231 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Siansonea II wrote...

^Thirded. My favorite movie of all time is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Try doing a traditional story outline for that movie. Try finding a "protagonist" or a "plot". Go ahead, try.

I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Filament wrote...

I disagree with those who disagree with those who agree about disagreeing about agreeing to disagree. Agreeably.

I don't agree with that.

[Theagg]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

^Thirded. My favorite movie of all time is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Try doing a traditional story outline for that movie. Try finding a "protagonist" or a "plot". Go ahead, try.

I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Good one !

But there is a plot. Namely Aliens shape the destiny of lifeforms as an experiment. Humans investigate this and protagonist takes a metaphorical acid trip at the end.

And is reborn as a better human as a result of said trip. Very 60's message that.

Modifié par Theagg, 03 juillet 2011 - 12:24 .

[snfonseka]

Agree.

Modifié par snfonseka, 03 juillet 2011 - 12:31 .

[nightscrawl]

XX55XX wrote...

The bad writing.

...

In most stories, you have a pyramid-style chart which waxes upwards towards the climax, and ebbs downwards towards a conclusion. They taught this back in my eighth-grade English class seven years ago. My old English teacher says that most good stories follow such a diagram. DAO had such a pyramid as part of its narrative structure, and so did many of BioWare's past games.

Yet, DA2's narrative decided to flatline itself for some reason. So, did BioWare's writers achieve something revolutionary by not following the model set forth by centuries of writing tradition? No. There was no excitement, no sense of rising action, nor any sense of falling action. Hence, the game's visible lack of progression dulled any sort of suspense within the player, and perhaps even discouraged a few players from finishing the game. It was boring. Hardly entertaining. Many events in the game were abrupt, occurring without the support of any suspense or anticipation.

...

BioWare did include a conflict in DA2. Yes, they did. But it resembled more of a series of sub-plots more than anything else - not strong enough to stand on their own, and yet, BioWare allowed them to do so anyway.

What was Hawke fighting for? At first, it looked as if he was fighting for riches. Okay, cliched, but perfectly fine.

The sub-plot BioWare introduces in the first act is fine, but they forgot to include one thing: a dramatic arc of events that would keep a player engaged and willing to keep playing. In short, by creating a series of "kill-everything" quests that lead to even more killing in the Deep Roads, BioWare killed the dramatic element in the first act then and there. There was no attempt to mix things up or even introduce any complications that may have a player scratching his or her head. The feeble attempt at drama near the end of the act does little to salvage it. Again, this relates back to my first point of DA's lack of narrative progression.

... BioWare, through some pretty bad writing, managed to strip away the most important elements of a good story: drama. Without drama to keep the story moving and the player entertained, who would continue playing?

First of all, I find the tone of this whole piece very condescending with all of the "eighth grade English class" references. You can certainly be critical and voice your opinion and all of that, but phrasing arguments in an insulting way is bad writing in itself and not a good way to make a point.

Now that that's out of the way...

A few people on the forums have made the observation that while we did have a game called Dragon Age: Origins, DA2 is done much more as a prologue than anything else. The ending certainly shows that. In general, I tend to look at DA2 differently from many people. While it should have had all of the basic story elements to stand on its own, I don't really believe that it was designed to. Not only is it based on a foundation of knowledge about Thedas that we as players gained by playing DAO, but there will certainly be more story material in the future. In short, I tend to think that this was a conscious design decision on Bioware's part, rather than an error in judgement.

As far as sub-plots go, DAO had those in abundance. After the events at Ostagar you had to seek out the aid of four different groups (including Arl Eamon). Each group requires a significant time investment, even to the point of becoming "trapped" in the mage tower once you start on that portion of it. Regarding suspence, I felt in no hurry whatsoever to seek out these groups as quickly as possible in order to head off the darkspawn threat. Part of that stems from the fact that portions of the sub-plots (specifically with Orzammar) were really drawn out and almost a story in itself that it detracted from the urgency of the situation (at least for me).

The chief difference - and it really is a significant difference - between the stories of DAO and DA2 is that in DAO you know that everything you are doing is all leading up to the final confrontation with the darkspawn and the Archdemon. You know that after you watch Duncan's opening intro movie, and that fact is cemented after you play through Ostagar. In DA2 there is no such ultimate villain. You are a single individual who is participating in the events of a single city. Yes, the events you finally end up taking part in have a significant impact on Thedas as a whole, but that wasn't the goal when you started playing. Your goal when you started playing is to get your family to safety, and then to raise your family out of the gutter. That's all. Events happen to play out in such a way that lead to you becoming a major player in Kirkwall.

You ask what Hawke is fighting for. Hawke is fighting for himself. The greatest example of this is that from Act 2 onward, everyone goes to Hawke with their problems. Hawke does not try to independently help the Viscount in dealing with the Qunari, nor does he independently try to keep the templars and mages from killing each other. These groups all go to Hawke with their issues and make Hawke a part of the problem and (they hope) the solution. You might point to this fact as an example of bad writing, but making a name for themselves through actions is how unknown people rise out of obscurity. So it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

As far as the other parts of a story you mention, it's a bit different when it comes to interactive entertainment like a game, especially a game where there are levels of difficulty (as in level 1-24, not casual to nightmare). You have to have portions of the game designed to give players a good chunk of experience points in order to level, or a reason to go through such-and-such dungeon to kill a boss for better gear, as well as advance the plot. You will find these elements in all games no matter how good or bad the overall story is, because they must be there. However, they are not necessary in passive entertainment like books and film where you can advance from one story element to the next in a more natural fashion. There are people who rave about the original Final Fantasy games. Even with a compelling story, I find it hard to believe I'm the only person who wandered around a forested area a bit, fighting random encounters, for some extra exp before heading into a dungeon.

Finally, I did not find DAO boring the first time I played through it. I did not find DA2 boring the first time I played through that. Subsequent plays of both games have made some aspects of it tedious (I loathe going through the Brecillian forest and the blight flight prologue after so many times of each game), but that is to be expected.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 03 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .

[Cribbian]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Disagree. Most problems were caused by poor development time. Others were caused by design issues. The writing itself was fine.

[alex90c]

Disagree with the OP. Story concept was great, helluva lot of potential, just the execution was lacking.

[Spacelion]

Sure, I found some of the writing irksome, such as Isabela's Zevran 2.0 of a romance and Anders' lines, (''I lay awake all night ACHING for you'' - Oh God.) But most of it was fine, it was just a manner of executing stuff properly and effectively, that was what fell short. Alas...Napoleon-like development time, what can we do?

[Jabba L4]

The writing's not remarkable in the slightest, but I think it has more to do with the absurd limiations the team had to work with, as opposed to a complete lack of talent.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Some of the cringing moments of dialogue and lack thereof dialogue in certain situations that really needed to be touched upon; i think could have been remedied with more time.

The overall plot had good writing. I will admit that, but i still really dislike the story. The fact that the plotline is broken 3 times in the game makes it hard for me to relate to any kind of goal. I just generally don't like the overall execution of the plot, mostly because of the whole 3 Act thing. But that's just my opinion, not a condescension on the writing.

[Cutlasskiwi]

I disagree with OP. It felt like the story suffered a little due to shorter development time though.

[nightscrawl]

Spacelion wrote...

... and Anders' lines, (''I lay awake all night ACHING for you'' - Oh God.)

Yeah... some of his lines were pretty bad, and way too sappy for me. BUT he does have the best first kiss! XD

On the topic of romances (Merrill is the only one I haven't done), I think they did a nice job of making them different from each other. With Fenris and Isabella especially I found it interesting how the romance progression seemed to fit their personalities and also how you don't finally end up together with them until their major personal issues are resolved.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I agree, it is good but seems very cut, if that was for a deadline, EA/BioWare, please forget the deadline for DA3 and just give us a fantastic story, great writing, more playtime to finish it and less of it on the cutting room floor. I wouldn't mind if it got a bit more Sims like in the social and community aspects, give use something to do between battles, some down time we can actually play and make something interesting and fun of

[dheer]

No, I don't think it's what killed the game. Some poor design choices and not enough time for development were a much greater factor.

If I had to point to something about the writing, it'd be that it was uneven. Act 1 took far too long and tended to drag but wasn't primarily the writing's fault. Act 2 was really well written, I believe. It was certainly the highlight of the game for me. Act 3 was so poorly executed it may have been the cause for many to sour on the game as a whole.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
But is DA2 really any different than your tried and true rags to riches type story?

Execution aside, yeah. Hawke (potentially) loses everything in the end and Champion becomes a meaningless title (especially if you have a Hawke that sides with the mages in Act IIII).

Like I said: DA2's real problem is that it was exactly like DA:O.

[Alex Kershaw]

I disagree. In fact, I think the writing saved the game from being an utter failure; the fact that the game managed to get an 82/100 metacritic score in Mike Laidlaw's ridiculous idea of having the game take place in one city with almost no plot at all is a credit to the writers.

The companions were the best part of the game. While they weren't as deep as the DAO or ME characters, they were at least better than any non-Bioware game out there, which can't be said for any other aspect of the game. The companion quests were by far better than all the others and I think it's a credit to the writers that despite the game being mediocre, I'll remember every DA2 character for years and years and years to come.

I think that the main issue with DA2 was Kirkwall. I've gone back and played DAO and now am playing through the Witcher, and they get it completely right. You make locations (eg, Lothering) and then place quests inside those locations. For example, Lothering has maybe 10 side quests or so inside the village. They made a village, a Chantry, an inn and some surrounding areas, and then added those side quests.

In DA2, they can't do that because of the one location, so they do it the other way around. They write quests, then create locations for those quests, and that's where the feeling of simply doing a series of side quests in repeated areas came from.

Of course, the second problem was the fact that the game didn't have a plot, but again, that was Laidlaw's decision as Gaider cleared up the other week.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:26 .

[MorrigansLove]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I disagree. In fact, I think the writing saved the game from being an utter failure; the fact that the game managed to get an 82/100 metacritic score in Mike Laidlaw's ridiculous idea of having the game take place in one city with almost no plot at all is a credit to the writers.

The companions were the best part of the game. While they weren't as deep as the DAO or ME characters, they were at least better than any non-Bioware game out there, which can't be said for any other aspect of the game. The companion quests were by far better than all the others and I think it's a credit to the writers that despite the game being mediocre, I'll remember every DA2 character for years and years and years to come.

I think that the main issue with DA2 was Kirkwall. I've gone back and played DAO and now am playing through the Witcher, and they get it completely right. You make locations (eg, Lothering) and then place quests inside those locations. For example, Lothering has maybe 10 side quests or so inside the village. They made a village, a Chantry, an inn and some surrounding areas, and then added those side quests.

In DA2, they can't do that because of the one location, so they do it the other way around. They write quests, then create locations for those quests, and that's where the feeling of simply doing a series of side quests in repeated areas came from.

Of course, the second problem was the fact that the game didn't have a plot, but again, that was Laidlaw's decision as Gaider cleared up the other week.

Link, please?

[Apollo Starflare]

ipgd wrote...

I disagree. I didn't think it was boring. I was interested in the story, and found it dramatic.

Not all narratives must adhere to a strict eighth grade story format.

I concur.

I think the only criticism I could bring against the writing in DA2 offhand would be the same criticism I have for most aspects of DA2: There are places where it felt rushed. That is mostly referring to the plot of course, and I do find myself wondering how much of the script potentially got cut, but it's really the only area I could fault the writing.

Even then it suffers from that a lot less than some other aspects of the game, and much of the writing is handled so well that it eclipses any bits that lack polish.

Naturally the characters and banter take the crown, but I thought the writing was the one thing that really lived up to the potential of DA2's plot for the most part.

[Tirfan]

I kind of agree, for me the first thing that started killing the game was Hawke and the fact that I could not RP.. then I tried enjoying the combat, which didn't work out (I hate it so much) and then at when the game ended my feeling was pretty much "This is it? I endured the game for this? Why wasn't the act1 cut altogether and why instead of having Meredith & Orsino go trough some character development, put that go-crazy-Idol in this game?" And don't get me started on companion-characters and how bad they & their dialogue was..

That the storyline was bad was more like the final straw, I had truly hoped that it to be the one thing that would redeem this game for me but no.

[Areksu]

I'm one of the people who complains the most about the storyline, but it doesn't kill the game. It leaves itself in the shadow of Dragon Age: Origins fully fleshed out, multi-path storyline, but there is more to a game than just its story. Even though it gives less storyline options and has some definite plot holes, the companions are still memorable, the gameplay feels solid (although a tactical overhead view would be a nice addition), and the pacing seems spot on.

Modifié par Areksu, 03 juillet 2011 - 03:23 .

[Erode_The_Soul]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The execution of said writing no doubt left a lot to be desired, but, for me, the writing itself is the only thing that elevated this game past "mediocre."

[Huntress]

Zeevico wrote...

The game would be stronger with better writing, but the tedious and repetitious combat doesn't help either.

You remind me of how people saw the deeproad and the Fade in DAO.

yes, very Long, very tediuous and repetitious combat, 90% of the mobs looked all the same, but much better looking than any in DA2 tho.

Thas why the deeproad in DA2 is 17 minutes long and the fade 23 minutes or so.

Modifié par Huntress, 03 juillet 2011 - 03:47 .

[Midz]

Disagree

[sphinxess]

Disagree. The companion stories were great - would like a better reaction when you click on a companion though