583 réponses à ce sujet

[ademska]

JaegerBane wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

The 'alternative timeline' Darkspawn Chronicles demonstrate this to be not true -- as it shows the leadership of Alistair ultimately end in a failure. Even in the DAO itself you could see another Warden, Riordan, achieving little more than getting himself caught and imprisoned. Despite being much more experienced in the whole warden business.

Yeah, this isn't a case where there was only a slight difference based on the player.... clearly, without the warden things would have literally gone in the polar opposite direction.

fallacial; you're both misinterpreting his argument.

darkspawn chronicles takes the warden figure out of the picture completely, leaving alistair in charge. (yes, alistair is a warden, so, @exile, if i may, let's reword your argument to "almost any warden" so there's no ambiguity.) what @exile is saying is that any person holding those treaties with alistair as an ally and who at any point before the archdemon fight undergoes a joining would be capable of exactly the same feat the warden accomplished.

hell, that the origins themselves allow the warden to be one of seven different people (gender aside) completely proves his point.

hawke, on the other hand, is one person, not interchangeable. hawke is always hawke, and his/her role in da2 is immutable.

Modifié par ademska, 14 juillet 2011 - 07:25 .

[JaegerBane]

ademska wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

The 'alternative timeline' Darkspawn Chronicles demonstrate this to be not true -- as it shows the leadership of Alistair ultimately end in a failure. Even in the DAO itself you could see another Warden, Riordan, achieving little more than getting himself caught and imprisoned. Despite being much more experienced in the whole warden business.

Yeah, this isn't a case where there was only a slight difference based on the player.... clearly, without the warden things would have literally gone in the polar opposite direction.

fallacial; you're both misinterpreting his argument.

darkspawn chronicles takes the warden figure out of the picture completely, leaving alistair in charge. (yes, alistair is a warden, so, @exile, if i may, let's reword your argument to "almost any warden" so there's no ambiguity.) what @exile is saying is that any person holding those treaties with alistair as an ally and who at any point before the archdemon fight undergoes a joining would be capable of exactly the same feat the warden accomplished.

hell, that the origins themselves allow the warden to be one of seven different people (gender aside) completely proves his point.

hawke, on the other hand, is one person, not interchangeable. hawke is always hawke, and his/her role in da2 is immutable.

I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is, here. I'm fully aware of what he's saying - clearly, 'any' warden wouldn't do, as Darkspawn Chronicles makes pretty clear.

If your argument is that your warden somehow isn't special/has a destiny/offers something beyond what any other warden could offer/however you want to put it, purely because the player can make him or her from many different species as oppose to having a pre-determined character to use, I'd have to question how that is even relevant. At the end of the day, the player's character is still the lynchpin regardless of whether he's an elf or dwarf or a noble.

Yes, *anyone* who happens to have those treaties, Alistair as an ally and undergoes the joining beforehand would be able to do the Warden's job... the thing is, there was only ever *one* person who actually managed to be all those things as DC made pretty clear. He *was* in the right place at the right time, true, but that doesn't somehow mean he was just a placeholder. He still had to venture into the Deep Roads and Brecilian, he still had to go into the fade, slay eveything from Pride Demons to Brood Mothers, and he still had to ensure that an army was ready to replace the one lost at Ostagar. Simply having Alistair at his side and a bunch of scrolls in his pocket doesn't somehow ensure he will succeed.... otherwise he'd be incapable of dying in game. 

Modifié par JaegerBane, 14 juillet 2011 - 08:17 .

[ademska]

JaegerBane wrote...

I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is, here. I'm fully aware of what he's saying - clearly, 'any' warden wouldn't do, as Darkspawn Chronicles makes pretty clear.

all that darkspawn chronicles makes clear is that alistair won't do. this is important.

If your argument is that your warden somehow isn't special/has a destiny/offers something beyond what any other warden could offer/however you want to put it, purely because the player can make him or her from many different species as oppose to having a pre-determined character to use, I'd have to question how that is even relevant. At the end of the day, the player's character is still the lynchpin regardless of whether he's an elf or dwarf or a noble.

Yes, *anyone* who happens to have those treaties, Alistair as an ally and undergoes the joining beforehand would be able to do the Warden's job... the thing is, there was only ever *one* person who actually managed to
be all those things as DC made pretty clear. I mean, by your logic, any character not predetermined is incapable of being the lynchpin.

i should have expanded my point further, as the subjectivity of the warden's origin seems to have muddled it, sorry about that.

the initial argument someone posited was that dao would not happen the same way without the warden specifically, while da2's plot would chug along identically if hawke was not around. i think @inexile made it pretty clear that the latter part of that is silly, because hawke is an integral character even if he doesn't get to completely upend the circle or the chantry single-handedly. da2 had a lot of story movement predicated on hawke and his specific backstory and connections.

in dao, meanwhile, because of the vast array of origins and what we know from darkspawn chronicles, all that's required to fill the warden's role is: a) to have the treaties,  to have undergone the joining before the archdemon fight, and c) to not be alistair.

you may not think this point has relevance, but in the context of this thread the point we're making is that da2's plot is heavily contingent on hawke as a specific person doing specific things, much moreso than dao. because the warden can be a multitude of people doing a multitude of things, and the end result is still the same, yet hawke's role is more restrictive, dao is logically a less reactive game than da2.

this doesn't mean the warden is less crucial to the plot than hawke, @inexile already admitted as much, nor does it mean dao is inferior or da2 is superior. it's simple a matter of difference in narrative scope.

Modifié par ademska, 14 juillet 2011 - 08:26 .

[JaegerBane]

ademska wrote...
the initial argument someone posited was that dao would not happen the same way without the warden specifically, while da2's plot would chug along identically if hawke was not around. i think @inexile made it pretty clear that the latter part of that is silly, because hawke is an integral character even if he doesn't get to completely upend the circle or the chantry single-handedly. da2 had a lot of story movement predicated on hawke and his specific backstory and connections.

There was *some* story to Hawke's background and connections, yes, but I think you're conflating that with the story of what happens in Kirkwall. If Hawke had never existed Anders and Meredith and Orsino and everyone else would have still existed and, judging by the lack of actions required from Hawke in the events of the Acts, presumably would have done the very same things and resulted in the very same conclusion. Obviously events directly surrounding Hawke would not have happened the same way (such as being Viscount or Isabella's bed buddy) but the overall story would have apparently still occured.

in dao, meanwhile, because of the vast array of origins and what we know from darkspawn chronicles, all that's required to fill the warden's role is: a) to have the treaties,  to have undergone the joining before the archdemon fight, and c) to not be alistair.

And D) actually being able to complete all the quests that the Warden does in game. We don't know precisely what it is that Alistair did wrong, but we do know that whatever he did, he didn't do it aswell as The Warden did by virtue that Ferelden ends up burning. The point being that simply ticking all the boxes you set out above doesn't actually help if the Warden ends up dying in the deep roads or whatever - as I said, for what you say above to be true the Warden would have to be incapable of dying, which he/she clearly is.

you may not think this point has relevance, but in the context of this thread the point we're making is that da2's plot is heavily contingent on hawke as a specific person doing specific things, much moreso than dao. because the warden can be a multitude of people doing a multitude of things, and the end result is still the same, yet hawke's role is more restrictive, dao is logically a less reactive game than da2.

this doesn't mean the warden is less crucial to the plot than hawke, @inexile already admitted as much, nor does it mean dao is inferior or da2 is superior. it's simple a matter of difference in narrative scope.

I think I must be just having a bit of a brain fart, but I still don't see what the distinction is. Hawke is only a 'specific person' in so far as being an individual that happens to be the protagonist of DA2, no different to how the Warden is - his/her choice of gender or class is no more relevant than the Warden's and still rests on Hawke being in the right situation to do things. The only difference I can see is that the majority of the truly important events in DA2's story occur without any real involvement from Hawke, whereas the majority of important events in DA:O happen as a direct result of the Warden's actions.

[Morroian]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

More than just one line, unfortunately. I mean, seriously, anyone who tells you they watched the dialogue leading up to one of the "love" scenes without cringing is lying. "Don't save me! *emo tear*"

How different was DAO in this regard. Not much, they're appleaing to the romance crowd with such dialogue. Personally I found the banter better in DA2 than in DAO. There may be issues around not being able to interact with your companions anywhere you want but thats a different issue to the dialogue itself.

[tmp7704]

ademska wrote...

fallacial; you're both misinterpreting his argument.

No, "what our Warden did" is pretty clear, and has to include everything from the moment your character becomes a warden, to the moment when the Archdemon falls dead. If anything, i think the misrepresentation is on your side, considering you seem to focus on the treaty gathering part (which granted could be done by probably any warden with access to these treaties and some decent combat skills) but prefer to overlook the part where the treaties are being put to use and the actual battle takes place. I.e. the part where two other wardens out of the three we get to witness have been shown to fail.

hell, that the origins themselves allow the warden to be one of seven different people (gender aside) completely proves his point.

Except you know, that part where people other than the PC fail at the same task.

I think this rather shows the origin doesn't determine actual capabilities of the person, just possibly motivations and external conditions. Since the 'seven different people' get largely identical set of actions and reactions, as In Exile likes to point out as source of dissatisfaction. In other words they're really all one character, just born in different conditions.

[Morroian]

JaegerBane wrote...

ademska wrote...

you may not think this point has relevance, but in the context of this thread the point we're making is that da2's plot is heavily contingent on hawke as a specific person doing specific things, much moreso than dao. because the warden can be a multitude of people doing a multitude of things, and the end result is still the same, yet hawke's role is more restrictive, dao is logically a less reactive game than da2.

this doesn't mean the warden is less crucial to the plot than hawke, @inexile already admitted as much, nor does it mean dao is inferior or da2 is superior. it's simple a matter of difference in narrative scope.

I think I must be just having a bit of a brain fart, but I still don't see what the distinction is. Hawke is only a 'specific person' in so far as being an individual that happens to be the protagonist of DA2, no different to how the Warden is - his/her choice of gender or class is no more relevant than the Warden's and still rests on Hawke being in the right situation to do things. The only difference I can see is that the majority of the truly important events in DA2's story occur without any real involvement from Hawke, whereas the majority of important events in DA:O happen as a direct result of the Warden's actions.

The fact that events occur in DA2 without giving any choice to Hawke in directing those events does not mean Hawke wasn't a catalyst to those events occurring. The fact is the argument can be made that without Hawke Anders would be dead, Meredith would never have got the idol, the Qunari would have taken over Kirkwall etc etc. I know these can be rationalised away but its certainly my feeling that Bioware intended for the game to be interpreted in the above manner.

[caridounette]

 It is understandable that certain events may have fixed consequences because they serve the overarching plot (being forced to help Sister Petrice) or aim at fostering certain feelings (being unable to save Mother). Wether those were wise narrative choices can be debated (used at the right moment, the absence of choice can be just as effective to move the player then a long list of possible consequences)  What i find problematic is when the game actively sets up expectations and fails to deliver. 

A prime example would be the magister side quest from Act 1. The dilemma offered to the player is to choose between upholding certain moral ideals and gaining the gratitude of a city magistrate. All along the game, the player will expect to live the consequences of the side he chose (elves vs magistrate) because that expectation is set up by the game. Would the game have decided that the magistrate would help you if you sided with him or fool you either way could both be considered a meaningful consequence. But that character is simply ejected from the storyline, never to be heard of again. That is a shame because that sidequest was one of the best before the game simply forgot aobut it, leaving the player waiting for more.

Same thing goes for helping some nobles in Act 3. A series of quests are offered but they never net anything to the player.
 
Something similar happens during a conversation with Varric where Hawke is asked about what he intends to do in Kirkwall. Hawkes can show his interest for politics or business but the game never gives you the opportunity really play on either scenes.

Those lost oportunities bothered me more then the inability to influence certain key events. As a rpg player i dont expect to always have the control on the storyline. What I do expect is that the game will know what it has to offer. I dont want to be offered sidequests that simply lead to nothing or be presented with choices that have no outcomes (which is diffrent from choices that eventually have the same outcome).

I like to think that handleing choices (and the absence of choices) on a 7 year long storyline might have been harder then the developers initially expected but the game being rushed probably didnt help either.

[CrimsonZephyr]

You know...DAII could have been split into a trilogy. A problem with it is that it is a rushed game trying to tell a story that spans 7 years. There are going to be gaping holes and as an RPG, it will be a shallow one. Instead, make an entire game a rags-to-riches story, with tons of branching paths as you raise money for an expedition. Instead of having Hawke be a freelance street urchin, give him the opportunity to find a job (a member of the City Watch, a mercenary, a smuggler, an assassin, etc.) with the expectation that it is a stepping stone to something greater. Give greater interactions with family and friends. Have multiple branching quest lines for replay value and a greater RPing experience. And then, make the expedition really awesome. The Deep roads mission was really phoned in, when it should have been the awesome culmination to Act I. And in the end, it finishes on a bittersweet note because though you found treasure and got rich, your sibling has to leave you. Your success rings hollow. Act II and Act III would have similar structures, but with different focuses.

[Lotion Soronarr]

JaegerBane wrote...
I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is, here. I'm fully aware of what he's saying - clearly, 'any' warden wouldn't do, as Darkspawn Chronicles makes pretty clear.

Darkspawn Chronicles is pretty much a "what could have happened" little spinoff. Emphasis on could.
It has 0 canonicity or relevance.
It is no indication that another Warden (even Alistair) would fail.

[Nimrodell]

I know I’m doing this once again in vain, especially ’cause it’ll be yet another long post and majority won’t read it, but I need to explain how and why choices in DA2 seem ’lesser’ or ’non-existant’ than in other RPG. Just to be clear – I’m not defending DA2 or condemning it – I’m just trying to explain mechanisms behind it. Let’s hope my English will be good enough for that task.

Intro or for those who are willing to read

First of all, we are all used to linear type of story when it comes to time-frame and that’s how it usually works in literature too (with exception of modern novels – starting with Flaubert, Faulkner, Joyce, etc. till postmodernism, Borges and so on). That means that narrator starts his story in point A, follows its path and then finishes in point B or C in time while filling that empty space with ’what happened in the mean time’. In that set up, narrator (either he is hidden or not, all-knowing or just partially knowing) doesn’t know how things transpired until he reaches those events while telling the story. Story goes forward, into the future, and events are not pre-determined or the illusion of uncertian story-developed outcomes is more successful. And that’s the principle that RPG adopted – it is like the law set in stone – we start at point A, we have main storyline that is branching – along the way we are forced to make decisions – and then finally we reach point B and according to what we’ve decided – we have outcomes.

It has been like that since times of Planescape: Torment, Baldur’s Gate, KotOR, The Witcher, Dragon Age: Origin, etc. or even hack and slash like Diablo was – there’s frame (of usually much larger history of that world), but our character progresses through what’s considered as PRESENT in time of playing and goes toward what we consider FUTURE at time of playing. Meaning, we don’t know the whole story, we don’t have all-knowing narrator. Nothing is set in stone while we’re ’living’ our story and we are free to make decisions thus shaping that world. The illusion of decision making is perfect ’cause there’s an old story-telling trick working, invisible puppet-master, all-knowing narrator, pulling our strings with what we consider as major changes in the world through our growing up as a hero. And that’s all to it – principle is simple – make main story, and in player’s PRESENT branch it out through player’s decisions and voila! The illusion of importance is complete, our vanity and suspence work well in that whole mechanism. And players are used to it, but in many cases they don’t see subtle changes or differences that RPG offers.

For instance, one should never compare RPG like The Witcher 1 and 2 with RPG like DA:O or Mass Effect (I’m not saying DA2 on purpose, ’cause DA2 is special new type of RPG and it can’t be compared with previously mentioned principles). The Witcher relies heavily on the main story and branching, Geralt’s decision making while he’s trying to determine his past and who he is – all other characters are tools in reaching that point in FUTURE where extra knowledge lies – Geralt can care for those that follow him, but the main goal is himself – and all outcomes are determined by Geralt’s own personality that is being discovered. In games like DA:O or Mass Effect, our hero already knows who he/she is, our hero is growing through the events thrown at him/her, but also there are others that actually impact story too. Tis classical fairytale mechanism – we have hero but we also have helpers that are important for shaping our own heroic personality – even motivations for their joining us are very often drawn from fairytale archetypes. Let’s just say that KotOR is the hybride between these two types of RPG – Revan starts as Geralt but also Revan has emotional relations with his/hers helpers (and Jedi Exile in KotOR2 even influence them, determines in what types of personalities they’ll develop).


Even though I can get your lovin’ Triss... you’ll follow me even if I don’t do that.

Because this whole shananigan is actually about me.


And yes, I’ll get some sweet lovin’ as Shepard too, but also


I’ll decide who lives or dies and make those around me better or worse persons thus also determining the outcomes and their impact to the world.


I could discuss types of stories in RPG forever – but it’s time to actually talk about DA2 and changes it brought.


Why Dragon Age 2 doesn’t scream ’I have choices and decisions’ so everyone can hear it?

Since March the 8th and release of Dragon Age 2, we have horrible battle on these forums between those that are spurning it as mediocre RPG and those who defend it. I’ve seen many valid and invalid remarks when it comes to story and decisions/choices making in this game. There’s been talk about framed narrative, inability to actually influence the world or even about impotent main hero. And yes, that’s how it usually goes when something new and different appears on the horizon.

Dragon Age2 brings something new in the equation of story-telling in RPG. Its story doesn’t start from the PAST/PRESENT, from the beginning, it actually starts in FUTURE, from the end, and it spins it’s tale backwards. When the story starts, our narrator (and after all these mentioned games before, this is the first time we actually have a visible narrator, embodied in Varric) already knows what happened. He behaves as all-knowing narrator, but also we are sure that he’s actually not an objective narrator and Cassandra Penderghast is actually well-aware of this fact. Varric’s knowledge on events is covered additionaly with his small random episodical appearances when our hero is actually having private discussions with other characters (for instance – before Hawke talks to Aveline, we see Varric talking to her and then he ’leaves’).

This type of pre-determined story is actually present in autobiographies, memoirs and biographies and of course in many first-person novels that feign autobiographical tone. There’s huge differnece between this type of story-telling and the one we find in already mentioned third-person novels and linear point A to point B, past/present leading to future types of stories. This category of story-telling has subtle time frame splits in narrator himself and the events are already set, they already happened and the only thing that is to be determined is what type of person was our hero and how those events actually transpired. How is this possible? How this mechanism works?

I know that no matter what I do, my mother will die, but there’s difference in how I actually dealth with it? Did I accept blood magic and been fooled or did I refuse it and it seemed I came to late to save her, ’cause I didn’t take the risk? Am I the one to be blamed for my mother’s death?


As I said, Varric as a narrator already knows what happens and his ’narrating I’ is actually split into two entities – one that is with Cassandra Penderghast (all-knowing one) and one that we call ’existential I’ – the one that is in the story not knowing what will happen. Varric’s ’narrating I’ knows that his brother betrayed him, knows if his brother was killed by his hand or not, while ’existential I’ doesn’t know that – it has yet to find out it with our hero’s PRESENT that is actually PAST. And that’s what changes everything and makes it so different from RPG mechanism we are used to. Make sure you’re always aware of one simple fact – autobiographies, memoirs, biographies and first-person novels are written because that one individual, their hero, was special or deemed himself/herself special and thus the events serve in forming his/hers being special thing – events are tool there in forming our hero’s personality.

When Dragon Age 2 story starts, Cassandra Penderghast already knows that our hero came to Kirkwall, already knows that expedition happened, already knows that Qunari invaded and already knows that final showdown between mages and templars happened. It’s like you’re hearing news on news TV, but you get short information, only stating the final outcomes and in order to find truth and how it happened, you need TV specials or long magazine articles to see how those events played out, came to be. It’s like my daughter’s breaking the glass. When I come home from work, my elder one tells me – my sister has broken the glass. OK, I have the main event, but I still don’t know if it was an accident or my younger one did it on purpose ’cause she was angry at my elder one and did it just in spite.

So, Dragon Age 2 brings more subtle versions of choices and it’s not something we’re used to as players. It revolves around Hawke but not like in Geralt’s or Revan’s case... ’cause in Hawke’s case major events already happened and tis on us to determine how it came to pass and who is Hawke. And there are your choices people, no ground shaking ones like with Warden but subtle ones ’cause this story is about Hawke, Hawke is major quest line, not stopping the Blight or stopping sith to rule the galaxy.

So, how did Hawke solve the Qunari problem? Did s/he handed in Isabela? Was s/he a Worthy Rival or sister Petrice got her way? Did Hawk duel the Arishok? Those are major differencies in outcomes. Was Hawke kind person, gentle sister, honest one or was s/he plain scoundrel – witty, pragmatic, aggressive but yet just? Who is Hawke? That is player’s choice. Unlike in other RPGs, Hawke can be diplomatic and yet again be ruthless and rotten in the same time, and also our hero can be aggressive, blunt in speech and honest and just in the same time. There are so many choices, variations... yes, Hawke will be forced to deal with Fenriel but also it’ll be Hawke who’ll determine Feynriel’s fate... demon pact possesed Feynriel, the one locked in the mage tower or the hardened one, stalking dreams of those who would harm his girl.

Yes, both Orsino and Meredith will turn against Hawke but depending on our hero’s previous convictions and decisions, those events will transpire differently. Yes, we know that final clash happened, ’cause it happened, Varric’s telling the story on things that are in the past, but we don’t know how and we’re responsible of how it actually happened – we’re shaping our ’true’ history. If Hawke had brother in templars and sided with mages at the end, s/he’ll have his/hers brother spurning templar beliefs thus supporting his sibling. If Hawke’s brother was a Grey Warden, his character wil develop even better, thus showing that sometimes we need to let people go in order for them to grow up. If sister was left behind, she’ll finish in Gallows, but also, she’ll finally grow up as a person... and yet again, both of them can finish dead or on the opposite side.


There’s a huge difference between Hawke that just escaped the Blight and I only knew that she was responsible for the huge event that changed the world:


And the one at the end – this one defended her sister and the love of her life till the very end:


And this one, betrayed them all, including her own sister ’cause she had enough of mages are special story and she craved for power:


Yes, there are choices in Dragon Age 2 – but they are not like the ones we’re used to have – screaming, pounding ones... after all this story wasn’t on ’if our hero changed the world’, this story was about ’how our hero did it’.

Thank you for your time in reading this if you’ve chosen to read it. Unfortunately, this is already way to long for forums posting form and still, it only scratches the surface of things that need to be explained and said about different types of story-telling and how time, events and characters behave when we have different forms or narrative.

[Xinder5]

Nimrodell, I just read that entire thing. It was...very well written. I hadn't really thought about the game in quite that way, but it makes sense now. I wish I had something better to respond with...

[Slayer299]

NImrodell, that post you did *was* long, but very well written and I can appreciate the time and effort put into it by you. But I do not agree with it one whit.

If Bioware wanted to write a book with such allegedly subtle nuances/choices than they should have done so. I'm playing a game, not reading a book, if I want to read Joyce or anyone I'll goto my bookshelf and start reading, otherwise I want to see my choices have some affect and that was how DA2 was billed.

The narrative with Varric telling the tale as it already happened was an interesting one, but one that ultimately, for me, did not come off as believable as it was done. Choices are supposed to be things that affect you, the people around you or the world (or in this case Kirkwall) around you or a combination of all three. But in the end they don't.

[OdanUrr]

Well, Nimrodell, I read your post. It was pretty long but it was worth it. You said DA2 was predicated upon a single concept: to find out who Hawke is. And while it wasn't properly marketed as such, after having played the game multiple times I tend to agree.

Now, you also said that this new kind of RPG has likely taken us aback. Thus, the polarized response of fans towards this game. Probably. Personally, I don't mind finding out who Hawke is, but I believe that I, as a player, wasn't challenged enough in my journey of discovery. And I'm not talking about making enemies smarter and having them attack you from cover, I'm talking about quests that challenge your ideals, that make you think long and hard about the kind of person you want to be, and then seeing your choices unfold and affect your surroundings.

Another key aspect of the game that I believe was marketed heavily was the idea of "moving through time as DAO did space." In DA2 that concept is broken, and it's a pity because it could have been used to great effect to show the result of some of Hawke's choices.

A game that's more a journey of discovery than an epic quest to defeat an ancient evil is fine, it's actually more than fine it has the potential to be great. But you must be presented with conflict, more grey scenarios as opposed to black/white scenarios, and then show that your character actually is evolving, perhaps by warping, at least in some small way, the personality of those around you, those people who look up to you. And there's no doubt in my mind it can be done.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 15 juillet 2011 - 03:46 .

[JaegerBane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is, here. I'm fully aware of what he's saying - clearly, 'any' warden wouldn't do, as Darkspawn Chronicles makes pretty clear.

Darkspawn Chronicles is pretty much a "what could have happened" little spinoff. Emphasis on could.
It has 0 canonicity or relevance.
It is no indication that another Warden (even Alistair) would fail.

No offence Lotion, but total denial doesn't actually count as an argument. Since Darkspawn Chronicles shows a 'what if' scenario if your Warden had died during the Joining, claiming it has no relevance to a debate about whether another could have done the Warden's job is simply nonsense. There's no good reason to doubt any of it, at all.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:10 .

[Uccio]

Nimrodell, that is just a lame excuse for making a game which promises opportunities but delivers none.


+ what Slayer299 said.

Modifié par Ukki, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:29 .

[OdanUrr]

Ukki wrote...

Nimrodell, that is just a lame excuse for making a game which promises opportunities but delivers none.

I don't think Nimrodell's trying to justify anything but rather explain. Did DA2 promise more than it delivered? Perhaps it did, perhaps it wasn't marketed properly, I honestly didn't follow the marketing campaign that closely. But the issue is still about choices. Do you have them? Yes. Do they have an impact? Yes. However, what many people, myself included, find frustrating is that the choices you have ultimately hold no influence over how certain events pan out. It's not a problem of DA2 not having choices, but rather what choices it does have and the depicted extent of their consequences.

Once you accept Hawke's story is sort of fixed, or predetermined, as suggested by Varric's narrative, the only meaningful choice you're left with is to decide what kind of person you want Hawke to be. Here we arrive at another issue and, arguably, more important than the above if you accept the premise of DA2 being about who Hawke is, rather than what Hawke did, how s/he did it as opposed to what s/he did. And, again, it seems to me this journey of discovery is lacking. There's an overabundance of quests that only aim to get money or simply kill people for fun and not enough that deal with finding your place in the world.

[MeAndMySandvich]

@Nimrodell: Interesting argument. However, I don't think it completely works. The problem is that while Dragon Age 2 does indeed have a frame narrative, 90% of the time the writers appear to have not gotten the memo and are instead writing a standard RPG narrative, and are not doing a particularly good job at it. If they were really going to roll with the Varric-as-narrator thing (which they should have) they would have made the rhythm of the story reflect Varric's interrogation and not the chronological order of events. They also would have used choices that better fit a non-linear narrative, and not the linear storytelling techniques tied to the bioware formula.

For instance, Hawke building relationships with companions via friendship/rivalry bars is an inherently linear way to do things, because it requires a linear story to remain consistent. A nonlinear way of establishing the relationship between Hawke and other characters would be allowing certain scenes in the story (it doesn't matter where, chronologically, they are) to set the way the relationship looks on the surface, and allow other scenes (later in the playthrough) to explore the relationship in more depth.

It's interesting that you mention Witcher 2, because that game actually does a slightly better job of telling a nonlinear story with a frame narrative in the prologue because it doesn't try to squeeze that story into a linear storytelling formula.

[Uccio]

OdanUrr wrote...

I don't think Nimrodell's trying to justify anything but rather explain. Did DA2 promise more than it delivered? Perhaps it did, perhaps it wasn't marketed properly, I honestly didn't follow the marketing campaign that closely. But the issue is still about choices. Do you have them? Yes. Do they have an impact? Yes. However, what many people, myself included, find frustrating is that the choices you have ultimately hold no influence over how certain events pan out. It's not a problem of DA2 not having choices, but rather what choices it does have and the depicted extent of their consequences.

Once you accept Hawke's story is sort of fixed, or predetermined, as suggested by Varric's narrative, the only meaningful choice you're left with is to decide what kind of person you want Hawke to be. Here we arrive at another issue and, arguably, more important than the above if you accept the premise of DA2 being about who Hawke is, rather than what Hawke did, how s/he did it as opposed to what s/he did. And, again, it seems to me this journey of discovery is lacking. There's an overabundance of quests that only aim to get money or simply kill people for fun and not enough that deal with finding your place in the world.

I didn´t mean to say Nimrodell was justifying anything, I was just commenting on the idea itself. He made a good point but pre-written story is in my books a easy way out since we are talking about a game which is supposed to be a descendant of a good rpg game. If the choises you make do not make any difference on the outcome of the game one has to ask why they are there? You say there is a person aimed choise-line in the game. That makes me wonder what is the use of it? For what are we making this personality building which doesn´t actually show anywhere in the story since all will end up in one place anyway. Are we going to see another game (DA3) where this character buiding pays off? I would like to see that but for now I see a game where choises you make do not affect on anything on the story line nor do they affect on anything on the character building (except minor things). My Hawke was the same character from the beginning to the end of the game no matter which choises I made and what kind of response I used in dialogues. All this in 10 years time where the characters life surrounding changed totally.


(ps. sorry for my english, its not my mother tongue)

[Nimrodell]

OdanUrr wrote...
I don't think Nimrodell's trying to justify anything but rather explain.

Thank you, that was my sole intention, just to explain , nothing more, nothing less.

[Morroian]

OdanUrr wrote...

Once you accept Hawke's story is sort of fixed, or predetermined, as suggested by Varric's narrative, the only meaningful choice you're left with is to decide what kind of person you want Hawke to be. 

You have choices about those around you as well, not just your companions but othes like Feynriel.
 

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

For instance, Hawke building relationships with companions via friendship/rivalry bars is an inherently linear way to do things, because it requires a linear story to remain consistent. A nonlinear way of establishing the relationship between Hawke and other characters would be allowing certain scenes in the story (it doesn't matter where, chronologically, they are) to set the way the relationship looks on the surface, and allow other scenes (later in the playthrough) to explore the relationship in more depth.

Problem with that is it doesn't allow the player to make choices and build those relationships as they want. The player would have even less choice.

Modifié par Morroian, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:32 .

[erynnar]

Morroian wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Once you accept Hawke's story is sort of fixed, or predetermined, as suggested by Varric's narrative, the only meaningful choice you're left with is to decide what kind of person you want Hawke to be. 

You have choices about those around you as well, not just your companions but othes like Feynriel.
 

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

For instance, Hawke building relationships with companions via friendship/rivalry bars is an inherently linear way to do things, because it requires a linear story to remain consistent. A nonlinear way of establishing the relationship between Hawke and other characters would be allowing certain scenes in the story (it doesn't matter where, chronologically, they are) to set the way the relationship looks on the surface, and allow other scenes (later in the playthrough) to explore the relationship in more depth.

Problem with that is it doesn't allow the player to make choices and build those relationships as they want. The player would have even less choice.

But saving Fenryiel did and does nothing. Neither does saving the mage girl. You can't save your mother. The illusion of choice in DA2 was carried out very very poorly. Not once did I ever stop and think...hmmm, what major consequence is going to happen if I pick A rather than B? Not even on my first playthrough did I agonize over a decision. I did in DAO, and I did in Witcher 2 (still do). Even things that shouldn't make a difference to the ending they so vehemenlty wanted us to all have, were nothing. You don't save certain people close to Hawke (waiting until dark...WTF? Seriously?). Saving Fen doesn't mean he shows up to help with a few Tevinter mage friends, or affects the dreams of Meredith. Saving the mage  girl or not...does nothing.

If they wanted it to be about figuring out who Hawke is, they should have written her/him better. Because Hawke was so completely boring, figuring them out is just another chore in a long line of chores. Frankly, why should I give a damn who Hawke is?

Again, the story of Hawke could have been epic. The other three story lines in DA2 could have been. I could have felt epic playing Hawke. I could have sympathized with Hawke and the crapfest that was their life, but Hawke was just not compelling enough to elicit those kinds of feelings. 

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

But saving Fenryiel did and does nothing. 

AFAIK there are 3 outcomes for Feynriel: alive and in Tevinter, dead or abomination. IMHO thats sufficient in terms of choices.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Morroian wrote...

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

For instance, Hawke building relationships with companions via friendship/rivalry bars is an inherently linear way to do things, because it requires a linear story to remain consistent. A nonlinear way of establishing the relationship between Hawke and other characters would be allowing certain scenes in the story (it doesn't matter where, chronologically, they are) to set the way the relationship looks on the surface, and allow other scenes (later in the playthrough) to explore the relationship in more depth.

Problem with that is it doesn't allow the player to make choices and build those relationships as they want. The player would have even less choice.

Not at all - it just changes the way they express those choices. For instance, the first scene we see Hawke and Fenris together could establish (through player choice) whether the public relationship between the two was friendly, abrasive, or whatever.

Then lets say that, through player choice, this relationship was characterized as abrasive. Future scenes might explore the falling-out that led to the current state of the relationship (as well as why they continue to spend time together) or allow the player to decide that the adversarial relationship hides belligerent sexual tension. Or whatever. The point is that you allow the player to characterize relationships in a non-linear fashion. This non-linear form of storytelling doesn't really work with a point system, which is sort of the problem - Bioware wanted to create an unconventional story, and likely found out too late that the formula didn't fit that sort of storytelling and that they didn't have enough time to change the formula.

Modifié par MeAndMySandvich, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:05 .

[OdanUrr]

Morroian wrote...

You have choices about those around you as well, not just your companions but othes like Feynriel.

I never said there weren't, and if you read my post carefully I said "meaningful," and by that I mean it's an important enough choice to serve as a drive. Unfortunately, there's little to none reactivity to the Hawke you create.

AFAIK there are 3 outcomes for Feynriel: alive and in Tevinter, dead or abomination. IMHO thats sufficient in terms of choices.

But it comes down to what we've been discussing, the difference between learning the different outcomes of a particular choice versus seeing those outcomes alter your world (places, people) in some way.