158 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

xkg wrote...

Hello There wrote...
Templars not noticing your a mage. MAJOR FAIL, considoring the central plot revolves around mages, yet templars don't notice your wearing robes and have a staff on your back. Totally breaks the immersion. And it was unexplained. DAO got away with this because you were a Grey Warden.

Yep. There is no excuse for that, really. This is ridiculous beyond any reason.

This is actual screenshot from the game - in the middle of the fight. One of the huge "WTH IS THIS" moments.

I don't even know what to say to this, I really don't.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

[Uzzy]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

Sweet Mephisto, this. Bioware are amazing at the 'save the world' epic. Nuanced stories? Not so much, as evidenced by DA2.

I'm hoping that DA3 doesn't focus on Mages vs Templars, mainly as that issue was a lot more interesting before it broke out into open warfare, but also to prove the idea that the Dragon Age games are actually about Thedas, not just one character.

[CrimsonZephyr]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

There's one overarching problem with the story that DA2 told: hyperbole. The templars are religious zealots, the mages are best buds with Cthulhu, the citizenry are ineffectual to the extreme, or complete monsters, the Dalish are petty, the Qunari are violently extreme beneath that veneer of urbane sophistication and the Chantry doesn't do it's job. And ultimately, there's nothing greater to fight for in spite of this. Both sides are absolute crap and you don't walk away having accomplished anything. The entire story is pointless, the characters aren't worth caring about, and your character has no stake in the world nor do they have an effect upon it. It's possibly one of the most superficial role-playing experiences - almost to JRPG levels. Darkness does not bring realism, because reality is never entirely light or dark. Making every character a twisted, unlikeable caricature is not nuanced and it is not compelling.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

There's one overarching problem with the story that DA2 told: hyperbole. The templars are religious zealots, the mages are best buds with Cthulhu, the citizenry are ineffectual to the extreme, or complete monsters, the Dalish are petty, the Qunari are violently extreme beneath that veneer of urbane sophistication and the Chantry doesn't do it's job. And ultimately, there's nothing greater to fight for in spite of this. Both sides are absolute crap and you don't walk away having accomplished anything. The entire story is pointless, the characters aren't worth caring about, and your character has no stake in the world nor do they have an effect upon it. It's possibly one of the most superficial role-playing experiences - almost to JRPG levels. Darkness does not bring realism, because reality is never entirely light or dark. Making every character a twisted, unlikeable caricature is not nuanced and it is not compelling.

Absolutely. That's why IMHO they're better with the black-and-white style of storytelling - it actually works pretty well with making one side the soul of kindness and justice and the other side hilariously evil. Really, the fact that they responded to "everyone who played DA:O supports mages over templars" was to make every single mage a ticking time-bomb instead of humanizing the templars is the perfect demonstration of how they try to create nuance.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:35 .

[hexaligned]

Honestly I got enough mage vs Temp in DAO, I didn't need more of it in DA2, nor did I enjoy the reiteration. If it has to be included in DA3 (and it most certainly doesn't), at least let the story take place in Tevinter or something where the power structure is different than we've already seen.

[Ryzaki]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

There's one overarching problem with the story that DA2 told: hyperbole. The templars are religious zealots, the mages are best buds with Cthulhu, the citizenry are ineffectual to the extreme, or complete monsters, the Dalish are petty, the Qunari are violently extreme beneath that veneer of urbane sophistication and the Chantry doesn't do it's job. And ultimately, there's nothing greater to fight for in spite of this. Both sides are absolute crap and you don't walk away having accomplished anything. The entire story is pointless, the characters aren't worth caring about, and your character has no stake in the world nor do they have an effect upon it. It's possibly one of the most superficial role-playing experiences - almost to JRPG levels. Darkness does not bring realism, because reality is never entirely light or dark. Making every character a twisted, unlikeable caricature is not nuanced and it is not compelling.

 

I hate to say itbut this. 

BW is really better at the good vs evil thing. It's not realistic but at least I cared what happened. 

[CrimsonZephyr]

Ryzaki wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

There's one overarching problem with the story that DA2 told: hyperbole. The templars are religious zealots, the mages are best buds with Cthulhu, the citizenry are ineffectual to the extreme, or complete monsters, the Dalish are petty, the Qunari are violently extreme beneath that veneer of urbane sophistication and the Chantry doesn't do it's job. And ultimately, there's nothing greater to fight for in spite of this. Both sides are absolute crap and you don't walk away having accomplished anything. The entire story is pointless, the characters aren't worth caring about, and your character has no stake in the world nor do they have an effect upon it. It's possibly one of the most superficial role-playing experiences - almost to JRPG levels. Darkness does not bring realism, because reality is never entirely light or dark. Making every character a twisted, unlikeable caricature is not nuanced and it is not compelling.

 

I hate to say itbut this. 

BW is really better at the good vs evil thing. It's not realistic but at least I cared what happened. 

Eh, it can get stale. I understand BioWare's search for nuanced storytelling. It wasn't a horrible first try. But they need to realize that having every character be complete monsters hidden under a shell of rationality doesn't not make a conflict grey. It makes a conflict entirely black and reduces emotional investment. At some point, one will ask "Who are these characters and why should I care about them?"

That's when you know you've failed as a storyteller.

[JaegerBane]

alex90c wrote...
Also, the whole "mages are insane" business was something done purposely by Bioware to make siding with them throughout the game more morally grey rather than DA:O where everyone pretty much sided with the mages by default; I think Gaider admitted that they probably went over the top in DA2, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that the whole crazy business had an actual justification behind it, not just "lets give the player more stuff to kill" or "hurhurhur winding up our fanbase is funny".

The problem was, this wasn't a justification. It was daft. One character in particular seemed to go from cautious and undecided to cackling 'AM SOOO EVILZ' lunatic with no explanation whatsoever as to how on earth they'd made such a change. It was like Han Solo being a smuggler in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back cast him as a Sith Lord. It was stupid.

[JaegerBane]

Aaleel wrote...

xkg wrote...

Hello There wrote...
Templars not noticing your a mage. MAJOR FAIL, considoring the central plot revolves around mages, yet templars don't notice your wearing robes and have a staff on your back. Totally breaks the immersion. And it was unexplained. DAO got away with this because you were a Grey Warden.

Yep. There is no excuse for that, really. This is ridiculous beyond any reason.

This is actual screenshot from the game - in the middle of the fight. One of the huge "WTH IS THIS" moments.

I don't even know what to say to this, I really don't.

I do. This clearly sums up that the game's writers didn't really know what kind of story they were trying to write.

I'm honestly amazed that no-one actually pointed this kind of thing out in development. I really do hope that Bioware learn from this. There is a threshold to which players can suspend their disbelief, and going beyond it makes the dev's work look silly.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:05 .

[Ryzaki]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Eh, it can get stale. I understand BioWare's search for nuanced storytelling. It wasn't a horrible first try. But they need to realize that having every character be complete monsters hidden under a shell of rationality doesn't not make a conflict grey. It makes a conflict entirely black and reduces emotional investment. At some point, one will ask "Who are these characters and why should I care about them?"

That's when you know you've failed as a storyteller.

 

Has yet to get stale for me. As long as BW makes the evil and characters different and interesting each time (and not abuse the same VAs again and again) to me it's just fine. 

True. It wouldn't hurt to have the protagonist not fail at everything eiter. 

[JaegerBane]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

It's less "we need another save-the-world story" and more "the DA2 writing team is clearly better at telling save the world stories than they are telling more nuanced stories, and should stick to their strengths."

There's one overarching problem with the story that DA2 told: hyperbole. The templars are religious zealots, the mages are best buds with Cthulhu, the citizenry are ineffectual to the extreme, or complete monsters, the Dalish are petty, the Qunari are violently extreme beneath that veneer of urbane sophistication and the Chantry doesn't do it's job. And ultimately, there's nothing greater to fight for in spite of this. Both sides are absolute crap and you don't walk away having accomplished anything. The entire story is pointless, the characters aren't worth caring about, and your character has no stake in the world nor do they have an effect upon it. It's possibly one of the most superficial role-playing experiences - almost to JRPG levels. Darkness does not bring realism, because reality is never entirely light or dark. Making every character a twisted, unlikeable caricature is not nuanced and it is not compelling.

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. The fact that the story essentially doesn't go anywhere is the kind of thing you'd expect from a multiplayer FPS, not an RPG, and certainly not a Bioware one.

If there's one thing that I don't get, it's why the writers never sat back and thought "why does the player actually care about who these characters are and what their fate is?" That's DA2's biggest weakness right there - it made the assumption you were actually bothered about what happened to Hawke, or Kirkwall, but it never made any effort to make the player care.

Of course, the horrific recycled environments didn't do it any favours...

[por favor]

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

Harry Potter has a similar save-the-world type of story line. LoTR has a similar save-the-world type of story line.

Save-the-world stories are unbelievably popular for a reason. I don't see any logic in deviating away from what is popular. If people want a "save the world" type of story, give it to them.

At the end of the day, it makes most of your consumers happy and puts more money in your pocket. Win/win.

[CrimsonZephyr]

They could have easily done a save-the-world type story badly, though. It's not a guarantee. The biggest advantage that kind of story has is that you have an ironclad reason for progressing through the story and similarly, a reason for caring what happens to you and your companions. If the plot is "spend seven years running errands for inept city leaders" the motivation is lost. No one is intelligent, no one is particularly likable. You are left wondering why, after regaining his fortune, Hawke didn't just return to Ferelden - at least they have a functional government. There is literally no compelling reason for him to be in Kirkwall. The setting is utterly stagnant.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:08 .

[JaegerBane]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

They could have easily done a save-the-world type story badly, though. It's not a guarantee. The biggest advantage that kind of story has is that you have an ironclad reason for progressing through the story and similarly, a reason for caring what happens to you and your companions.

No, its not a guarantee, but there's definitely less risk that comes with it that the story will fall apart. Bioware are historically good with this sort of thing, so I'd wager they'd pull something new out of the bag that nonetheless fits their model. I mean, the storylines for Mass Effect, KOTOR and DA:O are genuinely regarded as excellent despite not being particularly original.

I remember back when I completed my first playthrough of DA:O and there was some buttmunch on the forums, whining about how he wanted an 'adult' storyline (whatever that was) and was sick of saving the world, and David Gaider, in response, made a veiled suggestion about how, for the sequel, he could shift the emphasis towards characters and away from epic scale and darkspawn. So it seems, just like it was with the Mako disappearing in ME2, we owe the current situation with DA2's story to posters like that original doofus.

If the plot is "spend seven years running errands for inept city leaders" the motivation is lost. No one is intelligent, no one is particularly likable. You are left wondering why, after regaining his fortune, Hawke didn't just return to Ferelden - at least they have a functional government. There is literally no compelling reason for him to be in Kirkwall. The setting is utterly stagnant.

I agree. The writers basically painted themselves into a corner with that one - they seemed to make the decision about 'let's focus on Kirkwall' but neglected to give any reason as to why Hawke is actually bothering with the damned place. It's almost as if there was a chapter in there that explained why Hawke actually puts up with the years of idiocy you see in DA2, but it was cut from final release.

I really hope Bioware take this whole episode to heart. Games like DA2 simply don't work if the player has no clear motivation for continuing.

[JaegerBane]

por favor wrote...
Save-the-world stories are unbelievably popular for a reason. I don't see any logic in deviating away from what is popular. If people want a "save the world" type of story, give it to them.

If there's one major weakness Bioware have displayed over the last few years, it's their habit of trying to fix what wasn't broken in the first place. Don't get me wrong, they've made some cracking improvements to their games, but I can think of several issues - particularly with Mass Effect 2 and DA: Awakening - where they changed something that was popular, and worked just fine, for no apparent reason other than for the sake of changing it.

The only major difference for DA2 is that the thing they tried to fix, the whole story, was a core feature of the game, rather than a minor feature on the side. In some ways, I'm kinda happy DA2 had such a mixed reception at release - it may well have been the shock to the system Bioware needed to stick to improving things that need improving.

[KLUME777]

por favor wrote...

BeckShort wrote...

You really think what we need is another save the world story? That's been done to death, IMO.

Harry Potter has a similar save-the-world type of story line. LoTR has a similar save-the-world type of story line.

Save-the-world stories are unbelievably popular for a reason. I don't see any logic in deviating away from what is popular. If people want a "save the world" type of story, give it to them.

At the end of the day, it makes most of your consumers happy and puts more money in your pocket. Win/win.

I agree, i would like a return to save-the-world as well.

And its not so bad as one might think, and it doesn't have to be cliche. E.G. Mass Effect is a save-the-world story.

[xkg]

^ Sure. James Bond is a perfect example. Every single movie has a "save the world" sceanrio - just a different story each time.

50 years, 22 movies, many books - and each one is very successful.

[bEVEsthda]

xkg wrote...

^ Sure. James Bond is a perfect example. Every single movie has a "save the world" sceanrio - just a different story each time.

50 years, 22 movies, many books - and each one is very successful.

...And DA2's rags to riches is actually even more cliché.

[Xayoz]

I for once, would be hugely disappointed if we didn't get to continue the 'mage vs templar' story in the games to come.
In fact, I would probably drop the series then and there.
The mage lore is the one thing that drew me to Dragon Age in the first place and being able to further influence the fate of mages is the one expectation I have for this series.

The fact that, story-wise, DA2 was more about politics that 'saving the world' was a rather positive thing in my eyes as well.

[JaegerBane]

bEVEsthda wrote...

xkg wrote...

^ Sure. James Bond is a perfect example. Every single movie has a "save the world" sceanrio - just a different story each time.

50 years, 22 movies, many books - and each one is very successful.

...And DA2's rags to riches is actually even more cliché.

I'm not really sure I'd go so far as to brand DA2 'cliche'. Yes, rags-to-riches stories tend to veer in that direction, but they also tend to have a point to them. DA2's story is is basically poor man makes money and commits various acts of heroism.... then does chores for several years. That isn't 'cliche' because it's so crap that no-one's tried to sell it as a story before.

So I guess, in that sense, its original. But much as a cliche isn't inherently negative, simply being original isn't inherently positive, either.

[JaegerBane]

Xayoz wrote...

I for once, would be hugely disappointed if we didn't get to continue the 'mage vs templar' story in the games to come.
In fact, I would probably drop the series then and there.
The mage lore is the one thing that drew me to Dragon Age in the first place and being able to further influence the fate of mages is the one expectation I have for this series.

I enjoyed the mage lore too.... but we already went over this in the first game. Mages and Templars at loggerheads, with extremists and peacemakers on both sides. It was thrashed out in painful detail. We didn't need a whole game to repeat all this and then end just before we actually started hitting new material.

The fact that, story-wise, DA2 was more about politics that 'saving the world' was a rather positive thing in my eyes as well.

Why?

[Xayoz]

JaegerBane wrote...

Why?

I simply enjoy politics.Also, playing part in relations and conflicts between nations/races/ideologies make much more of an epic story than simply fighting some chaotic force of evil, bent on conquest/destruction.It also gives more gratification in seeing how your actions change the wold with variety of outcomes, where as a typical heroic epic tends to always sum up as 'bad guys where defeated and the day was saved'.

[mopotter]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

The problem with the mage/templar story is that in a cast of complete monsters, extremists, and fools, you have no one to get behind. The audience becomes apathetic, and that should never happen in an RPG, because the player effectively becomes a spectator, watching this group of utterly unlikable people kill each other. Also, the role of the player needs to be more proactive, instead of reactive. It seems like crises happened around Hawke and he/she responded to them. There was no chance for Hawke to actively seek out big problems in Kirkwall and fix them.

Agree.  

I enjoy DA:2 but having almost every mage turn to blood magic if threatened and having them kill off the templers who supported mage, really threw me off and then, to have both Meredith and Orsino go nuts was just wrong.  

I understand that some 1) mages would turn to blood magic if push came to shove;  2) some would just turn to blood magic for the easy power or because they feel it's their right;  3) some templers truly believe mages have no controle and/or are evil; and 4) some templers are evil.  But to have the leaders of both groups show that they are nuts no matter who you side with was sloppy (imo).  

On principle I agree with the mages, no matter what class my Hawke is, I don't think mages should not be kept in bird cages, they should be a part of the military, a part of the guard helping to find and take out whoever is disobeying laws, but I after seeing Orsino and then Meredith turn into monsters I just wanted to leave and let them destroy each other.   It was fustrating, at least for me.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Xayoz wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Why?

I simply enjoy politics.Also, playing part in relations and conflicts between nations/races/ideologies make much more of an epic story than simply fighting some chaotic force of evil, bent on conquest/destruction.It also gives more gratification in seeing how your actions change the wold with variety of outcomes, where as a typical heroic epic tends to always sum up as 'bad guys where defeated and the day was saved'.

Except Hawke...doesn't change the world. At all. Anders does. Meredith does. Orsino does. The Arishok almost does, But not Hawke. Hawke's just there for the ride, a typical reactive hero set against proactive adversaries in a situation he has no control over and has absolutely no stake in.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 09 juillet 2011 - 04:49 .