320 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

DreGregoire wrote...

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.

Thats not what I mean, I mean the next conversation does not occur until after a mission is beaten (and relationship does play a role too). Its Bioware formula. It was the same in their other games, KOTOR and both Mass Effects especially.

DAII conversations happen no matter what, but the tone of the conversations can be different based on friendship or rivalry.

The only characters in DAO that can develop more significantly are Alistair and Leliana through story means (as you can harden them) and Morrigan when romanced. All the rest only develop slightly and most of their development takes place before they join up.

And Leliana's development in the main game is nowhere near the level of development that she gets in her DLC.

[Tirfan]

No, I did not hear any of those conversations because of I guess, bugs & friendship/rivalry punishing me for not metagaming. umm.. I saw no reason for my Hawke to have any interraction with Aveline after getting to Kirkwall? How is she necessary for the quest Arishok, just have the viscount tell us that the captain of the guard has requested Hawke, because of his relations to the Qunari, to try and handle the elf-converts.

And no, I don't want "bioware-formula" I just, because sometimes you can't have both worlds, prefer the "bioware-formula"-characters over the one-dimensional characters we got in DA2.

[txgoldrush]

Tirfan wrote...

No, I did not hear any of those conversations because of I guess, bugs & friendship/rivalry punishing me for not metagaming. umm.. I saw no reason for my Hawke to have any interraction with Aveline after getting to Kirkwall? How is she necessary for the quest Arishok, just have the viscount tell us that the captain of the guard has requested Hawke, because of his relations to the Qunari, to try and handle the elf-converts.

And no, I don't want "bioware-formula" I just, because sometimes you can't have both worlds, prefer the "bioware-formula"-characters over the one-dimensional characters we got in DA2.

other way around, DAII has one of the most multidimensional casts in Bioware's history. It feels like more of an Obsidian cast than a Bioware one. Its DAO that had one or mostly two dimensional characters.

No, Aveliene is required because its due to her guards actions under her command as captain of the guard that sets up the elf convert situation in the first place.

The conversations are quite different if their friends or rivals....especially the Questioning Beliefs quests.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:08 .

[Addai]

txgoldrush wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

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

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Like start "DAII sucks" threads.

Those are started by many people, and I've never started a single one.  Meanwhile you've got quite a collection going.

That's really all there is to say here, as your fanboyism is simply too ridiculous to address seriously.

[Tirfan]

Okay, whatever, I'll give up, if you consider characters who have only one point of interest and who only ever talk about that one thing to be multi-dimensional, I can't change it. Aand no? It would have happened no matter who was the captain of the guard, Aveline could have died before we reached Kirkwall and it would have altered the plot none.

[txgoldrush]

Addai67 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

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

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Like start "DAII sucks" threads.

Those are started by many people, and I've never started a single one.  Meanwhile you've got quite a collection going.

That's really all there is to say here, as your fanboyism is simply too ridiculous to address seriously.

am I a DAII fanboy? No.....its an 8.5 game to me. Its far from perfect and it was rushed but its no way a horrible game. The Witcher 2 and Tactics Ogre easily trounce DAII, however, I think DAO is way overrated and does not push the genre forward at all. At least DAII makes an attempt to.

[txgoldrush]

Tirfan wrote...

Okay, whatever, I'll give up, if you consider characters who have only one point of interest and who only ever talk about that one thing to be multi-dimensional, I can't change it. Aand no? It would have happened no matter who was the captain of the guard, Aveline could have died before we reached Kirkwall and it would have altered the plot none.

If Aveline died in Act I, the guards would have probably arrested you as she had them look the other way. Her presence allows you to do what you do without serious legal trouble.

Yes, their quests deal in one thing, however so does every character driven quests in an RPG, however, their personalities are much more complex than the characters in Origins. And they DO talk about more than just one thing.

[DreGregoire]

txgoldrush wrote...

Thats not what I mean, I mean the next conversation does not occur until after a mission is beaten (and relationship does play a role too). Its Bioware formula. It was the same in their other games, KOTOR and both Mass Effects especially.

The only characters in DAO that can develop more significantly are Alistair and Leliana through story means (as you can harden them) and Morrigan when romanced. All the rest only develop slightly and most of their development takes place before they join up.

And Leliana's development in the main game is nowhere near the level of development that she gets in her DLC.

In DAO you can have conversations at any point in the game and you are right in that certain conversations only happen after certain events (events not missions, like entering a new area, DA2 has this too) the only conversations that hold off until you have completed a quest are the ones that you decide to complete at a companions request, these are the companion quests. (They have the same system for companion quests in DA2 that they have in DAO, complete the quest and you get a conversation about it.) If you have a low enough relationship score some companion quests won't be activated in DAO, or if you choose not to converse with a companion you get nowhere. You can ignore missions in DA2 too if you want. 

It's true that Alistair and Leliana can go through many changes; however, Zevran, Sten, Wynne, and even Morrigan go through significant (this is a subjective term) changes based on your positive interaction with them; even Oghren does to a certain extent.

I don't think the companions in the two games are handled differently enough to say they are different systems. The changes are there. Like being unable to just talk to the companion any old place and we were told in previous threads, that the reason they made the change is because the DA2 systems environment made it too difficult to allow for it.

Edit: And of course the different relationship tracker

Modifié par DreGregoire, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:24 .

[xkg]

I agree with the two of you guys here.
Those 2 quotes are perfect sum up of what OP is doing here.
Of course as always it is jut my opinion.

Addai67 wrote...
So this is what you do, OP? Start DA2 > DAO threads?
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

Soilborn88 wrote...
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.

[Aaleel]

I actually liked the way DA:O handled it's characters.

I liked how you could harden Alistar so that he wasn't a door mat anymore, and looked out for himself finally putting him on the throne.

I liked how you could harden Leliana or reassure her faith.

I liked how Morrigan was a ***** for a lot of the game, and slowly opened up throughout the game whether you romanced her or even played as a female. By the end of the game when you see her softer side and she looks like she's about to cry because she never thought she would have someone she could call a friend. I know it's mushy but I liked it.

I even liked Sten a lot. He started the game having no respect for you, thinking that women could not be warriors. Asking you how to plan to win, making you assert yourself as leader to gain respect, until he eventually got to the point where he was willing to follow you into whatever might come.

People changed through their relationships with you, became better people for knowing you.

In DA2, Isabella was the only one I really felt changed due to our friendship. When she said she was sailing away but only turned around and came back because of your influence on her.

But someone like Merrill, she was a naive, ditzy character at the start and after tears of fighting seeing numerous cases of blood magic, she was still the same naive, ditzy person.

No one really changed for knowing you, or having a friendship outside of that. Could you make Andres less militant, Fenris curve his hatred for mages, make Merrill more worldly?

The way the characters were handled like most other differences between the games is subjective.

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:25 .

[txgoldrush]

DreGregoire wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Thats not what I mean, I mean the next conversation does not occur until after a mission is beaten (and relationship does play a role too). Its Bioware formula. It was the same in their other games, KOTOR and both Mass Effects especially.

The only characters in DAO that can develop more significantly are Alistair and Leliana through story means (as you can harden them) and Morrigan when romanced. All the rest only develop slightly and most of their development takes place before they join up.

And Leliana's development in the main game is nowhere near the level of development that she gets in her DLC.

In DAO you can have conversations at any point in the game and you are right in that certain conversations only happen after certain events (events not missions, like entering a new area, DA2 has this too) the only conversations that hold off until you have completed a quest are the ones that you decide to complete at a companions request, these are the companion quests. (They have the same system for companion quests in DA2 that they have in DAO, complete the quest and you get a conversation about it.) If you have a low enough relationship score some companion quests won't be activated in DAO, or if you choose not to converse with a companion you get nowhere. You can ignore missions in DA2 too if you want. 

It's true that Alistair and Leliana can go through many changes; however, Zevran, Sten, Wynne, and even Morrigan go through significant (this is a subjective term) changes based on your positive interaction with them; even Oghren does to a certain extent.

I don't think the companions in the two games are handled differently enough to say they are different systems. The changes are there. Like being unable to just talk to the companion any old place and we were told in previous posts, that the reason they made the change is because the DA2 systems environment made it too difficult to allow for it.

In DAO and DAO:A, characters have one minor character quest, in DAII, they have three significant quests each with the exception of the sibling who has one. Thats a huge difference as far as character development and character intergration into the plot is concerned.

Zervan, Sten, Wynne, and Morrigan barely change, it feels more at they are nearly at the end of the character development more than seeing their full character development. All you are doing is closing their chapters. DAO only gives you the finish of the character development. And actually, Awakenings Nataniel Howe develops far more than most Origins characters, because his character fully develops.

Really, only Leliana having a character backstory DLC is actually disappointing. Instead we had the dumb darkspawn and Golem of Agramak (whatever) DLCs. Because of this, Leliana is EASILY the deepest of the Origins cast.

[blothulfur]

I preferred Sten and the challenging uphill struggle to gain his approval through long debates, bloodshed and firm leadership than the cutesy crap I had to endure from most of the rise to apathy crew. Aveline was a fine companion, the rest especially princess monotoney bethany i'd happily sell for spare parts to the bloke who did hawkemums plastic surgery and for some reason I was stuck with all of them after recruitment until lategame they just would not leave whatever i did.

Really bloody weak, I was missing five of the main crew at the end of origins DA2 was a backstep in the companion area if you ask me. Mind you none of the companion are as pathetic as the kirkwall janitor hawke himself so that's one thing going for them.

[txgoldrush]

Aaleel wrote...

I actually liked the way DA:O handled it's characters.

I liked how you could harden Alistar so that he wasn't a door mat anymore, and looked out for himself finally putting him on the throne.

I liked how you could harden Leliana or reassure her faith.

I liked how Morrigan was a ***** for a lot of the game, and slowly opened up throughout the game whether you romanced her or even played as a female. By the end of the game when you see her softer side and she looks like she's about to cry because she never thought she would have someone she could call a friend. I know it's mushy but I liked it.

I even liked Sten a lot. He started the game having no respect for you, thinking that women could not be warriors. Asking you how to plan to win, making you assert yourself as leader to gain respect, until he eventually got to the point where he was willing to follow you into whatever might come.

People changed through their relationships with you, became better people for knowing you.

In DA2, Isabella was the only one I really felt changed due to our friendship. When she said she was sailing away but only turned around and came back because of your influence on her.

But someone like Merrill, she was a naive, ditzy character at the start and after tears of fighting seeing numerous cases of blood magic, she was still the same naive, ditzy person.

No one really changed for knowing you, or having a friendship outside of that. Could you make Andres less militant, Fenris curve his hatred for mages, make Merrill more worldly?

The way the characters were handled like most other differences between the games is subjective.

Merrill definitely can change due to her friendship with Hawke. She can even be made to realize that she was wrong all along AND SMASH HER MIRROR. Merrill is far less naive in th eend than she was in the beginning. She is actually the most fearful about the future in the end, which is the opposite of naive. Fenris can grow to respect a mage Hawke and while his position doesn't change, he is far less extreme and can be willing to join Hawke if he sides with the mages. Of all the main party members, only Anders is the most static character, but even his character darkens as the story continues. Notice how he still has a big sense of humour in Act I and gets along fine with everyone but Merril and Fenris, but in Act III, he gets along with nobody (not even Varric), loses the sense of humor, etc?

[Aaleel]

txgoldrush wrote...

Merrill definitely can change due to her friendship with Hawke. She can even be made to realize that she was wrong all along AND SMASH HER MIRROR. Merrill is far less naive in th eend than she was in the beginning. She is actually the most fearful about the future in the end, which is the opposite of naive. Fenris can grow to respect a mage Hawke and while his position doesn't change, he is far less extreme and can be willing to join Hawke if he sides with the mages. Of all the main party members, only Anders is the most static character, but even his character darkens as the story continues. Notice how he still has a big sense of humour in Act I and gets along fine with everyone but Merril and Fenris, but in Act III, he gets along with nobody (not even Varric), loses the sense of humor, etc?

I still remember the cutscene, which I think was later in the game where Merrill loses her trinket to Isabella, and says oh I think you cheated.  Isabella says of cource I cheated, people will cheat you, and you shouldn't bet things you aren't willing to lose.  I was just sitting there like WTH, this is the kind of interaction I should have been able to have to show her how things really are. 

This is what I mean by Naive.  Or the party banter where she says she doesn't see why people say Kirkwall is dangerous she runs through alleys at night all the time, and Varric says I know daisy and it's costing me a fortune.  She doesn't even know the city is dangerous.

Isabella was the most developed character in DA2 to me because she goes through changes, and the way she comes across is really a facade anyway, and that scene showed it. 

But the rest of the characters, I really didn't see a whole lot of change.

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:48 .

[FJVP]

When was this declared a universal truth?

[HawkeN7x]

Addai67 wrote...

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

Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

imo you should mind your own business. the OP is right and we need more positive threads.

[HawkeN7x]

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.

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.

imo that's just your opinion bro.

[txgoldrush]

Aaleel wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Merrill definitely can change due to her friendship with Hawke. She can even be made to realize that she was wrong all along AND SMASH HER MIRROR. Merrill is far less naive in th eend than she was in the beginning. She is actually the most fearful about the future in the end, which is the opposite of naive. Fenris can grow to respect a mage Hawke and while his position doesn't change, he is far less extreme and can be willing to join Hawke if he sides with the mages. Of all the main party members, only Anders is the most static character, but even his character darkens as the story continues. Notice how he still has a big sense of humour in Act I and gets along fine with everyone but Merril and Fenris, but in Act III, he gets along with nobody (not even Varric), loses the sense of humor, etc?

I still remember the cutscene, which I think was later in the game where Merrill loses her trinket to Isabella, and says oh I think you cheated.  Isabella says of cource I cheated, people will cheat you, and you shouldn't bet things you aren't willing to lose.  I was just sitting there like WTH, this is the kind of interaction I should have been able to have to show her how things really are. 

Isabella was the most developed character in DA2 to me because she goes through changes, and the way she comes across is really a facade anyway, and that scene showed it. 

But the rest of the characters, I really didn't see a whole lot of change.

Merril does become more worldly...look at her tone in Act III in regards to the big picture. She is the only one to really think not everything is going to be alright at the end. She is the one most fearful about the upcoming uncertainity. Look at her final conversation, Hawke can calm her as she dreads the future. In fact she is far less naive than the extremists who think everything will go their way. And in Act III, she can make Anders look naive.

Look at Anders dialogue with Varric, notice by Act III he no longer wants to hear Varric's jokes. Ander's character deteroiates as the game goes along. He becomes way more moody and vindictive. His character changes and develops as well (in the opposite direction than say Isabela).

[DreGregoire]

txgoldrush wrote...


In DAO and DAO:A, characters have one minor character quest, in DAII, they have three significant quests each with the exception of the sibling who has one. Thats a huge difference as far as character development and character intergration into the plot is concerned.

Zervan, Sten, Wynne, and Morrigan barely change, it feels more at they are nearly at the end of the character development more than seeing their full character development. All you are doing is closing their chapters. DAO only gives you the finish of the character development. And actually, Awakenings Nataniel Howe develops far more than most Origins characters, because his character fully develops.

Really, only Leliana having a character backstory DLC is actually disappointing. Because of this, Leliana is EASILY the deepest of the Origins cast.

You keep using subjective terms, the point some people are trying to get across to you is that it's your own opinion and I don't happen to agree. I've played through origins far more than DA2 so I admit to not knowing how people react if you are a total and absolute hard case, but in origins I know exactly how each character develops based on your conversations with them and if you chose to help them in their huge all important personal quest.

I never experienced this level of development in DA2. If you don't choose to help Anders in DA2 he still does what he's going to do; that's not development. If you don't help Aveline (removed due to spoiler) but she's still Aveline. Maybe I played it differently than you did *shrugs*

Modifié par DreGregoire, 02 juillet 2011 - 08:47 .

[txgoldrush]

DreGregoire wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


In DAO and DAO:A, characters have one minor character quest, in DAII, they have three significant quests each with the exception of the sibling who has one. Thats a huge difference as far as character development and character intergration into the plot is concerned.

Zervan, Sten, Wynne, and Morrigan barely change, it feels more at they are nearly at the end of the character development more than seeing their full character development. All you are doing is closing their chapters. DAO only gives you the finish of the character development. And actually, Awakenings Nataniel Howe develops far more than most Origins characters, because his character fully develops.

Really, only Leliana having a character backstory DLC is actually disappointing. Because of this, Leliana is EASILY the deepest of the Origins cast.

You keep using subjective terms, the point some people are trying to get across to you is that it's your own opinion and I don't happen to agree. I've played through origins far more than DA2 so I admit to not knowing how people react if you are a total and absolute hard case, but in origins I know exactly how each character develops based on your conversations with them and if you chose to help them in their huge all important personal quest.

I never experienced this level of development in DA2. If you don't choose to help Anders in DA2 he still does what he's going to do; that's not development. If you don't help Aveline she won't have a husband at the end but she's still Aveline. Maybe I played it differently than you did *shrugs*

And when is Anders doing what he is going to do bad? Really Anders DOES develop as a character, its just not from the players actions, like I said, his character deterioates from the joky Act I character to the mopey Act III character that no longer gets along with anyone. And the party banter does show character development.

I have always done The Long Road, Aveline's Act II quest, but the official guide suggests that she has an alternate Favor and Fault quest if The Long Road was not done. If she marries Donnic, she is accused of coddling the men, if she doesn't, she is accused of being too hard on them. Obviously Donnic has an influence on her and keeps her more level.

[DreGregoire]

txgoldrush wrote...

Look at Anders dialogue with Varric, notice by Act III he no longer wants to hear Varric's jokes. Ander's character deteroiates as the game goes along. He becomes way more moody and vindictive. His character changes and develops as well (in the opposite direction than say Isabela).

You do know that this isn't how it played out for everybody right? That aside even if he is grumpfest 101 or my pc's bff at the end of the game he still goes through with his plan, he still becomes the destroyer of the chantry.

[DreGregoire]

txgoldrush wrote...

And when is Anders doing what he is going to do bad? Really Anders DOES develop as a character, its just not from the players actions, like I said, his character deterioates from the joky Act I character to the mopey Act III character that no longer gets along with anyone. And the party banter does show character development.

I have always done The Long Road, Aveline's Act II quest, but the official guide suggests that she has an alternate Favor and Fault quest if The Long Road was not done. If she marries Donnic, she is accused of coddling the men, if she doesn't, she is accused of being too hard on them. Obviously Donnic has an influence on her and keeps her more level.

I never said it was bad or good. I answered your Anders decline in character question one up.

Aveline was a hard case from day one so if she remains so she has not changed and if she's with the man she is still a hard case with the soldiers but is seen as favoring him. How is that development? She's the same, but people just view her differently. She didn't change or develop

[txgoldrush]

DreGregoire wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Look at Anders dialogue with Varric, notice by Act III he no longer wants to hear Varric's jokes. Ander's character deteroiates as the game goes along. He becomes way more moody and vindictive. His character changes and develops as well (in the opposite direction than say Isabela).

You do know that this isn't how it played out for everybody right? That aside even if he is grumpfest 101 or my pc's bff at the end of the game he still goes through with his plan, he still becomes the destroyer of the chantry.

Did I just say the character develops despite the players actions or influence? Not every character needs the player to influence his character development.

Yes he always goes through with his plans, but his character develops in a way in which he will always do it.

Oh and he always becomes moody in Act III, no matter how you play his quests.

[HowlHowl]

I have to agree and disagree. I very much like that DAII shows, but I don't see why that means it couldn't tell too. The telling makes RPG characters more full, it's what made DA:O characters more full. Why not do both? Have the long lines of dialogue to make the characters more, I don't know, characterized? And then SHOW us in the quest-oriented way DAII did.

[DreGregoire]

On Anders: (content deleted due to spoiler) then he could be construed as moody, but I haven't witnessed the extreme behavior you spoke of.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 02 juillet 2011 - 08:43 .