182 réponses à ce sujet

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

VegasVance wrote...

I'd like to see a stop to the Mandolorian/Krogan/Qunari troupe. I find it sad that whenever a bunch of bad-asses conquer the lands. They get magically defeated by a bunch of pathetic (see: Mercs, Gunts, and everyday soldiers of those games) For once I'd like them to be the threat they really can be, don't cop out like in DAII the ending and write in a "new bad guy" last minute after you've claimed the Qunari could fight all the nation of Thedas to a standstill.

Jade Empire actually does a much better job of this - the Emperor's (and later Sun Li's) forces can and do overrun stuff. You can hold them off for limited periods of time, but they never really lose their credibility as a fighting force and the mood on the eve of the final battle of that game is a lot closer to "we're all gonna die" than it is in Dragon Age games.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ipgd wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Now, if you actually read the thread, you would note that I granted that Gaider et al. must have had some sort of factor (better editor, more time, better lead designer, etc) that precipitated the drop in quality between installments. And the point was (until all the fanboys jumped in) not to bash DA2, but to point out how DA2's negative reception probably had to do with elements of the game other than the frame narrative, personal story, and so on. Of course, watching people do intellectual contortions to defend bad writing is also funny, but it's a lot less prodcutive than talking about what future Bioware games can learn from what DA2 did right. I get that it annoys you when people don't like aspects of DA2, but pretending its flaws don't exist isn't exactly conducive to a good discussion.

I am not pretending DA2's flaws do not exist.

I am suggesting that you are blowing DA2's flaws out of proportions, and deliberately ignoring its positive aspects, in order to discard or twist anything and everything into the preconceived narrative you prefer over reality.

I am also suggesting that the arguments you choose to support your opinion are flimsy, generated on the fly, and impossible to argue because you repeatedly move the goalposts and invent new justifications for your opinion when others are defeated. It makes it seem like your arguments are crafted in order to justify an opinion you would hold with or without any meaningful reason, rather than your opinion being built on your arguments.

You know, saying you defeated an argument is not the same as actually defeating an argument

But more to the point, it isn't my goal to minimize DA2's positive aspects - my goal is to deliniate what aspects about the game people didn't like. The initial point was that some people were saying that DA2 failed as a story because it strayed too far from the formula. I argued that straying from the formula was good and that the general negative impression a lot of people had probably had a lot more to do with things like the writing quality than the frame narrative.

[VegasVance]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

VegasVance wrote...

I'd like to see a stop to the Mandolorian/Krogan/Qunari troupe. I find it sad that whenever a bunch of bad-asses conquer the lands. They get magically defeated by a bunch of pathetic (see: Mercs, Gunts, and everyday soldiers of those games) For once I'd like them to be the threat they really can be, don't cop out like in DAII the ending and write in a "new bad guy" last minute after you've claimed the Qunari could fight all the nation of Thedas to a standstill.

Jade Empire actually does a much better job of this - the Emperor's (and later Sun Li's) forces can and do overrun stuff. You can hold them off for limited periods of time, but they never really lose their credibility as a fighting force and the mood on the eve of the final battle of that game is a lot closer to "we're all gonna die" than it is in Dragon Age games.

Not particualy, I consider them more like the Sith in Kotor.  Easy to kill, still very human, morality is set to evil, no party members that belong to thus giving you insight. 

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

What, in her statement, implies that Flemeth was not well-written? The character is meant to by a cypher and perhaps something of a sybil. As such, I thought the performance and dialogue were apt.

That's the issue - that stuff is hard to write, and I can think of very few examples I think are done well. Greek myths and histories do a good job with the Oracle of Delphi (i.e. "the wooden wall will save you and your children) but not a lot of modern writing is up to that level with enigmatic/prophetic dialogue. Honestly, even Firefly sometimes is doin it rong. However, it is occasionally done very well - Perdido Street Station and the Latro books are good examples of doin it rite. Game-wise, Planescape: Torment does a pretty good job. It might be like comedy or romance - i.e., make sure you can do it well before you put it in your story.

[lv12medic]

This thread,
I feel dizzy.

Anyways,

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...


You know, saying you defeated an argument is not the same as actually defeating an argument

I have defeated all arguments in glorious honorable combat! I am WINNAH!

[ipgd]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

You know, saying you defeated an argument is not the same as actually defeating an argument

The rate at which you abandon and then invent new arguments suggest that you are either unable to argue them further or terminally bad at arguing.

But more to the point, it isn't my goal to minimize DA2's positive aspects - my goal is to deliniate what aspects about the game people didn't like. The initial point was that some people were saying that DA2 failed as a story because it strayed too far from the formula. I argued that straying from the formula was good and that the general negative impression a lot of people had probably had a lot more to do with things like the writing quality than the frame narrative.

Look at pretty much any DA2 complaint thread on the boards and you will see people complaining about very broad themes approached by the narrative with not much word on the execution; "there aren't as many choices as Origins", "Hawke felt like a nobody compared to the Warden", "Hawke wasn't my character like the Warden was", "I didn't like that there was no clear antagonist like in Origins", "the game didn't feel as epic as Origins", etc.. The amount of posts you will see to the effect of "DA2 could be a decent game on its own but it's terrible as a sequel to Origins" are telling. DA2 used some of the sequel pattern expectations to its advantage in the narrative (which largely go unnoticed, anyway), but in other ways it is very much a victim of it.

"It wasn't like Origins" is not the sole reason for the backlash against Dragon Age 2, but it is an extremely large part of it, and it is a sentiment that informs many other incidental complaints. This isn't the first game to suffer massive, ridiculously hyperbolic backlash based on expectations about sequels that were not met.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

VegasVance wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

VegasVance wrote...

I'd like to see a stop to the Mandolorian/Krogan/Qunari troupe. I find it sad that whenever a bunch of bad-asses conquer the lands. They get magically defeated by a bunch of pathetic (see: Mercs, Gunts, and everyday soldiers of those games) For once I'd like them to be the threat they really can be, don't cop out like in DAII the ending and write in a "new bad guy" last minute after you've claimed the Qunari could fight all the nation of Thedas to a standstill.

Jade Empire actually does a much better job of this - the Emperor's (and later Sun Li's) forces can and do overrun stuff. You can hold them off for limited periods of time, but they never really lose their credibility as a fighting force and the mood on the eve of the final battle of that game is a lot closer to "we're all gonna die" than it is in Dragon Age games.

Not particualy, I consider them more like the Sith in Kotor.  Easy to kill, still very human, morality is set to evil, no party members that belong to thus giving you insight. 

I just mean in the sense of "credible threat," not complex villain. Li + his assassins and golems are not exactly morally gray, Sagacious Zu nonwithstanding, but they actually succeed at conveying a sense of danger. It is going to be interesting to see how ME3 handles the Reaper invasion, considering that that should be a completely one-sided battle right up until the use of whatever plot device will eventually be used to destroy them.

[AtreiyaN7]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

What, in her statement, implies that Flemeth was not well-written? The character is meant to by a cypher and perhaps something of a sybil. As such, I thought the performance and dialogue were apt.

That's the issue - that stuff is hard to write, and I can think of very few examples I think are done well. Greek myths and histories do a good job with the Oracle of Delphi (i.e. "the wooden wall will save you and your children) but not a lot of modern writing is up to that level with enigmatic/prophetic dialogue. Honestly, even Firefly sometimes is doin it rong. However, it is occasionally done very well - Perdido Street Station and the Latro books are good examples of doin it rite. Game-wise, Planescape: Torment does a pretty good job. It might be like comedy or romance - i.e., make sure you can do it well before you put it in your story.

Prophetic, nutty, enigmatic dialogue isn't a specific literary genre, but I get enough of that crap when I have to format a manuscript by a loopy religious authors. By comparison, Flemeth is practically the picture of sanity, but I digress. The dialogue was not cheesy, and it did hint at events to come. The whole "precipice of change" thing turned out to be accurate (one can, I would think, safely assume that it pointed at the Chantry incident and the mage rebellion). If it did its job, it's good enough, and it's not as if the Oracle of Delphi's prophecies were particularly scintillating.

Or are you going to try to convince me that a prophecy such as "You will go you will return never in war will you perish." is somehow a crowning jewel of literary works throughout history? If you ask me, this particular oracular prophecy doesn't seem to me to be any better, more impressive or more well-written than any of Flemeth's dialogue. It's certainly not Shakespeare.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:30 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ipgd wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

You know, saying you defeated an argument is not the same as actually defeating an argument

The rate at which you abandon and then invent new arguments suggest that you are either unable to argue them further or terminally bad at arguing.

The "you keep changing your argument" line is pretty silly, because my argument basically boiled down to "the writing in DA2 was bad, here's an example of bad writing." Followed by "sorry, there's no excuse for that example, and here's another example of bad writing."

But on topic, I think you'll find if you talk to anyone outside of BSN that the major problems with DA2 had to do with stuff like the writing quality, the dating sim aspect, rushed design elements like repeated environments, and the "awesome button" gameplay. It wouldn't surprise me, however, that a lot of the criticism you see on BSN in particular is from fans of DA:O that didn't like some of the changes, because this is a very self-selecting forum.

I also am skeptical of the idea that people don't like the more personal scale of the story because more than a few much-beloved/acclaimed WRPGs (Planescape: Torment chief among them, but also stuff like Witcher/Witcher 2 for more modern examples) have a similarly small scale. And people really liked a lot of the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2, which tell stories on a similar scale.

[Thumb Fu]

Bioware a one trick pony?

Lets see here shall we. Baldur's Gate, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2.

All very VERY good games, one theme throughout, is epic story detailed settings and believable characters. If they have a set theme for each story they tell... then it must be working for them. Let me rephrase, it IS working for them. Best dev house in the world for compelling story driven narrative. You seem to have a gripe with the games, if thats so why play them? Ask yourself that question, then think about your post, then remember (if this is the case) how much fun you had whilst playing and how engrosing the experience was.

Sorry that sounded like an attack on you, it wasn't. What i'm getting at is a lot of companies and game developers/movie studios in general tend to have a motif, and formula that works for them and that they stick too. Rather than getting annoyed at "the same old thing" (really, You can compare Dragon Age to ME? Other than they are both RPG's they have almost next to nothing in common other than the story driven elements) how about you just enjoy the experience that they are laying before you, each bioware game for me, has been wildly different and with each game increasingly more enjoyable. Trying not to attack you and your oppinions personally here, but i have to say yeah your entitled to your oppinion, and with all due respect, i disagree with it. Just try and look at things with a more open mind and embrace things for what they are, not what they remind you of.

[upsettingshorts]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

 the dating sim aspect

I don't get this.  Unless those who are critical of the romance subplots in DA2 were also critical of them in DAO, since they're basically the same.  Though DA2 had the somewhat more complex options of both Friendpath and Rivalpath.

Unless their argument is the romances in DA2 weren't as good - as opposed to simply being against their presence - but that's a different argument.

Thumb Fu wrote...

Lets see here shall we. Baldur's Gate, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2.

Henpecked Hou is sad you failed to mention his game.  At least his wife isn't around.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:29 .

[PlumPaul93]

LOL flowchart bioware. That's a good one.

[Thumb Fu]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Henpecked Hou is sad you failed to mention his game.  At least his wife isn't around.

Lol to be honest, forgot all about Jade Empire, even though i was complaining to a friend just the other day because they haven't played it. Characters in jade empire are what made that for me, the asian martial arts movie setting was also brilliant.

Wu the Lotus Blossom bids you farewell

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

What, in her statement, implies that Flemeth was not well-written? The character is meant to by a cypher and perhaps something of a sybil. As such, I thought the performance and dialogue were apt.

That's the issue - that stuff is hard to write, and I can think of very few examples I think are done well. Greek myths and histories do a good job with the Oracle of Delphi (i.e. "the wooden wall will save you and your children) but not a lot of modern writing is up to that level with enigmatic/prophetic dialogue. Honestly, even Firefly sometimes is doin it rong. However, it is occasionally done very well - Perdido Street Station and the Latro books are good examples of doin it rite. Game-wise, Planescape: Torment does a pretty good job. It might be like comedy or romance - i.e., make sure you can do it well before you put it in your story.

Prophetic, nutty, enigmatic dialogue isn' a specific literary genre, but I get enough of that crap when I have to format a manuscript by a loopy religious authors. By comparison, Flemeth is practically the picture of sanity, but I digress. The dialogue was not cheesy, and it did hint at events to come. The whole "precipice of change" thing turned out to be accurate (one can, I would think, safely assume that it pointed at the Chantry incident and the mage rebellion). If it did its job, it's good enough, and it's not as if the Oracle of Delphi's prophecies were particularly scintillating.

Or are you going to try to convince me that a prophecy such as "You will go you will return never in war will you perish." is somehow a crowning jewel of literary works throughout history? If you ask me, this particular oracular prophecy doesn't seem to me to be any better, more impressive or more well-written than any of Flemeth's dialogue. It's certainly not Shakespeare.

Considering that Ibis, redibis, nunquam per bella peribis reads both as "you will go, you will return, never in war will you perish" and "you will go, you will never return, in war you will perish" I think it's an awesome example of good prophecy dialogue. Just not one that translates particularly well into English. So yeah, I think it's way better than Flemeth's dialogue. This stuff is hard to write, though - I hold Flemeth a lot less against the Dragon Age writing team than say, Merrill. Plenty of good writers (*cough*Whedon*cough*) will occasionally write prophecy dialogue that falls a little flat. Of course, they could just pull a Tolkien and do an homage of the prophecy from The Scottish Play or something and that would have been fine.

[Dangerfoot]

Oy, Bioware apologists. Their mistakes are all just clever satire.

God forbid a video game have poor writing and characterization.

[Whatever42]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Oy, Bioware apologists. Their mistakes are all just clever satire.

God forbid a video game have poor writing and characterization.

<shrug> If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Sure, the writing is popcorn but it's enjoyable and can be quite clever at times.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Oy, Bioware apologists. Their mistakes are all just clever satire.

God forbid a video game have poor writing and characterization.

Maybe all the Biodrone comments are clever satire, too.

[upsettingshorts]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Their mistakes are all just clever satire.

Some of the "mistakes" are just that. 

Dangerfoot wrote...

God forbid a video game have poor writing and characterization.

Some of them are this too. 

Unless it's your contention that it is simply impossible for them to have intended that anyone could have possibly interpreted anything they attempted to do as the former. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:15 .

[Dangerfoot]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

<shrug> If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Sure, the writing is popcorn but it's enjoyable and can be quite clever at times.

I don't find all of their writing awful, hell even some of the terrible parts are amusingly bad. But I'm not going to blindly write off their lower quality bits as intentional satire when there is absolutely no evidence for that.

[upsettingshorts]

Dangerfoot wrote...

I don't find all of their writing awful, hell even some of the terrible parts are amusingly bad. But I'm not going to blindly write off their lower quality bits as intentional satire when there is absolutely no evidence for that.

What would you consider evidence for it?  Since your objection is that you do not see any, the implication is that some kind of evidence could potentially change your mind.

Or am I mistaken?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:21 .

[ipgd]

Dangerfoot wrote...

I don't find all of their writing awful, hell even some of the terrible parts are amusingly bad. But I'm not going to blindly write off their lower quality bits as intentional satire when there is absolutely no evidence for that.

I called exactly one of the examples raised a deconstruction, which it is -- and not even a particularly subtle or hard to miss one, at that, with plenty of evidence, which I explained.

But twisting my arguments into ridiculous strawmen is more fun, isn't it?

Modifié par ipgd, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:24 .

[Dangerfoot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What would you consider evidence for it?  Since your objection is that you do not see any, the implication is that some kind of evidence could potentially change your mind.

Or am I mistaken?

There's just no context to support that Bioware parodied bad writing and weak romance plots. You can assume that, but that doesn't make it "obvious" as a couple of you seem to think it is. That makes it your assumption, which you are welcome to show interviews supporting, or something, whatever you think will prove that. But you look silly if you just come in acting like your totally fringe assumption is law.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ipgd wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

I don't find all of their writing awful, hell even some of the terrible parts are amusingly bad. But I'm not going to blindly write off their lower quality bits as intentional satire when there is absolutely no evidence for that.

I called exactly one of the examples raised a deconstruction, which it is -- and not even a particularly subtle or hard to miss one, at that, with plenty of evidence, which I explained.

But twisting my arguments into ridiculous strawmen is more fun, isn't it?

It would be more easy to buy the Anders romance as satire if Anders' dialogue was significantly more cheesy than the rest of the romance dialogue.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:35 .

[Dangerfoot]

ipgd wrote...
I called exactly one of the examples raised a deconstruction, which it is -- and not even a particularly subtle or hard to miss one, at that, with plenty of evidence, which I explained.

But twisting my arguments into ridiculous strawmen is more fun, isn't it?

A deconstruction. Funny, I read what you said but nothing about it informed me of this obvious deconstruction of the romance cliches that Dragon Age would NEVER use.

[upsettingshorts]

Dangerfoot wrote...
There's just no context to support that Bioware parodied bad writing and weak romance plots. You can assume that, but that doesn't make it "obvious" as a couple of you seem to think it is. That makes it your assumption, which you are welcome to show interviews supporting, or something, whatever you think will prove that. But you look silly if you just come in acting like your totally fringe assumption is law.

So your standard of evidence is they have to come out and explicitly explain their intent?

Then mine is that they have to come out and say, "No, we weren't trying to do anything.  We just suck" to justify yours.

Compelling. 

I'm certainly not going to abandon my "assumptions" for yours. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:36 .