agree, if you liked DA2 it means you as a result liked bad things X, Y and Z", just that of the 11 issues raised, I felt to just call it out as a strawman post was wrong since some of the points while not being what "liking DA2 meant you liked" were still valid concerns on their own.

I believe you may have missed his point.

Saying that those who liked DA2 must have liked anything on that list in the first place is in of itself a strawman.

RinjiRenee wrote...

I rather liked that Hawke wasn't able to change anything that happened.  Makes him/her seem more of a character than just a catalyst.

Yup, I agree. I wish the game reacted more to the choices he/she did get to make - even on sidequests, but the fact the mainplot happens more or less regardless isn't an issue for me.  It's the same as the Archdemon always being defeated in my mind.

Agreed. Especially on the sidequests. I think there were some missed oppurtunities. The quest concerning Momma Hawke in particular. I think it should have more complex and there should have been more flexibilaty in how that one turned out. I thought adding an orphan elven child that Mamma Hawke took in into the mix would have made it much more poingant quest.

[Maugrim]

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

The story plot of DA2 had much potential, if Hawke had the possibility to change active the fate of the city, of the people with his actions. But he was only a protagonist, a spectator of that what happened.

I think Hawke's inability to affect the events of the game in a significant capacity was a success of the execution of the narrative, and fit in well with the underpinning themes of the game.

In fact, if Hawke could have take an active role in the events that happened, if he could have made choices that changed the story itself, the story plot of DA2 would have been more interesting than the story of DAO.

That's an opinion not a fact.  At this point I expect you will take this as me saying DA2 was better when I have done no such thing.  That my friend is a fact.

[Realmzmaster]

alex90c wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Weell someone likes:

Mediocre plot
Ennemy from nowhere
Reused Areas
Lack of ennemy creature variety
Lack of details on areas
Mangatard animations
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Exploding Ennemy
Herp Deeerp dialogues....

In the end is only a matter of tastes.... I don't like those things at all

I think, perhaps, you need to respect that others have different opinions than yourself and stop trying to create strawmen of position that they are not, in fact, taking. It does you a disservice and it certainly doesn't contribute to any sort of discussion.

Points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 are not strawmen.

Everything else is more divided but people tend to be mostly unanimous in disliking Kirkwall's paratroopers, repeated dungeons, same enemies all the time, limited details and gore explosions (though they were fixed in 1.03).

What is presented is a strawman agrument. She attributes all the above to someone who likes DA2. You do not get to pick your points in a strawman agrument. Some of the points may be valid, but the agrument itself is taken in its entirety. Now if you choose to breakdown the agrument into its individual points that is different. The individual points become debatable.
The other point everything she mentions is opinion.
I for one have no problem dealing with the enemy appearing from nowhere. It happened in DAO. It was non sensical. Yes.
I like Isabella and Merrill she did not. That is opinion not fact. I have no problems with the recycled environments (I have yet to see an CRPG that did not have them). Bioware could have hid them better like they did in the area underneath the Harimann Estate. That is recycled with a new skin that many gamers on the forum did not notice because it was concealed better.

Exploding enemies was corrected in patch 1.03 so obliviously many who like DA2 agreed with that one.

A strawman agrument falls apart when one area of it cannot be applied to all that the poster intends.

[ipgd]

Dormiglione wrote...

In fact, if Hawke could have take an active role in the events that happened, if he could have made choices that changed the story itself, the story plot of DA2 would have been more interesting than the story of DAO.

I disagree. Because I'm an ever vigilant supporter of recycling:

I think it actually draws a lot of its impact from its role as a sequel to DAO: specifically, the awareness of sequel-pattern expectations. A lot of the dramatic tension is derived from setting you up to expect significant player agency (through the player's familiarity with DAO, and a series of "illusionary" choice options early in the game such as Meeran/Athenril), and then denying it to you (e.g. as with Leandra, the Chantry, etc.) in a way that links the protagonist's in-narrative sense of helplessness to the player's own metagame "frustrations", if you will. Unlike DAO, which consistently offers the player choices that heavily impact the narrative, or at least enforce an illusion thereof, DA2 forgoes the illusion entirely as the game progresses and rubs it directly in your face. By the end, the player is made to empathize with Hawke's powerlessness in a way a purely linear series would not have been able to accomplish.

I think they actually did a fantastic job with the harsh limitations of the deadline and budget constraints. They could have tried to make a straight off Origins clone without the resources to really work -- instead, they constructed a narrative that works with the constraints and almost operates because of them. I definitely hope they're given more time to work in the future, but as a bit of an experimental detour, I think DA2 is wonderful.

[...]

Though all games are interactive, few games allow the player agency within the narrative. "Gameplay" and "story" are usually sharply divided; the player interacts with the game through mechanical sequences that may resemble combat, platforming, puzzle solving, etc. depending on the game in question, but these sequences rarely affect the story. The core narrative is typically told "on rails", allowing the player to get off and "play" at predetermined spots clearly delineated by the game. The player may act out the acquisition of a key plot item or the demise of a villain, ostensibly becoming a key participant in the important events that shape the story, but he ultimately remains at the whim of the narrative; he, in effect, is only able to do what the game tells him to do. Some games are extremely linear in this respect, while others allow a more meandering approach of variable chronology, but in practice, most games have a singular narrative.

Roleplaying games, Bioware games in particular, are quite different in that respect -- by making dialogue interaction part of the gameplay itself, the game allows the player to take an active role in the direction of the narrative. Instead of simply acting out certain sequences in the narrative, the game presents the player with several branching paths that each bring the story to a different place; though these paths are also limited in number, technically little different from games with singular narratives, the presence of choice gives the player the impression that he, the player (separate from, though often in alignment with, the fictional protagonist(s)), is a critical agent within the narrative itself. In reality, he is still only able to accomplish whatever the developers have laid out for him within the confines of the game, but this feeling of agency is incredibly critical to the genre. It is an additional layer of emotional engagement that is not available to most other mediums.

Contrary to the normal path of video games, Dragon Age makes agency the standard. Rather than giving us rare moments of player agency in order to make the player feel personally responsible for the event, we expect to have agency -- and when it isn't there, we notice. Because something had deviated from the standard, it makes us feel something that purely linear narratives couldn't; at no point do we ever expect to, say, decide whether Mario rescues the princess or joins up with Bowser at the end, and we don't feel frustrated or stripped of anything when we can't impact that decision. But with Dragon Age, we do, and through that denial, the game ilicits emotions in the player that mirrors Hawke's own powerlessness.

It's certainly non-standard but I would argue that it's objectively bad or without artistic value. Other mediums have used dramatic denial and approached themes of personal failure since the dawn of time -- why not video games? Why can video games not use the inherent strengths of its medium to instill empathy with the failures of the protagonist, in addition to his successes?

[...]

Hawke's failure is in his inability to truly impact anything -- he wants to save [oh this is the no spoiler forum, you know who], and he wants to resolve the mage/templar dispute, but because of narrative forces outside his control, he cannot. The player wants the same things Hawke does, but because of game restrictions outside of his control, he also cannot impact those events. Hawke is made to feel powerless by the narrative, and the player is made to feel powerless by the game; it creates a symmetry.

This certainly isn't the direction they had to have gone, like, as I've said, in Arrival -- there, Shepard has agency and impact on the events, whereas the player does not. They could have made Hawke important and impactful and just railroad the player to victory and glory, but they purposefully chose to mirror his narrative arc to the player's lack of agency.

[...]

I don't think they could [have made put more meaningful choice in the game]. I think there was a very limited amount of choice they could have put into the game operating under the time constraints; any choices that they would have had in place of the non-choices in which they utilize denial would have been illusionary ones at best. So, instead of making unsatisfactory fake choices, they took it away and hung a giant lampshade on it. Taking a different approach to the narrative wouldn't have given us more choices, realistically.

If this were a perfect world I'd like them to make a game with unlimited time and resources, but they can't, so I'm glad they took the direction they did rather than the alternative. Given the backlash I'm sure they'll have more time to work with in the future, which is good, but for what it is, I enjoyed DA2.

Given the nature of the restrictions the writers had to work with, I think they did a very good job using the contraints to their advantage; they made the notable deficiency in choice compared to its predecessor one of the central themes of the narrative.

[Dormiglione]

makenzieshepard wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

The story plot of DA2 had much potential, if Hawke had the possibility to change active the fate of the city, of the people with his actions. But he was only a protagonist, a spectator of that what happened.

I think Hawke's inability to affect the events of the game in a significant capacity was a success of the execution of the narrative, and fit in well with the underpinning themes of the game.

In fact, if Hawke could have take an active role in the events that happened, if he could have made choices that changed the story itself, the story plot of DA2 would have been more interesting than the story of DAO.

That's an opinion not a fact.  At this point I expect you will take this as me saying DA2 was better when I have done no such thing.  That my friend is a fact.

Im sorry if i used the wrong terms. In the italian language "in fatti" -> in facts has two meaning.
One is: its used to say its a fact
the second is: its used like an assumption, like i would say "if we could do this in the situation it would give.."

I didnt try to say, that it is a fact "that a more active Hawke" was better, i tried to say that a more active Hawke could have made the story more interesting.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 30 juin 2011 - 08:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

So, for the people that thought DA2's plot was good, I ask you... how..?

Short version =

Political struggle > Monster killing

That's not covering the issues with execution in the former.

Except the execution of the former was so bad, that it can barely be considered political.
And the overblown use of demons, thin veil, madness and idol, makes it all about monster killing anyways, just with a different flavor.

EDIT: only Act 2 can be considered decent in that regard. I see it as mediocre at best.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except the execution of the former was so bad, that it can barely be considered political.

Says you.  All the time.

But then, I view the ultimate powerlessness of Hawke to alter the course of worldstate changing events as a feature.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And the overblown use of demons, thin veil, madness and idol, makes it all about monster killing anyways, just with a different flavor.

It actually had flavor - unlike the monsters from underground* - because it was used to undermine the players' own contemporary pro-freedom stance by introducing lots of very good reasons why someone living in Thedas - such as Meredith for example, would want the mages controlled. 

I will not, however, defend the use of the Idol as a plot coupon. 

*DA:A excepted.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 08:53 .

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

So, for the people that thought DA2's plot was good, I ask you... how..?

Short version =

Political struggle > Monster killing

That's not covering the issues with execution in the former.

Except the execution of the former was so bad, that it can barely be considered political.
And the overblown use of demons, thin veil, madness and idol, makes it all about monster killing anyways, just with a different flavor.

EDIT: only Act 2 can be considered decent in that regard. I see it as mediocre at best.

True, but it is a favor that some enjoyed, but YMMV.

[Dormiglione]

ipgd wrote...

Given the nature of the restrictions the writers had to work with, I think they did a very good job using the contraints to their advantage; they made the notable deficiency in choice compared to its predecessor one of the central themes of the narrative.

When we look only on the development time, the Dragon Age Team did a good job. Comparing time spent with the product that was build (DA2), yes it was a huge effort to build the game in so a short time.
But at which cost? How many corners needed to be cut to get the game out with that time schedule?

Modifié par Dormiglione, 30 juin 2011 - 08:55 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Says you.  All the time.

But then, I view the ultimate powerlessness of Hawke to alter the course of worldstate changing events as a feature.

It's not about Hawke's powerlessness. It's the entire design of it that is flawed and barely political.

It actually had flavor - unlike the monsters from underground* - because it was used to undermine the players' own contemporary pro-freedom stance by introducing lots of very good reasons why someone living in Thedas, or Kirkwall, would want the mages controlled. 

And it ended up dehumanizing mages, making them dangerous time bombs as opposed to dangerous people.
The writers themselves admit that they overkilled. Add to that the complete incompetence of the Chantry, and Meredith's insanity. And you have barely anything left.

In concept, DA2 / mage vs Templars is political. The execution however was laughable, and has barely anything political about it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 08:59 .

[ipgd]

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Given the nature of the restrictions the writers had to work with, I think they did a very good job using the contraints to their advantage; they made the notable deficiency in choice compared to its predecessor one of the central themes of the narrative.

When we look only on the development time, the Dragon Age Team did a good job. Comparing time spent with the product that was build (DA2), yes it was a huge effort to build the game in so a short time.
But at which cost? How many corners needed to be cut to get the game out in with that time schedule?

I'm not talking about "It's good for being developed in only X amount of time". It's good because the writers saw those time constraints and then designed a narrative that operated because of them, rather than making a form-pattern copy of Origins when they would not be able to repeat the reasons it was successful with the smaller development time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The best of both worlds, I think, would be pure DAO with some of DA2's plot structure.

But I doubt Ray and Greg agree with me.

Interesting. But what do you mean by DA2's plot structure? Can you give some exemples?

The whole of Act I is completely directionless.  Aside from the pointless metagame information provided by the quest categories in the journal, there's no way to know what quests have anything to do with advancing through the game.  They're all just quests, and some of them might be related, but even that isn't clear.

In Act I, Hawke is set loose in a city free to do pretty much whatever he wants.  That's good design.  That allows much freer expression of the PC's personality than having the main quest presented on a platter like DAO did it.

I have very few complaints with DAO - oversized weapons, restrictive camera - but the greatest of them was how obvious the main quest is.  There's an archdemon coming.  Go kill it.  Here's how: complete these four steps which we're describing to you right from the start.

But in DA2, Hawke has no idea what's going to happen, at least during Act I.  He has no reason to believe that any or all of the things he sees happening around him in Kirkwall will affect him at all.  That's terrific.  That allows the player to construct Hawke's opinion of those events entirely free of any foreknowledge of their relevance.

DAO didn't have enough of that.  DA2, thankfully, has much more.  BioWare hasn't offered us a plot at all like this since the original Baldur's Gate, and I'm very happy to see it return.

[upsettingshorts]

@KoP:  I don't accept your premise that incompetence of the players is somehow not political, nor that the presentation of Blood Magic and abomination ultimately dehumanized mages.

Nor do I think - if I were to accept either argument - it would make the story not political.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 juin 2011 - 09:01 .

[xkg]

Dormiglione wrote...

When we look only on the development time, the Dragon Age Team did a good job.

Not really. They already had the engine ready to use; the whole setting, lore, world and rules ready to use.
All they had to do was to modify the engine a little, write new story and make new environments/areas/maps.

What they did in that time is ... well, nothing spectacular.

Modifié par xkg, 30 juin 2011 - 09:04 .

[Tirfan]

I wish I could view it like that - but because Hawke is just another character, and not my character I didn't see anything in whole act1 that I could to try and make him have any personality at all, except, perhaps the fact that he seems to be rather sociopathic.

edit: aand forgot to quote Sylvius, I fail, perhaps I need to sleep.

Modifié par Tirfan, 30 juin 2011 - 09:04 .

[upsettingshorts]

Some folk'll say that they didn't feel like Hawke was their character. I didn't feel like the Warden was capable of even being a character.

[ipgd]

xkg wrote...

Not relly. They already had the engine ready to use; the whole setting, lore, world and rules ready to use.
All they had to do was to modify the engine a little, write new story and make new environments/areas/maps.

What they did in that time is ... well, nothing spectacular.

You don't actually know very much about how much work goes into the development of a game, do you?

[Realmzmaster]

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Given the nature of the restrictions the writers had to work with, I think they did a very good job using the contraints to their advantage; they made the notable deficiency in choice compared to its predecessor one of the central themes of the narrative.

When we look only on the development time, the Dragon Age Team did a good job. Comparing time spent with the product that was build (DA2), yes it was a huge effort to build the game in so a short time.
But at which cost? How many corners needed to be cut to get the game out with that time schedule?

Corners are cut in all games , but as you state it is the number that is telling. DAO cut corners because of its long development time. Certain graphics and areas where done near the beginning of the development and used in the game which were not on par with elements at the end of the game. This is probably because of a money and time constraint. Many developers are not going to throw out assets that could be used. That is time and money wasted.  Also unless all the graphics are done at the end of development (which is mostly not possible) some graphics will not look as good as others the longer the development time. It is tough to find that sweet spot of development time.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't accept your premise that incompetence of the players is somehow not political, nor that the presentation of Blood Magic and abomination ultimately dehumanized mages.

Nor do I think - if I were to accept either argument - it would make the story not political.

Incompetence of all players is not political. As in, it's not believable, deep or complex.
There is a difference between being powerleess to stop an on going trend, vs complete incompetence that is used in lieu of a well written plot / political-social trend. Here, we have the latter, not the former. 

You don't think most of the mages we see are lunatics with no development at all? Including Orsino.  

Like I said. Barely political. As in as political as a political satire. Except one takes itself seriously, which is either funnier or more depressing.

Furthermore, Bioware's simplistic binary stand of A vs B, is better used to make conceptual conflicts (as in "security vs freedom" that as a political science graduate, makes me roll my eyes whenever I hear the cliche). But that's not how politics work.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 juin 2011 - 09:10 .

[ipgd]

"Good" is not a prerequisite of the label "political". You can think it's a sweaty **** sandwich dribbled out of a dog's anus and it'd still be political.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Some folk'll say that they didn't feel like Hawke was their character. I didn't feel like the Warden was capable of even being a character.

He wasn't capable of being some types of character.  In Exile has described those limitations very well.

But some personality types were well able to be represented by the Warden.  I have played several of them.  And I've also found some of those limits.  Passive characters, in particular, were well supported by DAO.  Characters who were both strong-willed and expressive, though, were not.

The problem with DA2 is that only one character is supported, and it's the one written by the designers.  If you don't want to play that character, or if you don't happen to know what that character is (and I don't see how you possibluy could your first time through the game), then the game is horribly broken.

[Dormiglione]

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Given the nature of the restrictions the writers had to work with, I think they did a very good job using the contraints to their advantage; they made the notable deficiency in choice compared to its predecessor one of the central themes of the narrative.

When we look only on the development time, the Dragon Age Team did a good job. Comparing time spent with the product that was build (DA2), yes it was a huge effort to build the game in so a short time.
But at which cost? How many corners needed to be cut to get the game out in with that time schedule?

I'm not talking about "It's good for being developed in only X amount of time". It's good because the writers saw those time constraints and then designed a narrative that operated because of them, rather than making a form-pattern copy of Origins when they would not be able to repeat the reasons it was successful with the smaller development time.

I understood what you where talking about, but i dont share your opinion. I dont like all the corners that were cut to get it released "on time". As i said, within the given time they had to develop the game (honestly Kudos to the whole development team), they made a good game.
But i compare the game on its own merits. For my preferences, too many corners were cut.