231 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

MorrigansLove wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...
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?

I think he's referring to this interview which was published about one month ago but I think took place either prerelease or about as the game was being released in March:

Much has been made of the framed story in Dragon Age II. What was the inspiration for this addition, and how does it affect the experience of the game?

David Gaider:
The framed narrative was Mike’s idea, and the origin of it came from a desire to tell a story over a larger scope of time. In  the past, all our stories began at point x and you played in a linear  fashion through to the end. Having a larger time period to play with  allowed us to introduce long-term consequences to the player’s actions  in mid-game rather than at the end, and also have the concept of the  “unreliable narrator”—such as in The Usual Suspects where you’re not certain by the end of the tale whether the narrator was telling the truth.

Modifié par Brockololly, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:30 .

[Jabba L4]

Brockololly wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...
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?

I think he's referring to this interview which was published about one month ago but I think took place either prerelease or about as the game was being released in March:

Much has been made of the framed story in Dragon Age II. What was the inspiration for this addition, and how does it affect the experience of the game?

David Gaider:
The framed narrative was Mike’s idea, and the origin of it came from a desire to tell a story over a larger scope of time. In  the past, all our stories began at point x and you played in a linear  fashion through to the end. Having a larger time period to play with  allowed us to introduce long-term consequences to the player’s actions  in mid-game rather than at the end, and also have the concept of the  “unreliable narrator”—such as in The Usual Suspects where you’re not certain by the end of the tale whether the narrator was telling the truth.

L-long term... consequences? Just *what* could have he been possibly referring to?

[por favor]

The writing seemed a tad bit premature to me. I got the impression that it wasn't fully developed and I felt that the writing could have made a much bigger impact if only the writers were given more time.

Act III, imo, is a prime example of this.

[Merilsell]

Ahh yes, 'writing' in DA2. We have dismissed this claim.

I fondly remember some cringe-worthy dialogue where I felt like reading a badfic instead of playing a game. But to make it short and spare us all a wall of text: The intention was there, but it was badly executed. The writing screams rushed in capitalized letters.

Modifié par Merilsell, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:47 .

[Brockololly]

Jabba L4 wrote...
L-long term... consequences? Just *what* could have he been possibly referring to?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that interview was conducted from before the game was released so thats when they were still calling the game possibly  their "most reactive game to date."

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Somewhat agree. DA2's characters were not very memorable and the main-plot itself was very bad. The framed narrative was not handled very well and winded up making Hawke (and possibly Casandra) look stupid.

[Merilsell]

Brockololly wrote...

Jabba L4 wrote...
L-long term... consequences? Just *what* could have he been possibly referring to?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that interview was conducted from before the game was released so thats when they were still calling the game possibly  their "most reactive game to date."

I still support the bong-water theory in their office, though.

[Melca36]

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

ACT 3 was a complete mess and the worst aspect was very little was revealed about Meredith or Orsino.

Orsino was the WORST developed of the two and that was what really ruined ACT 3.

[XX55XX]

scyphozoa wrote...

I've found that all Bioware primary story arcs seem to be on the decline since Jade Empire. In exchange for increased character design and fidelity. I used to think of Bioware as a story-driven game developer.

But Bioware seems to have become a character-driven game developer. Bioware makes some of the best characters in the industry. I literally played DA2 with Fenris as my progagonist and Hawke was just a very opinionated companion.

I see these two as correlating. If character fidelity increases, and primary story arc fidelity decreases, then I think more focus and attention needs to be invested into the primary story arcs of all Bioware games.

This isn't meant to be a jab at the writers, I think they have all the competence and talent they need to tell great stories, I just think they need to make the conscious design choice to place more emphasis on the primary story arcs.

That is exactly how I have been feeling about BioWare's recent games. The stories are okay, for the most part. But, given how people absolutely adore character archetypes instead of specific characters, I wonder if the tradeoff has been worth it. Can't they do both? Write a good story, and great characters to go with it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

I used to think that when I took it in isolation. Then I looked from a distance, scratched my head, and wondered why it was there in the first place.

I think it would have done the game a lot of good, if the Qunari were scrapped and Act 2 was devoted to mage / Templars  as well.

[phoenixgoddess27]

Melca36 wrote...

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

ACT 3 was a complete mess and the worst aspect was very little was revealed about Meredith or Orsino.

Orsino was the WORST developed of the two and that was what really ruined ACT 3.

Indeed. I would have loved to have known more about him since I chose to side with the mages(Even though that didn't really matter in the end).
Not to mention for his response to my Snarky/Sarcastic Hawke when accepting his quest. I'd play DA2 again for that reply

In my opinion, if they were going to have us choose a side, they should have given us more background/information to go on rather than what was said during their lovebird arguments and people saying Meredith was insane. I hardly recall anyone mentioning if Orsino was insane. Don't tell me they were, SHOW me more hints before the very end. To me, this should have been done in Act II.

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:08 .

[dheer]

Brockololly wrote...
...thats when they were still calling the game possibly  their "most reactive game to date."

*picard facepalm*

Modifié par dheer, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:11 .

[Melca36]

phoenixgoddess27 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

ACT 3 was a complete mess and the worst aspect was very little was revealed about Meredith or Orsino.

Orsino was the WORST developed of the two and that was what really ruined ACT 3.

Indeed. I would have loved to have known more about him since I chose to side with the mages(Even though that didn't really matter in the end).
Not to mention for his response to my Snarky/Sarcastic Hawke when accepting his quest. I'd play DA2 again for that reply

In my opinion, if they were going to have us choose a side, they should have given us more background/information to go on rather than what was said during their lovebird arguments and people saying Meredith was insane. Don't tell me they were, SHOW me more hints before the very end.

I agree. That would have worked so much better.

Another aspect that did NOT make sense was having Orsino in the Night Terrors quest. During my firs playthrough, when he appears, I was like..."Who is this?"

It was a huge error on the game developer's part to include him in that quest when we DID NOT know who he was to begin with.

I think the game developers need to realize that alot of us are more saavy  when it comes to stuff like that.

[Melca36]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

I used to think that when I took it in isolation. Then I looked from a distance, scratched my head, and wondered why it was there in the first place.

I think it would have done the game a lot of good, if the Qunari were scrapped and Act 2 was devoted to mage / Templars  as well.

You know I do agree with you but if it was as messy as that final act, I would have lowered my rating even more.


The Qunari part of the game just seemed like it was written with care and diligence.

The Mage/Templar story was sloppy and as a gamer I don't like my intelligence being insulted.

[Selene Moonsong]

The writing was good, the execution for conversations was, IMHO, not implemented as well as it could have been.

The conversation wheel is okay, but the choices need a more descriptive suggestion of intent. For example, in ME 2 the paraphrasing works well there, but the intent can be rather misleading in DA II, even with the icons designed to assist with intent.

For the most part, however, the intent of the main plot is to tell a story of the rise of Hawke to power in the region, rather than an epic tale of the protagonist over-coming all odds to win the day, like DA Origins. The fixed character (Hawke) makes sense in this regard.

I would liked to have seen more of a character study with the protagonist and companions, but what there was of dialogue was serviceable enough to tell the tale.

[Theagg]

Jabba L4 wrote..
I think he's referring to this interview which was published about one month ago but I think took place either prerelease or about as the game was being released in March:

Much has been made of the framed story in Dragon Age II. What was the inspiration for this addition, and how does it affect the experience of the game?

David Gaider:
The framed narrative was Mike’s idea, and the origin of it came from a desire to tell a story over a larger scope of time. In  the past, all our stories began at point x and you played in a linear  fashion through to the end. Having a larger time period to play with  allowed us to introduce long-term consequences to the player’s actions  in mid-game rather than at the end, and also have the concept of the  “unreliable narrator”—such as in The Usual Suspects where you’re not certain by the end of the tale whether the narrator was telling the truth.

See, I like this quote from David Gaider in which he clearly states that Varric was set up to be the unreliable narrator of the whole tale, not just the prologue.

It's interesting to think about that. in relation to other arguments on these forums.

[erynnar]

Theagg wrote...

Jabba L4 wrote..
I think he's referring to this interview which was published about one month ago but I think took place either prerelease or about as the game was being released in March:

Much has been made of the framed story in Dragon Age II. What was the inspiration for this addition, and how does it affect the experience of the game?

David Gaider:
The framed narrative was Mike’s idea, and the origin of it came from a desire to tell a story over a larger scope of time. In  the past, all our stories began at point x and you played in a linear  fashion through to the end. Having a larger time period to play with  allowed us to introduce long-term consequences to the player’s actions  in mid-game rather than at the end, and also have the concept of the  “unreliable narrator”—such as in The Usual Suspects where you’re not certain by the end of the tale whether the narrator was telling the truth.

See, I like this quote from David Gaider in which he clearly states that Varric was set up to be the unreliable narrator of the whole tale, not just the prologue.

It's interesting to think about that. in relation to other arguments on these forums.

But we, as the player of Hawke--who is supposed to be ours or us--shouldn't we know the real story? I don't mind if Varric is telling Cassandra a bunch of pucky. I don't care for the Chantry, so lie away. But there needs to be something that lets me know what really happened to my character. Or, I'd like one at least. I don't like being lied to myself.

[Brockololly]

Selene Moonsong wrote...
The conversation wheel is okay, but the choices need a more descriptive suggestion of intent. For example, in ME 2 the paraphrasing works well there, but the intent can be rather misleading in DA II, even with the icons designed to assist with intent.

I hope that they just ditch the graphical tone icons going forward and do something similar to Deus Ex: Human Revolution where you have a text tone/intent which when moused over, has the full text or a part of the spoken full text dialogue pop up.

So for instance, there is a scenario where you're trying to talk down a terrorist with a hostage and the tones are "Empathize," "Reason" and "Humble" and when you highlight any of those you get a full sentence of the dialogue the PC will say. Sometimes the full text is the entire full dialogue and other times its one key sentence of the dialogue but its never a BioWare style misleading paraphrase.  And its up to the player to read the terrorist's emotions and thinking to get him to release the hostage.

Thats more like a substitute for a single line persuade option, but the Deus Ex: HR dialogue system is easily my favorite as far as voiced PC's go. The graphical tone icons need to go as they don't allow enough nuance in responses and end up being too vague and inconsistent when combined with the possibility of misleading paraphrases too.

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...
The conversation wheel is okay, but the choices need a more descriptive suggestion of intent. For example, in ME 2 the paraphrasing works well there, but the intent can be rather misleading in DA II, even with the icons designed to assist with intent.

I hope that they just ditch the graphical tone icons going forward and do something similar to Deus Ex: Human Revolution where you have a text tone/intent which when moused over, has the full text or a part of the spoken full text dialogue pop up.

So for instance, there is a scenario where you're trying to talk down a terrorist with a hostage and the tones are "Empathize," "Reason" and "Humble" and when you highlight any of those you get a full sentence of the dialogue the PC will say. Sometimes the full text is the entire full dialogue and other times its one key sentence of the dialogue but its never a BioWare style misleading paraphrase.  And its up to the player to read the terrorist's emotions and thinking to get him to release the hostage.

Thats more like a substitute for a single line persuade option, but the Deus Ex: HR dialogue system is easily my favorite as far as voiced PC's go. The graphical tone icons need to go as they don't allow enough nuance in responses and end up being too vague and inconsistent when combined with the possibility of misleading paraphrases too.

They already said the paraphrase system with icons for tone isn't going anywhere. And it doesn't need to either. Yes, the paraphrases need to be better written so there's no mistake about what your character is going to say, but just because it didn't work out perfectly the first time around doesn't mean you need to scrap it and come up with something else.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Act 2 was the BEST written....

The Qunari aspect was the most interesting part of the game.

I used to think that when I took it in isolation. Then I looked from a distance, scratched my head, and wondered why it was there in the first place.

I think it would have done the game a lot of good, if the Qunari were scrapped and Act 2 was devoted to mage / Templars  as well.

While I would hate missing out on all the Qunari stuff from Act 2, that is indeed a fair point as it would've allowed better character development for Meredith and Orsino (or more like any character development), provided they were a central part of the act.

But eh, missing out on the Qunari conflict... not sure if I would give that up as it was my favorite part of the game.

And to the OP, I don't feel DA2 is dead so... and I actually enjoyed the writing a lot (on par with DAO) despite the flaws in it.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:56 .

[nubbers666]

not so much poor writing j
the game just gives me the feel as if a 5year old slapped it together in a rush lol

[REgentleman]

I felt like the dialogue wasn't that bad, it was the exposition/explanation that threw me off. I was pretty much dismissing a lot of the complaints against the game's plot up until the last parts of the second act and the third act. After that, it's not that I didn't enjoy it, it's that I literally couldn't understand what really happened.

[HTTP 404]

neither agree or disagree

they needed to spend more time making everything work better

Modifié par HTTP 404, 03 juillet 2011 - 06:59 .

[wurrble182]

the writing in the game was B+ not A. very good but not great. i can't complain, but we all know bioware have it in them to deliver A++ material.