320 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Wait, are you saying that the only way for your companions to stay by your side is to make them your friends? Or that you have to compromise your choices to keep your companions?

Because you had to do the same thing in Origins. You had to compromise your choices to garner approval from people and keep them on your side. If you wanted to keep Leliana, you had to leave the Ashes as they are. If you wanted to keep Morrigan, you had to do the DR.

Since you were so kind to edit your post, I feel I should clarify. The inclusion of the good/funny/bad system of choices forces me to think my responses in those terms rather than on what I feel my character would say. In DAO there were more dialogue options with enough nuances to convey the same message in a slightly different way and, a priori, you didn't know how the NPC would take it at all (making it challenging and interesting at the same time, not to mention it adds replay value). DA2 is rather adamant in its options and, to make matters worse, sometimes what you think you're saying isn't what you end up saying at all. Therefore, if I want to be a good guy in DAO, I can do that by choosing those responses that I feel are better suited to a particular scenario. On the other hand, in DA2, a "good guy" can't scold his companions apparently, so you're coerced into agreeing with them when you otherwise wouldn't.

Clearer?

[TEWR]

OdanUrr wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Wait, are you saying that the only way for your companions to stay by your side is to make them your friends? Or that you have to compromise your choices to keep your companions?

Because you had to do the same thing in Origins. You had to compromise your choices to garner approval from people and keep them on your side. If you wanted to keep Leliana, you had to leave the Ashes as they are. If you wanted to keep Morrigan, you had to do the DR.

Since you were so kind to edit your post, I feel I should clarify. The inclusion of the good/funny/bad system of choices forces me to think my responses in those terms rather than on what I feel my character would say. In DAO there were more dialogue options with enough nuances to convey the same message in a slightly different way and, a priori, you didn't know how the NPC would take it at all (making it challenging and interesting at the same time, not to mention it adds replay value). DA2 is rather adamant in its options and, to make matters worse, sometimes what you think you're saying isn't what you end up saying at all. Therefore, if I want to be a good guy in DAO, I can do that by choosing those responses that I feel are better suited to a particular scenario. On the other hand, in DA2, a "good guy" can't scold his companions apparently, so you're coerced into agreeing with them when you otherwise wouldn't.

Clearer?

I'm not sure. Possibly, but it's late where I am so my brain is saying "You can stay up if you want but I'm shutting down for the night. ******...."  


I don't think the problem is with Friendship/Rivalry. The problem is the paraphrase system, which has nothing to do with the Friendship/Rivalry system. It affects it, but they're not connected to one another in terms of flaws. Their flaws are their own.


I don't think the tones are the problem either, though they could be worked on a bit better. I think you should be able to scold companions and they'll admit you're right in that particular scenario, and give you friendship for it. Ideally, something like that would work like this:


1) Agree with companion --- friendship points
2) Scold companion, they relent on that issue --- friendship points
3) Tell companion they're an idiot --- rivalry points.


Obviously the point value would vary.


the best compromise to the dialogue system is to drop the wheel, retain the tones, and go back to the list while improving it to be even better.





as well as keep the friendship/rivalry system.

Will this happen? No sadly.


I'd also like to say that Origins' system was a mix of having 3 choices advance the dialogue and who knows how many investigate options, and 6 options that advanced the dialogue. Going back to play Origins really pointed it out to me.


The friendship/rivalry system is superior to Origins' system, but that's not to say that it's flawless. It isn't. It needs to be improved. But it does add more to replay value than Origins' system did.

[erynnar]

OdanUrr wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

I'm thinking hard on how to address this...

I know how to start. Firstly, you're comparing two systems that, due to the nature of the story each game is trying to tell, they cannot possibly be the same. In DAO, the personal quests of each of your companions is more about putting the past behind them in order to focus on the task ahead (sounds like ME2, right?). In DA2, there is no task ahead. Because of this, we interpret these personal missions as instances of character development when the truth is that very few characters actually evolve at all.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

This^ and very well said. The only character in DA2 who evolves is Isabela. The rest never change, like Kirkwall.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

None of that is really fair to any of the characters. Just because your personality doesn't do a 180 doesn't mean you don't evolve as a person.

Indeed. Merrill can give up blood magic on the rivalry path, as well as believing the Eluvian was worthless. That's more of a de-evolution to me, but that's a different matter.


Fenris can come to accept that not all mages are worth the outright contempt. To a mage Hawke any way.


Anders can feel like he was right in the merging being something he shouldn't have done, or something he's glad he did.


Varric's perfect as is.


Aveline can either feel like Hawke is someone she can rely on, or she'll come to grips with the fact that she needs to be her own pillar of strength.

[Addai]

So this is what you do, OP? Start DA2 > DAO threads?

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

[txgoldrush]

OdanUrr wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

I'm thinking hard on how to address this...

I know how to start. Firstly, you're comparing two systems that, due to the nature of the story each game is trying to tell, they cannot possibly be the same. In DAO, the personal quests of each of your companions is more about putting the past behind them in order to focus on the task ahead (sounds like ME2, right?). In DA2, there is no task ahead. Because of this, we interpret these personal missions as instances of character development when the truth is that very few characters actually evolve at all.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

Wow, what factual errors, did you play the game just once?

Fenris can remain a mage hunter, although will come to respect Hawke if he is a mage (friendship) or realize how much his rage has consumed him (rivalry), and will soften his stance on mages maxed out in either,

Merrill can learn that not everybody desires to be saved (friendship) or she learns that she is responsible for what happened and that the keeper truly loved her and thats why she held her back. (rivalry). Notice how she smashes her mirror in the rivalry path but not in the firendship path. You are very very wrong in that she thinks she is right in everything, especially her rival path.

Anders will either accept Justice (friendship) or figure it was the wrong to merge with him (rival). However, he does have only one true character development path, however, notice how he becomes less funny and how his relationships deteroiate with everybody the later the game goes.

Varric is more subtle, he either truly confides in Hawke for helping him (friendship) or realize he is going down his brother's path trying to keep a piece of the idol (rival).

Aveline can confide in Hawke and use him/her as a source of strength (friendship), realize that she must find her own pillar of strength (rival) or have a falling out with Hawke entirely and plan to leave Kirkwall (also rival).

Sebastian can either find that the Chantry is the right place to be (friendship AND Anders dies) or becomes convinced to take back his kingdom (rival AND Anders spared).

Isabela can realize that she has a true friend in Hawke, more of a friend than she ever had (friendship) and even if in romance find that she was just afraid of being loved and feared hurting them (romance) or realize that her actions have consquences (rival).

Bethany can find her place in the Circle and becomes more at peace or becomes nearly broken becoming a Grey Warden, even lashing out on her brother/sister, but later realizes that it is her calling.

Carver can find that he continues to live under his brother/sisters shadow while joining the Templars or he can find a true calling in the Wardens, finally free of his sibling's shadow.

The characters behave like you just met them? Wow what are you smoking? Relationships change and grow such as Aveline and Isabela (notice how they become friends in Act III) or diminish (such as Anders with everybody). Yes, their drives are the same, however, thats because their issues are not resolved until the last act, however, their demeanor towards eachother does change and grow.

I don't think you get the friendship/rivalry system. Its not about who is on your side, its whether they agree with you or disagree with you. A 100% rival will ALWAYS be on Hawke's side in the end, except for Aveline if you choose the wrong option in her Questioning Beliefs quest (if you don't get her to wail on you). Rivalry is tough love, not really antagonism. In fact, its not "good" or "bad" and really a rivalry can actually be being abetter friend than just maxing out the friendship path. Really rivalry with Merrill can even be loving.

"DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. "

Wrong, you get friendship/rivalry from choices you make and your actions. Its more than just character interactions with that specific character.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juillet 2011 - 08:53 .

[txgoldrush]

Addai67 wrote...

So this is what you do, OP? Start DA2 > DAO threads?

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Like start "DAII sucks" threads.

[furryrage59]

Sorry but i disagree, DA:O is superior in my opinion.

May be subjective as DA:2 was a snoozefest but there you go.

[xkg]

IMO it is like that:
The way DAO handles characters >>>>> the way DA2 handles them......

And sorry but i care not to elaborate.

[KLUME777]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

so the Templar fanatic trying to tranquil the innocent mage woman is not showing? Or the increasing number of tranquil in Act III, including maybe Fenryil...or show the effects that traquilization has on a being, like Ander's first quest.

Nevermind the rite of annulment....

Which is all destroyed by the fact that Templars don't react to Blood Magic in their face.

The game contradicts on itself in a major way, it shows in some cases, then shows the opposite in other cases.

Best case scenario, you accept Hawke has plot armor. Worst case scenario, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. There are also other cases of this, like when you can warn Cullen of Anders.

In both cases, it's a case of telling, but not showing.

almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Very rare that you would use blood magic near a templar you don't kill by the way.

This was explained, and the Legionares acknowledged you being a woman. The legion guy at the boat is dismayed because your a woman, but obeys Caesars orders. Also, your not a member of the legion, your just a "profligate". Caesar employs you because of your unique postition in the story, having met House, your able to go inside the bunker because your not a member of the legion. He doesn't want his Legion to see whats in the bunker. He's not just going to kill you because your a woman. Also, Caesar himself does not actually believe in his ideals. he uses them to creat a strong empire so that he can unite the Wasteland. He does that by any means necassary. Also, you can't fight in the arena if your a woman.

This is different than in DA2. In DA2, it is just ignored. In F:NV, it is explained.

[HawkeN7x]

I agree with the OP txgoldrush. His posts are FACT imho.

[Tirfan]

I kind of want to ask what TXgoldbrush is smoking and can I have the same stuff, because I seriously saw none of that "character development" she/he is describing. Points to OdanUrr for expressing what I would have wanted to say in a way that actually sounds good.

Ethereal Writer Redux: How exactly did Friendship/Rivalry add more replay value? Or am I the weird guy yet again by having played Origins so that if my character did not like companion-character X or S/he didn't like me I told them to hit the road. I got far more companion interraction and things out of playing a different kind of characters who liked other companion-characters, rather than the deciding to go this time down the Rivalry-path with certain character.

Sorry, too lazy to play with quotes, I'm a bad man.

[FieryDove]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
snip
the best compromise to the dialogue system is to drop the wheel, retain the tones, and go back to the list while improving it to be even better.
Will this happen? No sadly.

I like that idea, but you are right, the wheel is here to stay.

Tirfan wrote...
I kind of want to ask what TXgoldbrush is smoking and can I have the same stuff, because I seriously saw none of that "character development" she/he is describing.

It was the enhanced edition which sold for a limited time.
Seriously tho...
The characters could have used/needed more development...but...
I say EA let Bio have unlimited resources for DA3 and 3 full years to do it in.

I need to change my sig...one person's FACT is another's FICTION.

Modifié par FieryDove, 02 juillet 2011 - 10:48 .

[Xalen]

In DAO character development was virtually absent very limited. Most characters (Alistair and Leliana aside) changed only their perception of the Warden (like Morrigan can accept you as a friend and so on), but their perseption of themselves and the world  stayed largely the same. And Warden could somehow change Alistair's and Leliana's worldview based on one specific dialogue option in one specific conversation, which always seemed a little far-fetched to me even long before DA2 came out and gave the alternative
This system was of course stroking the ego of the player, but was it really that perfect?

While in DA2 player plays god a bit too, because f/r defines the direction in which character develops, but at least said development is not centered around Hawke.
And there's plenty of character development in DA2.
Isabela and Bethany are most obvious examples.
Andres is also not so subtle to a degree that the game practically beats you on the head with character development, but most people don't notice that with all "he's a whiny emo and a terrorist" whining, and I won't even try to convince anybody otherwise.
Sebastian drastically changes his worldview on rivalry path.
Carver followed the DAO path to an extent, because his negative perception of Hawke is the trait that most people think as defining to his character, and the one that changes most drastically.
It's been a long time since I played Merrill's friendship, so I can only say for rivalry. But if you think that Merrill smashing the mirror she's been obsessing for 7 years indicates nothing...well, I can't help you.
And so on.

The only character that lacks development in DA2 is Varric. But think about it - he's the narrator, after all... I think, it was a very clever bit.

And I'm surprised that people still think that friendship is a "good" path an rivalry is the "bad" path. Perhaps the developers sholud've used different color-coding, because blue/red rings "paragon/renegade" too much (which is not good/evil either, despite what most people think, but I already complained about that on ME forums, so I'll just shut up). Same with personality system: @OdanUrr, good-funny-bad, seriously? I don't think how the point can be missed any more than that.

Modifié par Xalen, 03 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .

[Tirfan]

Because, you know, their world-view changing thanks to their relationship with some sociopathic mass-murderer is really realistic, instead of their perception of the character changing? And the Alistair personality change; it was not that noticeable, he became a bit more sarcastic and finally grew a spine, which I told him, would do some good for him, glad he listened.

I don't notice any character-development in DA2, the characters still only care about one thing at the end of the game, and in hindsight, even on Anders' case, it really was kind of obvious that he would go to almost any extent to fight the good fight.

How are the dialogue-wheel choices not good/funny/bad?

[alex90c]

Tirfan wrote...

How are the dialogue-wheel choices not good/funny/bad?

Because they're not funny

[Xalen]

Tirfan wrote...

Because, you know, their world-view changing thanks to their relationship with some sociopathic mass-murderer is really realistic, instead of their perception of the character changing?

Well, you see, we all want character development in our game. Changing the perception of one particular character, even if it's the almighty PC, is not character development, it's just changing the perception. The devs could've just make the character develop independently of PC's actions, but then people would've complained about loss of agency even more then they are now if that's even possible.

And my Hawke wasn't sociopathic

And the Alistair personality change; it was not that noticeable, he became a bit more sarcastic and finally grew a spine, which I told him, would do some good for him, glad he listened.

I know, and I liked the hardening Alistair bit very much. What bugged me was the fact that you have to chose one specific dialogue option in one specific conversation, and that determined whether he was hardened or not. I would've like it even more if this was spread across all game.

I don't notice any character-development in DA2, the characters still only care about one thing at the end of the game

Well, I presented my view on that and provided some evidence to support it, so I guess it leaves us with the only option: agree to disagree  

on Anders' case, it really was kind of obvious that he would go to almost any extent to fight the good fight.

which was kind of the point, but whatever...

How are the dialogue-wheel choices not good/funny/bad?

And how they are? I'm genuinely interested, because I'd like to understand where such impression comes from.

Modifié par Xalen, 02 juillet 2011 - 11:31 .

[Tirfan]

oh, yeah, right, forgot about that, none of the sarcastic lines were funny.. the flirting-lines on the other hand..

[Tirfan]

Xalen wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

Because, you know, their world-view changing thanks to their relationship with some sociopathic mass-murderer is really realistic, instead of their perception of the character changing?

Well, you see, we all want character development in our game. Changing the perception of one particular character, even if it's the almighty PC, is not character development, it's just changing the perception. The devs could've just make the character develop independently of PC's actions, but then people would've complained about loss of agency even more then they are now if that's even possible.

And my Hawke wasn't sociopathic

And the Alistair personality change; it was not that noticeable, he became a bit more sarcastic and finally grew a spine, which I told him, would do some good for him, glad he listened.

I know, and I liked the hardening Alistair bit very much. What bugged me was the fact that you have to chose one specific dialogue option in one specific conversation, and that determined whether he was hardened or not. I would've like it even more if this was spread across all game.

I don't notice any character-development in DA2, the characters still only care about one thing at the end of the game

Well, I presented my view on that and provided some evidence to support it, so I guess it leaves us with the only option: agree to disagree  

on Anders' case, it really was kind of obvious that he would go to almost any extent to fight the good fight.

which was kind of the point, but whatever...

How are the dialogue-wheel choices not good/funny/bad?

And how they are? I'm genuinely interested, because I'd like to understand where such impression comes from.

Well, character development should be based on the plot and choices you make, I think we can agree on that, from what I have gathered, all the character-development (which I still don't see) was based on their relationship with Hawke, this does not work for me - I do view changing perception as a character-development of sorts, or as a way of portraying it, it is not perfect but works a lot better for me than the DA2 way, even if there actually was any of that.

I can agree to disagree on the character development, if you see it, good for you, bad for me.

Ah, the dialogue wheel, I really don't like to go in to the shortcomings of conversation-systems in both games, but I'll try, the top choice in normal dialogue was "paragon" the middle "neutral/good with a little joke" and the last one was "renegade or dick" and that is how the lines were delivered and their content was that - in the arrow-dialogues, there was a bit more variation and tried to make it possible to portray your character views on certain matters but I think this system screwed me over really bad because I think the way the lines were delivered based on the dominant-personality. Really, the origins dialogue system wasn't perfect, but it was better, it too had a lots of little problems but..

Oh come on, Hawke is sociopathic no matter what you do, he can never express any regret about killing tens of thousands of bandits and a lot of time goes on the quests, no matter what you do with an intent to murder people.

[jmadsen]

txgoldrush wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

I'm thinking hard on how to address this...

I know how to start. Firstly, you're comparing two systems that, due to the nature of the story each game is trying to tell, they cannot possibly be the same. In DAO, the personal quests of each of your companions is more about putting the past behind them in order to focus on the task ahead (sounds like ME2, right?). In DA2, there is no task ahead. Because of this, we interpret these personal missions as instances of character development when the truth is that very few characters actually evolve at all.

E.g.:

- Fenris remains a mage-hater.
- Merrill remains the cute, cuddly elf who still believes she's in the right despite everything.
- Anders remains the first mage terrorist of Kirkwall.
- Varric... is Varric. He could have done without the personal quest and nothing would have changed.
- Aveline... same as Varric.
- Sebastian sticks to his motto, "The Chantry is good. Period."

Isabela can, given your choices, truly evolve as a character since she's faced with a choice that ultimately goes against the kind of person she thought she was. Siblings have so little gameplay time that's not even fair to judge.

Take two minutes to ponder this: these are characters you've known for ten or so years and they still behave like the first day you met them. Nothing has changed in them, their drives are the same, their thinking as well. Your actions, your behaviour during this period of time should resonate on your allies and, why not, perhaps convince them to address their issues differently, rather than having Hawke choose between the paragon/sarcastic/renegade options to solve their problems for them.

We've arrived at the friendship/rivalry system. I don't like it, I don't want it. It forces me to choose the "good" option over the "bad" option just so I can have everyone on my side. Why not remove it altogether, play the game how you see fit, and then see how your behavior affects those around you? The only problem I see with this is that you'd have to actually show that your actions, your behavior, influence those around you. DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. Since every outcome is fixed, I'd say my character's impact is rather poor (e.g.: just ask Grand Cleric Elthina at the end of Act III). It is not a superior system, in fact, it's detrimental to gameplay.

This is not to say DAO's system is the best out there. It isn't. But DAO, through all those lines of dialogue that are practically the trademark of any RPG, gets us to connect with the characters in a way DA2 never does.

Wow, what factual errors, did you play the game just once?

Fenris can remain a mage hunter, although will come to respect Hawke if he is a mage (friendship) or realize how much his rage has consumed him (rivalry), and will soften his stance on mages maxed out in either,

Merrill can learn that not everybody desires to be saved (friendship) or she learns that she is responsible for what happened and that the keeper truly loved her and thats why she held her back. (rivalry). Notice how she smashes her mirror in the rivalry path but not in the firendship path. You are very very wrong in that she thinks she is right in everything, especially her rival path.

Anders will either accept Justice (friendship) or figure it was the wrong to merge with him (rival). However, he does have only one true character development path, however, notice how he becomes less funny and how his relationships deteroiate with everybody the later the game goes.

Varric is more subtle, he either truly confides in Hawke for helping him (friendship) or realize he is going down his brother's path trying to keep a piece of the idol (rival).

Aveline can confide in Hawke and use him/her as a source of strength (friendship), realize that she must find her own pillar of strength (rival) or have a falling out with Hawke entirely and plan to leave Kirkwall (also rival).

Sebastian can either find that the Chantry is the right place to be (friendship AND Anders dies) or becomes convinced to take back his kingdom (rival AND Anders spared).

Isabela can realize that she has a true friend in Hawke, more of a friend than she ever had (friendship) and even if in romance find that she was just afraid of being loved and feared hurting them (romance) or realize that her actions have consquences (rival).

Bethany can find her place in the Circle and becomes more at peace or becomes nearly broken becoming a Grey Warden, even lashing out on her brother/sister, but later realizes that it is her calling.

Carver can find that he continues to live under his brother/sisters shadow while joining the Templars or he can find a true calling in the Wardens, finally free of his sibling's shadow.

The characters behave like you just met them? Wow what are you smoking? Relationships change and grow such as Aveline and Isabela (notice how they become friends in Act III) or diminish (such as Anders with everybody). Yes, their drives are the same, however, thats because their issues are not resolved until the last act, however, their demeanor towards eachother does change and grow.

I don't think you get the friendship/rivalry system. Its not about who is on your side, its whether they agree with you or disagree with you. A 100% rival will ALWAYS be on Hawke's side in the end, except for Aveline if you choose the wrong option in her Questioning Beliefs quest (if you don't get her to wail on you). Rivalry is tough love, not really antagonism. In fact, its not "good" or "bad" and really a rivalry can actually be being abetter friend than just maxing out the friendship path. Really rivalry with Merrill can even be loving.

"DA2 doesn't show us this and so resorts to the paragon/sarcastic/renegade + friendship/rivalry combo to persuade you that your actions have an impact. "

Wrong, you get friendship/rivalry from choices you make and your actions. Its more than just character interactions with that specific character.

win

[sleepyowlet]

I liked the like-dislike thing in DA:O better. It felt more real, and it left me with more choice. Character I don't like? I could say nasty things to them, they'd hate me, they'd leave, or I could kick them out. All good.

The friendship/rivalry thing was an interesting experiment, but a failed one in my opinion. It left me no choice in who to keep in my party - once recruited, you are settled with that companion forever with no possibility to tell them to GTFO (I wanted to do this to Isabela and Fenris - and I wanted to do it *badly*). The game decides for you that Hawke is friends with these people - but guess what? I didn't want to be friends with some of them, and felt railroaded into relationships (not necessarily the romantic kind) that felt forced and unnatural.

In DA:O the characters felt more real to me because I could talk to them about their view of the world and personal experiences whenever I wanted. Like Alistair's childhood in Redcliffe and his love for cheese, or Leliana's love for shoes and other pretty things. These characters had depth and quirks. The characters of DA2 felt like they were painted with a much coarser brush - not to mention that half of them were whining the whole bloody time (a bit like mother dearest, never connected to her either, she acted like a total b*** the whole time)  - "I need to fix that mirror!" and, "All mages are such bastards!" and, "Those poor oppressed mages!" ... I really wanted to get away from them. The only consistent longing I felt through the whole game was for getting out of Kirkwall.

The strange gaps in Hawke's memory didn't help either. I felt like I did stuff, fell into a coma for a few years, woke up and did some more stuff - until I went comatose again. Either you give me a protagonist who I can shape as I want, then I have no trouble filling in the blanks for myself, or you give me a protagonist like Hawke  who essentially roleplays themselves, and you tell me the whole story,  not just chunks of it. Because Hawke wasn't really my character, I didn't know her well enough to fill the missing years with some kind of fitting story and developement - let alone her progress of relationship (or lack thereof) with her companions.

Edit: Thought of another thing right now: The party banter. This is one of the many issues of Origins that DA2 didn't fix. There is party banter, yes, but I keep missing most of it, because it starts, I happen to click on something, or I get attacked, and the banter is interrupted. Interrupted banter doesn't get repeated either. It's nice my companions talk to each other, but if the banter is so important for showing their relationships among each other, why isn't the game interrupted for a few seconds (like in BG) so you'll actually have a chance to listen to it?

Modifié par sleepyowlet, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:15 .

[Xalen]

Tirfan wrote...

Ah, the dialogue wheel, I really don't like to go in to the shortcomings of conversation-systems in both games, but I'll try, the top choice in normal dialogue was "paragon" the middle "neutral/good with a little joke" and the last one was "renegade or dick" and that is how the lines were delivered and their content was that - in the arrow-dialogues, there was a bit more variation and tried to make it possible to portray your character views on certain matters but I think this system screwed me over really bad because I think the way the lines were delivered based on the dominant-personality. Really, the origins dialogue system wasn't perfect, but it was better, it too had a lots of little problems but..

yeah, I gathered that after ME1 people will accociate dialogue wheel in BioWare games with paragon/renegade system forever, but I personally have never thought of paragon as good and renegade is bad (or an a**hole...at least most of the time), so I guess that's where my confusion comes from. And I can go on about the differences in what P/R system was supposed to be, what BioWare made of it and how fans see it for hours, so I'd better stop right here.

Oh come on, Hawke is sociopathic no matter what you do, he can never express any regret about killing tens of thousands of bandits and a lot of time goes on the quests, no matter what you do with an intent to murder people.

isn't this true for, like, every game protagonist ever?   I tend to see it as a gameplay/story segregation (which is not a good thing either, but at least understandable), so it doesn't bother me much...

Modifié par Xalen, 03 juillet 2011 - 01:57 .

[Tirfan]

Xalen wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

Ah, the dialogue wheel, I really don't like to go in to the shortcomings of conversation-systems in both games, but I'll try, the top choice in normal dialogue was "paragon" the middle "neutral/good with a little joke" and the last one was "renegade or dick" and that is how the lines were delivered and their content was that - in the arrow-dialogues, there was a bit more variation and tried to make it possible to portray your character views on certain matters but I think this system screwed me over really bad because I think the way the lines were delivered based on the dominant-personality. Really, the origins dialogue system wasn't perfect, but it was better, it too had a lots of little problems but..

yeah, I gathered that after ME1 people will accociate dialogue wheel in BioWare games with paragon/renegade system forever, but I personally have never thought of paragon as good and renegade is bad (or an a**hole...at least most of the time), so I guess that's where my confusion comes from. And I can ****** about the differences in what P/R system was supposed to be, what BioWare made of it and how fans see it for hours, so I'd better stop right here.

Oh come on, Hawke is sociopathic no matter what you do, he can never express any regret about killing tens of thousands of bandits and a lot of time goes on the quests, no matter what you do with an intent to murder people.

isn't this true for, like, every protagonist ever?  I tend to see at as a gameplay/story segregation (which is not a good thing either, but at least understandable), so it doesn't bother me much...

Well, the paragon/renegade to me seems pretty much like the good/evil choice, it isn't exactly such, but too close to that, renegade really was more of just angry-as-all-hell and no bullsh*t, but the renegade-choices were more like the typical "evil"-choices

And well, I can remember quite a many situations where the warden could express regret for killing sentients, or trying to avoid it, even if the scene ended in violence, while there weren't these in all the situations I wished, it still was something... with Hawke, we have zero of those, I don't want to headcanon every aspect of the character, if I even have a presedence of having a character express regret after killing sentients in rather cold-blood, it feels more natural to headcanon the sitautions where I don't get that choice.. but that may just be me being weird again.

[Soilborn88]

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good thing you said "characters", because when it comes to the plot, Dragon Age 2 does the opposite in a variety of places.

No, Act II and Act III are way more focused than anything in Origins.

The problem with DAII is that Act I takes too long introducing the story's players. Only AcI I has a lack of focus, alliebvated by the fact that their is no real race against time.

DAO is much worse...you have a whole midsection of stories barely related to the mian plot and only through plot coupons. DAO is a worse offender than past Bioware games.

I'm not talking focus, I'm talking "showing, not telling".

Cinematics in of themselves don't represent showing over telling. Like how you're told, but not shown how Templars treat Mages. Blood Magic in the Gallows? No problem. It was an issue in Origins too, but it's not the main plot in Origins.

so the Templar fanatic trying to tranquil the innocent mage woman is not showing? Or the increasing number of tranquil in Act III, including maybe Fenryil...or show the effects that traquilization has on a being, like Ander's first quest.

Nevermind the rite of annulment....

Which is all destroyed by the fact that Templars don't react to Blood Magic in their face.

The game contradicts on itself in a major way, it shows in some cases, then shows the opposite in other cases.

Best case scenario, you accept Hawke has plot armor. Worst case scenario, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. There are also other cases of this, like when you can warn Cullen of Anders.

In both cases, it's a case of telling, but not showing.

almost every RPG is guilty of inconsistancies....look at Fallout New Vegas...a female can work for Caesar's Legion although women are used mostly for slave labor and rape toys for Legionaries. Why would a woman work for a faction that destroy's women's rights?

Very rare that you would use blood magic near a templar you don't kill by the way.

Because of coercion? Because they were enslaved? Or maybe because if they don't they will kill her. Why did the Khans work for the Legion even when the Legion had eventually destroyed all individual tribes made them slaves and integrated them into their Legion? Also the Legion generally don't associate with outsiders anyway unless they have some sort of special interests for them.

I've been reading your argument, and other peoples arguments against yours. When you offer a valid point and it gets refuted by another valid point, you seem to completely ignore what they just said and further try to strengthen your argument by even going off-topic sometimes. It seems like you don't care about other peoples opinions or arguments, you just want to try and prove that you're right and we're all wrong.

The way DA2 handles it's main characters was terrible. Especially with party members, not only could you not "role-play" and interact with them when ever you feel like but most of the characters in DA2 sucked. Really the only character I liked in the story was Varric, and what sucked is that I couldn't get to know him better at my chosing but instead I had to advance the plot to find out more about him.

It's was pretty stupid in my opinion. But we're all entitled to our opinions here, and I firmly believe that DA2 sucked all the way around.

Modifié par Soilborn88, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:28 .