320 réponses à ce sujet

[sleepyowlet]

Tirfan wrote...

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.

I happen to absolutely agree with you there. The Warden had some choice in the matter (Redcliffe, Dalish elves, etc.) there were quite a few instances when the opponents yielded and you could spare them or not. This is actually one of the reasons I disconnected emotionally from Hawke (funny, I tend to write "I" much more often when writing about one of my Wardens) - because her behaviour made me feel more and more like a serial-killer (mass murderer after act 3). Yes I know that these things are only a conglomeration of polygons with a texture painted over, but as soon as I start role-playing, they become real people to my character, and thus to me. And I prefer to play characters who don't like killing. They will, if they must, but they don't like it, and they usually try to find another way.

Besides, in Deus Ex it was possible to get through the game without firing one single bullet. *That* is perfectly implemented player choice! Give me a task, and different ways of solving it, and I'll happily go questing for hours. Again and again.
In DA2 these things were only possible, if you happened to have the right companion with you. That sucked big time - I felt like I was forced to meta-game whenever I wanted to avoid bloodshed.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

sleepyowlet wrote...

Give me a task, and different ways of solving it, and I'll happily go questing for hours. Again and again.

Oh God, a million times this. That's a big reason why I replay games. "I wonder what would've happened if I did x instead of y?"

To be fair though, a lot of people felt like they were doing this with Hawke, due to the different personalities.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 12:58 .

[alex90c]

mrcrusty wrote...

sleepyowlet wrote...

Give me a task, and different ways of solving it, and I'll happily go questing for hours. Again and again.

Oh God, a million times this. That's a big reason why I replay games. "I wonder what would've happened if I did x instead of y?"

To be fair though, a lot of people felt like they were doing this with Hawke, due to the different personalities.

Another good thing would be not just getting told where everything is with quest markers. This is why playing ME2 was a nice surprise to me; I actually had to pay attention to what people were saying in conversations so I'd know where to look, and then the one time I didn't I had to go through every single floor of the Citadel to find what I was looking for. Or there's Fable 3 where you have to find these four bones of a wolf, and while you're guided by the trail to two of them, you have to search for the other two yourself without giant quest markers over them (though you'll know when you've found it, there were like ghost soldiers digging for them too).

Or bringing it back to Dragon Age, you need to rouse support for your cause in the Landsmeet, and rather than being told 'do X, Y and Z' you're pretty much vaguely told what you need to do and then you can just go in to the Alienage and figure out what's going on (though i think the attack on Teryn Howe's estate is a main quest, I can't quite remember).

[sleepyowlet]

mrcrusty wrote...

sleepyowlet wrote...

Give me a task, and different ways of solving it, and I'll happily go questing for hours. Again and again.

Oh God, a million times this. That's a big reason why I replay games. "I wonder what would've happened if I did x instead of y?"

To be fair though, a lot of people felt like they were doing this with Hawke, due to the different personalities.

Oh? To me it always felt like, get quest, go kill stuff, go home, get quest reward. With optional McGuffin. I grew tired of it by the end of act one, and it's one of the main reasons I only finished one playthrough (my second Hawke was stuck in act 2 when I deinstalled the game. I lost any interest in playing her when she started trolling random people. Nothing against a funny/sarcastic personality, but I'd like to decide for myself who to troll and when, thank you very much).

[whykikyouwhy]

alex90c wrote...

Another good thing would be not just getting told where everything is with quest markers. This is why playing ME2 was a nice surprise to me; I actually had to pay attention to what people were saying in conversations so I'd know where to look, and then the one time I didn't I had to go through every single floor of the Citadel to find what I was looking for. Or there's Fable 3 where you have to find these four bones of a wolf, and while you're guided by the trail to two of them, you have to search for the other two yourself without giant quest markers over them (though you'll know when you've found it, there were like ghost soldiers digging for them too).

Or bringing it back to Dragon Age, you need to rouse support for your cause in the Landsmeet, and rather than being told 'do X, Y and Z' you're pretty much vaguely told what you need to do and then you can just go in to the Alienage and figure out what's going on (though i think the attack on Teryn Howe's estate is a main quest, I can't quite remember).

I think you can turn the quest markers off in DA2. Not entirely certain as I'm not on my main PC right now, but I thought is was one of the Interface options.

I think DA:O's story lent more to investigative type of quests/plot arcs, whereas DA2 was more centralized to things already happening in Kirkwall that Hawke didn't so much have to dig deep into but react to the dominoes set in motion. And that grated on a lot of people (though I will say that I didn't care for the whole "day at court" bit in Awakening). I think a healthy dose of both would be good, but it would depend on how it would fit with the overall story - what makes sense to the underlying plot.

[alex90c]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Another good thing would be not just getting told where everything is with quest markers. This is why playing ME2 was a nice surprise to me; I actually had to pay attention to what people were saying in conversations so I'd know where to look, and then the one time I didn't I had to go through every single floor of the Citadel to find what I was looking for. Or there's Fable 3 where you have to find these four bones of a wolf, and while you're guided by the trail to two of them, you have to search for the other two yourself without giant quest markers over them (though you'll know when you've found it, there were like ghost soldiers digging for them too).

Or bringing it back to Dragon Age, you need to rouse support for your cause in the Landsmeet, and rather than being told 'do X, Y and Z' you're pretty much vaguely told what you need to do and then you can just go in to the Alienage and figure out what's going on (though i think the attack on Teryn Howe's estate is a main quest, I can't quite remember).

I think you can turn the quest markers off in DA2. Not entirely certain as I'm not on my main PC right now, but I thought is was one of the Interface options.

I think DA:O's story lent more to investigative type of quests/plot arcs, whereas DA2 was more centralized to things already happening in Kirkwall that Hawke didn't so much have to dig deep into but react to the dominoes set in motion. And that grated on a lot of people (though I will say that I didn't care for the whole "day at court" bit in Awakening). I think a healthy dose of both would be good, but it would depend on how it would fit with the overall story - what makes sense to the underlying plot.

I suppose it's a bit of a catch-22 for me. The quest markers make it feel like the game's holding my hand, and yet the game is so repetitive anyway it's better to have them there so I can just get a quest done with

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

txgoldrush wrote...

Here is how DAO handles its characters (and most Bioware and Obsidian games as well).

Meet and recruit character....

At base:

Wanna hear about my past.......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after a mission is done)

Wanna hear more about my past......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after next mission is done)

wanna hear about my past and do me a favor? Yep

(after favor is done)

thank you, your a pal (or my love)...(character develops slightly)

end game speech

----

The problem with DAO characters is all their interesting things are done in the past. Not only does this make DAO's characters even more one or two dimensional, it makes them just there. Unlike past Bioware games, they play no role in the plot outside of Morrigan (barely) and Alistair (unless you count Loghain). All we get is stories that we don't see or experience...with only Leliana being the exception (only if you buy her DLC).

DAII characters may not have as deep backstories as Origin characters, at least all their interesting things you get to experience...you get to experience their growth, their trials, and their struggles....almost every character plays a role in the plot as well, especially Varric, Aveline, Isabela, and Anders. Instead of chatting with a character at base camp, you go on personal quests with them, then at set points you learn more about them. Its much better than just hearing it throigh boring talks at base. Also, their depth comes out at appropriate times in the story...such as Fenris's past, Varric's relationship with his brother, or Aveline's father. Gifts also lead to them telling more about themselves. The system is way more organic, makes the characters more multidimensional, and allow for more powerful and distinct character development (along with the superior but imperfect friendship/rivalry system). Could the characters use more backstory and depth when or if the format is used again? Yes. But the same ol Bioware formulas used in games past, like DAO, is way more flawed, and must go away.

Regarding characters: DAII SHOWS, DAO just TELLS.

endlessvideo.com/watch


You know if you have to fight this hard to defend a game, their is a very high possibility your WRONG

Modifié par DinoSteve, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:01 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To be fair, the NPC markers were there in Origins too. In a game like Dragon Age (either one), where the maps are relatively linear anyway, it seems a bit like a redundant feature, to be honest. I mean, it's not like you can really get lost in the maps and have no idea where to go. Especially in Dragon Age 2 since you're in the one city. It makes a little more sense in Origins since there are quests that take you all over the place. But still.

My ideal solution would be to halve what Dragon Age 2 is doing. Have quest markers indicating which quests can be completed in which areas, if any are available, but once in the actual map, remove quest and NPC markers from the equation.

That way, there's handholding, but it's not to the point where it feels slightly condescending.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:02 .

[whykikyouwhy]

alex90c wrote...

I suppose it's a bit of a catch-22 for me. The quest markers make it feel like the game's holding my hand, and yet the game is so repetitive anyway it's better to have them there so I can just get a quest done with

Well, I recall feeling like quests were dragging on and on in the Wounded Coast area - just a lot of sand and surf. Pretty sand and surf, mind you, but there was a lot of running around. I was thankful for the quest markers there though.

I guess I'm in the minority about the repetitive feel of the game. Sure there were recycled environments, but those didn't bother me so much since I was concerned more with the story - with why Hawke was where she was. I still found myself appreciative of some of the details in the various locations - clouds moving here, torches flickering there. And the overall going back and forth in and out of Kirkwall for 3 acts - ok, maybe that's repetitive in some regard, but I think that's just due to the microcosm of Hawke's world. The Warden had more area to play in, so to speak - a much broader chunk of Thedas. With DA2 being Kirkwall-central, you wind up going down the same roads multiple times. Not bad, in my book (going back to making sense with the story), but I can see where that might get old for some.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think for a lot of people, it's not necessarily Kirkwall per se, though Kirkwall was very static and comatose as it was. It was more about the game presenting you with unique locations as far as the story went, but in reality, it was the exact same map, except with a closed door somewhere and an opened one somewhere else.

If Kirkwall was more lively, and locations that were presented as unique were actually unique, I think a lot of people wouldn't mind nearly as much as spending time in only one geographical area for most of the game.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:16 .

[whykikyouwhy]

mrcrusty wrote...

I think for a lot of people, it's not necessarily Kirkwall per se, though Kirkwall was very static and comatose as it was. It was more about the game presenting you with unique locations as far as the story went, but in reality, it was the exact same map, except with a closed door somewhere and an opened one somewhere else.

If Kirkwall was more lively, and locations that were presented as unique were actually unique, I think a lot of people wouldn't mind nearly as much as spending time in only one geographical area for most of the game.

I see your point and agree, but...those closed doors are key elements! I mean...what lies behind them? Sure, this house is formed from the same blueprint as that last house, but...the doors!!! They hide mysteries! 

[sleepyowlet]

mrcrusty wrote...

I think for a lot of people, it's not necessarily Kirkwall per se, though Kirkwall was very static and comatose as it was. It was more about the game presenting you with unique locations as far as the story went, but in reality, it was the exact same map, except with a closed door somewhere and an opened one somewhere else.

If Kirkwall was more lively, and locations that were presented as unique were actually unique, I think a lot of people wouldn't mind nearly as much as spending time in only one geographical area for most of the game.

Especially if Kirkwall would actually change over the years. Perhaps the broken stairs getting repaired, the refugees leaving Darktown (I mean, Ferelden has been Blight-free for years, and those people *still* hang around down there? Please.) Then there might be new buildings now and again, new shops, the scenery people moving time and again or change their clothing... there's lots of stuff that could happen in the background that would make the city more alive. And then there are what, Hightown, Lowtown, Darktown, and the Gallows? *Denerim* alone felt like it had the same number of areas. I would have liked to see other parts of Kirkwall as well. Maybe they have a park stashed away somewhere? Other interesting places? Where are the cultural differences to Ferelden, other than saying "Serrah" instead of "Ser"?

I consider the place the story takes in almost a character itself - if the setting is colouful and alive, the story is so much more effective. But Kirkwall felt bland and boring to me - just like the rest of the characters.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

well the door to that ferelden shop in lowtown does change locations between act 1 and 2

Modifié par DinoSteve, 02 juillet 2011 - 02:48 .

[OdanUrr]

txgoldrush wrote...

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

Hyperbole: 

n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

This is why in the vast majority of my posts I try to write as neutrally as possible, for people tend to lash out at one another if you try to address things with a bit of humor. I may have exaggerated things a bit, but I'm not that far off the mark. Your premise was that "DA2 shows" while "DAO tells." Let's examine this.

Isabela is the only character who actually shows you she's changed with her actions (or not), while everyone else tells you things that you may or may not interpret as their character growing/evolving. Where's Anders showing us he wants to get rid of Justice, actually trying to redeem himself? (and I don't mean tricking you into believing he's a changed man) Where's Fenris showing us he understands not all mages are evil through some random act of kindness towards an unknown apostate? Deeds speak louder than a million words.

Furthermore, a lot of these character-development "epiphanies" come towards the end of the game, some at the very end of Act III. How is this any different from your companions' final words in DAO? And I'd like to remark it took them ten (that's 10) years (for some) to, at least, say they've changed. I would have figured that after a couple of years seeing Hawke do the right/wrong thing they might have formed the basis of an opinion. I won't go into the siblings since I've already admitted they have less-than-acceptable gameplay time.

The blue/red system. I argued it doesn't have an impact on your surroundings. You argued it has an impact on the blue/red bar. The two are not necessarily exclusive, you know? Should I amend it to, "it doesn't have any meaningful impact on your surroundings" then? Somehow, you mistook this to mean that I was unaware that your dialogue lines influence the blue/red bar of your companions. I am painfully aware of this fact. The point I'm trying to make, is that this influence over the blue/red bar of companions doesn't, in turn, influence what they do, how they act. Merrill will go through with her personal quest no matter what, same goes for Fenris, and same goes for Anders at the end of Act III. How come none of your deeds or words have an impact on the deeds of your companions? These are all characters that look up to Hawke in some measure. Therefore, Hawke's actions should have an impact on how they'll address their own issues. This is only achieved successfully as far as Isabela goes at the end of Act II.

I'm not arguing here that DAO does all of this or that it does it better, but that DA2 doesn't. By the way, next time, you might consider cutting down on the number of ">" signs. It's just as bad as using CAPS.

[element eater]

the above post dealsvery well with how i feel on the subject of friendship/roivalry  i was almost shocked when i found out merrils mission still had to transpire even when all game my hawke had said it was a bad idea and he didnt condone it. all the system does is determine companion reaction to hawke it generaly has no bearing on there character as a whole

txgoldrush wrote...
but then again DAII does give you what they did before at strategically appropriate times...

 
and thats exactly what i dont want from a companion this system makes them have little more substance then a mission briefing. then later a mission summary

Modifié par element eater, 02 juillet 2011 - 03:57 .

[Xalen]

This is worth repeating:

Filament wrote...
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.

At least three people in this thread provided evidence of how characters change during the game. I can accept the argument that these changes maybe not enough for 7 years, but dismissing them completely is indeed unfair.
But hey, ingnoring thigs is more fun! 

Modifié par Xalen, 02 juillet 2011 - 03:35 .

[Tirfan]

I have not ignored things - I just did not see any character development, Isabela does nothing differently and views nothing differently than in the start of the game - Merril does nothing differently in the endgame than she would do in the start of the game she still thinks exactly in the same way, Anders we've discussed already. Varric, well, Varric does not change is any way and still does things always in the same way and views things the same way. About Fenris I don't know, I have not even seen most of his dialogue I think. Aveline.. well she just stays the same and thinks about things in the exactly same way.

In the end, really, only thing that changes is how they perceive Hawke, and that is exactly the same as in Origins, but we don't really know anything about the companions, except their one point of interest, and how they do things. which is a lot less than in Origins.

I read the posts, I read the arguments, about for example, Merril realizing that not everyone wants to be helped, and thus not thinking she is always right, but this is not the case; she may acknowldge that not everyone wants to be helped, but she still thinks they are wrong AND she is right. And if I recall correctly she makes a remark about the Dalish not wanting to be helped by her really early in the game, so, she acknowldges it in the first mirror-dialogue, where we learn about her intentions to restore the mirror and it has nothing to do with character-development or friendship, just introduction of a plot-point and the only addittion to Merrils character.

But, seriously, whatever, more power to you who can see the character-development, I'll just hope we get characters that are not completely one dimensional for the next installment.

[por favor]

GodWood wrote...

...

But I like hearing about the characters pasts.
I'm getting to know them...


Is that not how getting to know people in real life works?

word

[txgoldrush]

Soilborn88 wrote...

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.

No, I did not change the subject...I just admit that DAII inconsistancies are common in almost every RPG. Inconsistancies are allowed because the game has to be playable, the question is how bad is it and how often.

Why is not being able to interact with them whenever you feel like it bad? Look at The Witcher 2...you can't just interact with your allies whenever you feel like it and get new info. Look at Ves, the only thing you really know of her backstory is how she came into Roche's unit, thats it. But what makes her an awesome character is HER ROLE IN THE PLOT.

In DAO, the only real character witha major significant role in the plot is Allistair with Morrigan playing a more minor role. The other characters are basically just talking codex entries that some you can bang thats it. Leliana, the best written character in the franchise along with Varric, suffers for this. Why does she not play any role in the plot? In fact, her DLC revealed a huge weakness about the characters of DAO. The interesting stuff, the character development stuff, has ALREADY HAPPENED. Comic fact, she plays a bigger role in DAII's plot than she ever does in DAO!!!!!! You can take out any DAO character except for Allistair and the plot would not change. In DAII, you cannot take out most characters without A) changing the plot or have the plot elements lose their meaning.

Bioware has a problem treating its characters like talking codex entries with DAO being the WORST offender. Look at KOTOR and KOTOR II. While KOTOR characters such as Carth, Jolee, and Bastila play major roles in the plot, the others just don't. In KOTOR II, the characters all play major roles in the plot, especially with the canonical TSLRM. Even HK47's decision plays a HUGE role in how the game ends. The first Mass Effect also had this problem (not as bad as DAO as some characters play roles in Virmire). Tali Zorah after recruited was really nothing more than a talking codex on Quarians. She was just there to flesh out the universe, nothing more. It was ME2 when she became a fantastic character and maybe Bioware's best. Why? Because of her role in the story.

RPG elitists whine all the time about the "direction" Bioware is going, but the characterization has gotten BETTER not worse. Jade Empire, ME2, and DA2 treat their characters as more than just talking codex entries, and as movers of the plot.

[Xalen]

Please, for the love of God, cut down pyramid quotes!

On topic - this

txgoldrush wrote...

Jade Empire, ME2, and DA2 treat their characters as more than just talking codex entries, and as movers of the plot.

is what I was trying to say here

[txgoldrush]

element eater wrote...

the above post dealsvery well with how i feel on the subject of friendship/roivalry i was almost shocked when i found out merrils mission still had to transpire even when all game my hawke had said it was a bad idea and he didnt condone it. all the system does is determine companion reaction to hawke it generaly has no bearing on there character as a whole

txgoldrush wrote...
but then again DAII does give you what they did before at strategically appropriate times...

and thats exactly what i dont want from a companion this system makes them have little more substance then a mission briefing. then later a mission summary

Merrill's Act II and III missions NEVER has to transpire...you can chose NOT to help her at all. And if you ignore some party member quests like Isabela and Fenris, they can EVEN LEAVE.

"and thats exactly what i dont want from a companion this system makes them have little more substance then a mission briefing. then later a mission summary"

better than a talking codex entry...look at the Witcher 2's characters, they give you key character development at key times as well, and they don't spill everything out in chunks like DAO or most Bioware characters do without anything going on.

[Tirfan]

Oh jeez, sometimes telling about something or implying something that has happened can be very effective, and really? You can't take out characters out of DA2? now I really want to know what you have been smoking & can I have the same stuff, only 3 characters have any plot meaning, Varric, Anders and Isabela, and you could drop Varric after act1 if not the framed narrative. I want the characters to have a history, why are they the persons they are today, of course it is nice if they play an actual role in the plot but, resources, resources.. I'd rather have walking codex-entries that are actual characters than empty shells that just do something to make the plot move forward.

[erynnar]

Tirfan wrote...

I have not ignored things - I just did not see any character development, Isabela does nothing differently and views nothing differently than in the start of the game - Merril does nothing differently in the endgame than she would do in the start of the game she still thinks exactly in the same way, Anders we've discussed already. Varric, well, Varric does not change is any way and still does things always in the same way and views things the same way. About Fenris I don't know, I have not even seen most of his dialogue I think. Aveline.. well she just stays the same and thinks about things in the exactly same way.

In the end, really, only thing that changes is how they perceive Hawke, and that is exactly the same as in Origins, but we don't really know anything about the companions, except their one point of interest, and how they do things. which is a lot less than in Origins.

I read the posts, I read the arguments, about for example, Merril realizing that not everyone wants to be helped, and thus not thinking she is always right, but this is not the case; she may acknowldge that not everyone wants to be helped, but she still thinks they are wrong AND she is right. And if I recall correctly she makes a remark about the Dalish not wanting to be helped by her really early in the game, so, she acknowldges it in the first mirror-dialogue, where we learn about her intentions to restore the mirror and it has nothing to do with character-development or friendship, just introduction of a plot-point and the only addittion to Merrils character.

But, seriously, whatever, more power to you who can see the character-development, I'll just hope we get characters that are not completely one dimensional for the next installment.

This^ And it may also have contributed to the feeling only two or three years had passed instead of ten. Sorry, but in 10 years time we all change. I look back at my thirty year old self, and I am not that person. DId the core of who I was stay the same? Mostly, but I had a strong personality (unlike Merrill) and a strong foundation. People do change and the changes may be subtle but they still add up to a different person.

[DreGregoire]

txgoldrush wrote...

Here is how DAO handles its characters
Meet and recruit character....

At base:

Wanna hear about my past.......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after a mission is done)

Wanna hear more about my past......blablablablablablablablabla...we'll talk later

(after next mission is done)

wanna hear about my past and do me a favor? Yep

(after favor is done)

thank you, your a pal (or my love)...(character develops slightly)

end game speech

----

Not all companion conversations are mission related in Dragon Age Origins like you say above, most are relationship related. Dragon Age II characters are mission related not relationship related. In Dragon Age Origins you can actually miss conversations if you have a low relationship score; whereas, in DA2 they happen no matter what.

I don't agree that the character's in DAO only develop slightly.

[txgoldrush]

Tirfan wrote...

Oh jeez, sometimes telling about something or implying something that has happened can be very effective, and really? You can't take out characters out of DA2? now I really want to know what you have been smoking & can I have the same stuff, only 3 characters have any plot meaning, Varric, Anders and Isabela, and you could drop Varric after act1 if not the framed narrative. I want the characters to have a history, why are they the persons they are today, of course it is nice if they play an actual role in the plot but, resources, resources.. I'd rather have walking codex-entries that are actual characters than empty shells that just do something to make the plot move forward.

You want Bioware formula...I want characters to have history too, but I want it handled in a more organic way instead of just talking codex entries. And DAII characters DO have hostory, they just don't reveal them until the appropriate time. What if Isabela revealed her relationship with the Arishok earlier? The plot would be hurt by it. Fenris does reveal about his past, so does Aveline, so does Sebastian, so does Varric...they are done in more of an in quest format than talks at base. Remember when Fenris talks about how he had to kill a tribe he befriended on his masters orders? or how Aveline's father died? The development is there, its just more organic.

Aveline plays a major role in the story, she is the closest one to Hawke and his or her family, NPC quests will notice her the most, will always console Hawke, and last but most, she is the final straw for the Arishok. Take her out and the scene would have to be completely rewritten.