583 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

Morroian wrote...

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.

Like Nimrodell and others, I've been wrestling with why DA2 is the way it is.  Why there are choices, as you say, Morrolan, but why they also appear to do nothing, as you say, Erynnar.  Here is my theory:

Outside of combat, I theorize that the friendship/rivalry system was the critical system of this game's design and development cycle, and had to be proven as workable before the majority of storytelling features could be developed.  It would explain the unbalanced storytelling as a series of short-stories-as-quests rather than a front-to-back plot, and a climax that hinges on comparing friendship/rivalry ratings to a single binary choice made by the player.

Once individual quests, companions, and friendship/rivalry ratings have been developed to the point where the system "works", you're forced to create the main plot in a player-character-agnostic and companion-agnostic way.  Why?  You can't have the player-character or the companions get too attached to any particular thread in the main plot, or the other companions' plots, lest you throw the friendship/rivalry opportunities for all companions out of balance and break the critical game mechanic. 

And while you might get a chance here and there to wire up a companion to a particular situation (Isabela and the Qunari, the sibling and the Deep Roads), in some cases it's safer just to not have that companion around during parts of the game, or simply not react to your player-character's deeds in other quests.  And safer still to have an object carry the plot forward, causing no interference with the way friendship/rivalry has been mapped out.

Now imagine trying to bring such a plot to a climax, while having to tie it directly to the friendship/loyalty mechanic.  It's hard to conjure up any type of ending without characters trying to kill each other, or having to disband the whole lot.  After all, a climax built on friendship/rivalry implies the necessity of the ultimate loyalty test - who is maxed out and who isn't.  For the final time - you love me or you hate me.  You'll stay with me or you'll leave me.  You'll fight with me or you'll fight against me.  This simply must be proven, and afterwards there's nothing LEFT to prove except to win the fight.

So that's my theory.  Player choices in this game fed the friendship/rivalry mechanic directly, and at the same time both the players and the storytelling were given no other choices but to go along with the friendship/rivalry mechanic, right through to the end.  Thanks for reading. 

Modifié par jds1bio, 16 juillet 2011 - 02:00 .

[Kilshrek]

On my travels I stumbled upon this interesting piece. While not dealing directly with voiced vs silent protagonists, it does discuss another important aspect of a game, and one which I especially noticed in DA 2. But the reason behind DA 2's failure to capture my imagination in the music department may well be the fact that it was swept under the rug and not talked about again.

But I digress, remembering Ostagar and Orzammar (in a recent replay) I noticed that the music stuck with me more. Much more in fact. And the camp music obviously. DA 2 had that bit that played when you were at home, and... yeah.

Just thought I'd leave it here for general consumption.

[In Exile]

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.

Riordan isn't comparable, because Riordan doesn't have the treaties. Alistair is the comparison, because Alistair was in the same situation as the Warden, minus being the Warden. 

But more importantly, how does the Darkspawn Chronicles DLC work: Alistair and the armies fight all the way up to Fort Drakon and in the cannon ending for the DLC Alistair fails to kill the archdemon. 

If we take this as cannon (and that's a big IF) that doesn't show that the Warden is a special leader, or that the armies of Ferelden could not have been gathered, or anything of the sort. It shows simply that the combination of Alistar, Leliana, Morrigain + dog is fails to kill the archdemon. 

The leadership of Alistair doesn't end in failure. The combat prowess of Alistair ends in failure. But that's just saying that the Warden is better at murdering things. Maybe if Sten was there, or Oghren, the whole battle ends in victory because Sten or Oghren can bring down the Archdemon.

Literally nothing we see is different other than Alistair failing in the final seconds. 

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. 

Well, no. Actually, the darkspawn chronicles don't even show us Alistair can't win, because it all comes down to defeating a dragon. Unless you think the Warden can gurantee victory over the archdemon, there's no argument to be had at all.

It would be like saying Hawke is indespensable because no one else could kill the Final Lightsaber Boss in DA2.

JaegerBane wrote...
 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. 

Alistair does these things. The game, in darkspawn chronicles, progresses to the same point it does for the Warden. 

JaegerBane wrote...
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.

Alistair did these things. Alistair led an army to Fort Drakon. And Alistair and his allies fought the archdemon at the top of Fort Drakon. These things that you say the Warden was special... Alistair (as far as we know) did them.

What the Warden managed to do that Alistair didn't was land the final blow, if we look at the cannon ending of the DLC vs. the cannon ending of DA:O. because of course the player could have died multiple times trying to kill the archdemon. 

JaegerBane wrote...
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.

We know exactly what Alistair did wrong: he failed to kill the archdemon. He chocked in the Finals. He missed the buzzer beater, got intercepted on the Hail Mary, etc. 

Modifié par In Exile, 16 juillet 2011 - 03:17 .

[In Exile]

OdanUrr wrote...

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.

It was marketed as the opposite of this, and it really killed the game. If we went in knowing that Cassandra was wrong, that the figure she thought Hawke was isn't who Hawke was, and DA2 played up the contrast between who Hawke really was and Cassandra's reaction, then the game would have worked.

Think about it, even if the game has the same outcomes between acts, if Cassandra reacts to your choices (and the game gives Hawke multiple reasons to pick from for doing them) then suddenly it becomes a big deal:

e.g with Act of Mecy. (can pick it's right to help the weak, I'm a mage too, hate the templars for torturing my family & say hawke picks the "right to help" option)

C: The Champion helped the mages from Starkhaven? That does not make sense; when they -

V (cuts her off): Seeker, things aren't quite that straightfoward. Hawke wanted to do the right thing; those mages were hunted and desperate. 

C: Hawke used those mages to weaken the Chantry!

And so on.

These types of exchanges could have been the way the game reacted to our choices. That's how I would have designed choice in DA2.

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.

The lack of challenging quests was certainly part of it; but I think seeing your choices unfold was what killed the game. If the game touched on them more, even if it didn't really show different scenarios in-game assest wise, DA2 would have been much stronger for it.

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.

Actually, I think DA2 lived up to that completely; it was just that DA:O was very bad at moving through space. I think a big part of DA2's failure is just how well received it was compared to what it really did, and the gap between what the fans thought it was made to do and what the designers made it to do.

Modifié par In Exile, 16 juillet 2011 - 03:28 .

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

I think a big part of DA2's failure is just how well received it was compared to what it really did, and the gap between what the fans thought it was made to do and what the designers made it to do.

I don't think it was a failure because fans didn't understand what the designers intended.

There are 3 missing years. I think act 3 was supposed to be act IV and maybe something else was supposed to happen in act 3, a lead up...more mage vs templar? I don't know something that made sense.

Not to mention the time skips we had seemed like Hawke slept through it.

I think there were a lot of people excited about something different, framed narrative over 10 years. Plus Varric is awesome but it just didn't work.

imho

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...
I don't think it was a failure because fans didn't understand what the designers intended.

There are 3 missing years. I think act 3 was supposed to be act IV and maybe something else was supposed to happen in act 3, a lead up...more mage vs templar? I don't know something that made sense.

Not to mention the time skips we had seemed like Hawke slept through it.

I think there were a lot of people excited about something different, framed narrative over 10 years. Plus Varric is awesome but it just didn't work.

That sentence reads like nonsence. I meant that DA:O was very well received despite serious flaws, especially in the travel through time part. Fans supported what was, at the core, a bad design. And DA2 just exposed it. 

[Slayer299]

^
Fans supported what was, a great game, warts and all, because what made DAO fun and enjoyable made overlooking the warts possible. DA2 was just at its core a bad design or I should say more accurately, a good set of ideas ******-poorly implemented with many "innovations" that weren't.

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...
 I meant that DA:O was very well received despite serious flaws, especially in the travel through time part. Fans supported what was, at the core, a bad design. And DA2 just exposed it. 

Well, I don't know what to say about this.  Sometimes illusions of choice, illusions of time, and illusions of open-endedness are done so well that  the deception succeeds.  And  if the fans managed to believe it, then by definition, it's neither  a flaw nor bad design.  That's what happened with DA:O.

The problem with DA2 was that the illusions mentioned above  weren't very convincing, and so  many fans DIDN'T buy  into them.   And   that brings us to the obvious next question:  why  not?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 juillet 2011 - 05:24 .

[OdanUrr]

In Exile wrote...

Actually, I think DA2 lived up to that completely;

How is that possible? As time goes by (see what I did there?) people grow older, acquire different tastes in fashion, evolve (or devolve sometimes) their opinions, change jobs, etc. What little DA2 shows us has to do with your companions morphing their thoughts, perhaps even their values, but little else. For instance, DA2 traded the camp for every companion having their own place in Kirkwall as a way of showing us each has their own life to live, but we're not shown this to the degree I would have expected. With every shift in time/act you get the impression that companions were peacefully waiting for years in their homes for you to show up and take them on a quest. It doesn't feel as if your companions actually lead separate lives that at times intertwine with your own.

And I haven't even started on Kirkwall. Kirkwall was such a great opportunity to actually show us that time did indeed pass even if companions looked pretty much the same. There could have been more people at times, there could have been different people, more stalls, traders, merchants, diplomatic missions from foreign lands, slight tweaks to the environments, large tweaks to the environment. There's a lot that can be done to one city to reflect the passage of time but, alas, this never comes to pass.

And how about the city's economy? How did it evolve over time? Politics? We're shown some, and Act III looked like it promised to show more but ultimately didn't.

You said DAO didn't achieve the "move through space" bit that well. What exactly do you mean by that? There's certainly more variety and depth (though probably still less than I would have wanted) to DAO's locations than there is in DA2. Or do you mean to say DAO failed to be reactive to your moving through space? Help me out here.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 16 juillet 2011 - 06:06 .

[TEWR]

Well, regarding Kirkwall changing over the years, the Docks actually do change in more than just "Big statue and can't explore Qunari compound."


There are more buildings, stalls, the ships don't look like their sinking, banners, some sort of archway type thingy, etc.


The Docks are the only place though that changes in Kirkwall. Everywhere else looks and is the same.


EDIT: I'm not saying it was enough though. Bioware went below the bare minimum to show changes. But, it's still there.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 juillet 2011 - 06:55 .

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
Well, I don't know what to say about this.  Sometimes illusions of choice, illusions of time, and illusions of open-endedness are done so well that  the deception succeeds.  And  if the fans managed to believe it, then by definition, it's neither  a flaw nor bad design.  That's what happened with DA:O.

Let me put it this way: there are people who believe DA2 is a good game and, even more strangely, well executed. These people exist. Does that make DA2 a good game, or well executed?

Saying that the fact that the majority liked DA:O meant that DA:O, objectively, executed well is not really a great argument.

Anyway, DA:O didn't create an illusion of time at all. Let's take Connor as an example. You could literally complete every quest in-game and nothing would change. He would just patiently wait as Wynne points out months pass. DA:O frequently locked you into choices - I <3 Wardens and I <3 Ferelden being examples of both; not allowing a dwarf noble to try for kingship or a Cousland to try for the crown without Anora was another.

The problem with DA2 was that the illusions mentioned above  weren't very convincing, and so  many fans DIDN'T buy  into them.   And   that brings us to the obvious next question:  why  not?

I think it was three things: 1) lots of DA:O fans didn't buy into DA2 from the start - it made radical changes, so the burden of proof was on DA2 to justify them; 2) DA2 had some incomprehensible **** elements, like removing the tactical camera for PC, reclycing areas, offereing more superficial content than DA:O; 3) less people liked the story and were caught up in it, because it lacked direction (this was where Bioware ironically tried to have more RPG design elements & totally failed)

Modifié par In Exile, 16 juillet 2011 - 06:23 .

[In Exile]

OdanUrr wrote...
How is that possible? As time goes by (see what I did there?) people grow older, acquire different tastes in fashion, evolve (or devolve sometimes) their opinions, change jobs, etc. What little DA2 shows us has to do with your companions morphing their thoughts, perhaps even their values, but little else. For instance, DA2 traded the camp for every companion having their own place in Kirkwall as a way of showing us each has their own life to live, but we're not shown this to the degree I would have expected. With every shift in time/act you get the impression that companions were peacefully waiting for years in their homes for you to show up and take them on a quest. It doesn't feel as if your companions actually lead separate lives that at times intertwine with your own.

No, you don't understand. When I say DA2 lived up to that, I mean it handled travelling through time as well as DA:O did space, which is to say it was really **** at it. 

I'm saying that the problem isn't just how DA2 wasn't a good game - it was that DA:O had the core elements that made DA2 a bad game. Linear exploration, no environemntal creativity, no connection betwee areas (they're all fixed and static modules)... all of these things, when translated in time, create a fixed timeline with no deviation, no opportunities for branching paths, isolated acts that don't even seem to be part of a timeline at points. Not only was there no reactivity to the environments, but the environments  were small and essentially devoid of anything to give them flavour. 

DA2 took all of this and game us their timeline, which is something stripped of essentially anything except a stage where quests happen. 

You said DAO didn't achieve the "move through space" bit that well. What exactly do you mean by that? There's certainly more variety and depth (though probably still less than I would have wanted) to DAO's locations than there is in DA2. Or do you mean to say DAO failed to be reactive to your moving through space? Help me out here.

What I said above, essentially. I can elaborate if you want.

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Well, regarding Kirkwall changing over the years, the Docks actually do change in more than just "Big statue and can't explore Qunari compound."


There are more buildings, stalls, the ships don't look like their sinking, banners, some sort of archway type thingy, etc.


The Docks are the only place though that changes in Kirkwall. Everywhere else looks and is the same.


EDIT: I'm not saying it was enough though. Bioware went below the bare minimum to show changes. But, it's still there.

Okay but when your companions' homes don't change? Seriously, Fenris had corpses, CORPSES, in his house that never rotted, never got carried out. Tiles loose, crap that never changed. I am willing to overlook flaws if the game is good (DAO), but when it isn't , things like shopping for housing decorations at Corpses R' Us is just ridiculous. I would have found such a thing funny in DAO. In DA2 (after many other problems) I just face/palmed every time I went to Fen's place. This was just one of many flaws that made DA2 fall to the "meh" of games.

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Well, regarding Kirkwall changing over the years, the Docks actually do change in more than just "Big statue and can't explore Qunari compound."


There are more buildings, stalls, the ships don't look like their sinking, banners, some sort of archway type thingy, etc.


The Docks are the only place though that changes in Kirkwall. Everywhere else looks and is the same.


EDIT: I'm not saying it was enough though. Bioware went below the bare minimum to show changes. But, it's still there.

Okay but when your companions' homes don't change? Seriously, Fenris had corpses, CORPSES, in his house that never rotted, never got carried out. Tiles loose, crap that never changed. I am willing to overlook flaws if the game is good (DAO), but when it isn't , things like shopping for housing decorations at Corpses R' Us is just ridiculous. I would have found such a thing funny in DAO. In DA2 (after many other problems) I just face/palmed every time I went to Fen's place. This was just one of many flaws that made DA2 fall to the "meh" of games.

Like I said Ery, I wasn't saying it was enough. Bioware literally did as little as they could do in regards to changes.

[Big I]

The problem with DA2 is one of expectations. By billing itself as a direct sequel to DAO it immediately engeders an expectation that certain thematic elements will be the same from both games. For instance, since DAO had a protagonist who is essentially a heroic archetype you expect Hawke to be one as well (i.e. heroic in the way that mythical heroes are heroic). Since DAO allowed minor changes in setting based on player choice (Anvil preserved/destroyed, Bhelen or Harrowmont, etc) you expect the same sort of quest outcome mechanic in DA2. And since DA2 had an import mechanic, you expect choices from DAO to be reflected correctly.


The DA2 marketing reinforced these expectations. We're told DA2 is about the "rise to power" of the "Champion", someone so important and powerful that the prologue tells us they're needed to avert a war. We're told that the game is set over ten years, and that part of it's appeal is seeing how your choices shape Kirkwall over that time. Gameplay further reinforces these expectations. Quests are presented with mulitple outcomes which we assume will lead to differences in story. Dialogue options are presented wherein players can choose to opt out of certain quests or conversations.


However, the most important story elements of DA2 completely betray these expectations. Different choices do not deliver different reactive outcomes. Choosing to refuse quests is ignored. Hawke remains completely at the whim of outside forces and individuals even after becoming Champion.


The situation is not helped by the divergent way that Hawke is portrayed, especially when it comes to portrayals of Hawkes's abilities as a hero. In all side quests, most companion quests and many main quests Hawke is able to resolve impossible situations and achieve victory with little to no cost. Hawke can destroy pride demons, defeat magisters and save kidnapped nobles with ease. Hawke can even secure the personal loyalty of companions while acting against their interests and beliefs, e.g. keeping Orana as a slave, dealing with Torpor with Anders present, etc. These outcomes make Hawke's plot enforced failures even more jarring.


The problem, in short, is not that DA2 resticts player choice, or that it does so to a greater extent than DAO. The problem is that it does so while leading players to believe that the opposite is the case, or at least what was intended.

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Well, regarding Kirkwall changing over the years, the Docks actually do change in more than just "Big statue and can't explore Qunari compound."


There are more buildings, stalls, the ships don't look like their sinking, banners, some sort of archway type thingy, etc.


The Docks are the only place though that changes in Kirkwall. Everywhere else looks and is the same.


EDIT: I'm not saying it was enough though. Bioware went below the bare minimum to show changes. But, it's still there.

Okay but when your companions' homes don't change? Seriously, Fenris had corpses, CORPSES, in his house that never rotted, never got carried out. Tiles loose, crap that never changed. I am willing to overlook flaws if the game is good (DAO), but when it isn't , things like shopping for housing decorations at Corpses R' Us is just ridiculous. I would have found such a thing funny in DAO. In DA2 (after many other problems) I just face/palmed every time I went to Fen's place. This was just one of many flaws that made DA2 fall to the "meh" of games.

Like I said Ery, I wasn't saying it was enough. Bioware literally did as little as they could do in regards to changes.

There is still a difference between bare minimum and almost non existant. Seriously, the comas that Hawke went into, the city stagnent (and no, a few banners and a statue that looked nothing like my Hawke does not count), the companions houses staying the same.  Bare minimum doesn't even describe it.  So...could...have...been...epic! It's all there, just begging to be what it could have been.

[JaegerBane]

In Exile 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. 

Well, no. Actually, the darkspawn chronicles don't even show us Alistair can't win, because it all comes down to defeating a dragon. Unless you think the Warden can gurantee victory over the archdemon, there's no argument to be had at all.

It would be like saying Hawke is indespensable because no one else could kill the Final Lightsaber Boss in DA2.

I've heard this type of thing further up the thread. While I concede that Darkspawn Chronicles doesn't actually show us the only possible future that could happen if the Warden hadn't been in the picture, it is, however, the *clearest example possible* to show the consequences of the Warden being absent. My issue with simply disregarding the outcomes of DC is essentially, there's no logical reason to do so. The Warden didn't exactly have it easy either, and DA:O made it pretty clear that victory at denerim was only achieved by the skin of the Warden's teeth. It's not like he had an easy ride.

My point is ultimately the the difference between success and failure was made up by a very small margin, and whatever that margin was, the Warden was up to handling it - whereas Alistair plainly wasn't. You could argue that Alistair just had bad luck or whatever but you're essentially hand-waving at that point, as there's no evidence to back it up.

JaegerBane wrote...
 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. 

Alistair does these things. The game, in darkspawn chronicles, progresses to the same point it does for the Warden. 

Yes. My point is that he doesn't do them as well. Otherwise DC plainly wouldn't have resulted in the situation it ends up with.

JaegerBane wrote...
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.

Alistair did these things. Alistair led an army to Fort Drakon. And Alistair and his allies fought the archdemon at the top of Fort Drakon. These things that you say the Warden was special... Alistair (as far as we know) did them.

What the Warden managed to do that Alistair didn't was land the final blow, if we look at the cannon ending of the DLC vs. the cannon ending of DA:O. because of course the player could have died multiple times trying to kill the archdemon. 

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the Warden succeeded where Alistair had failed. It's all very well splitting hairs about what Alistair did and didn't do, but at the end of the day, Alistair was a grey warden who was in possession of the treaties - by your own logic, he should have been able to do just as the Warden did.... but he failed. Clearly, there were other factors at play, and whatever they were, they went beyond simply having the treaties and the taint.

Since we don't actually see what Alistair did during his quest there isn't much point trying to assign credit to him for doing just as the Warden did, particularly since the end result was so different.

We know exactly what Alistair did wrong: he failed to kill the archdemon. He chocked in the Finals. He missed the buzzer beater, got intercepted on the Hail Mary, etc. 

And why did he fail? Killing the Archdemon was relatively simple barring it's size and toughness, which ultimately, had Alistair been just as up to the task, he would have succeeded.... assuming that the Warden was just some average joe in the right place at the right time. Ultimately, for all you know Alistair may have ballsed up the Urn of Sacred Ashes and those troops you see are there on Teagan's rebel direction. Alistair may well not have advanced at the rate of the Warden and hence was weaker when it came to the climax.

There are so many factors here that come together, but ultimately, the situation speaks for itself - The Warden and DC's Alistair were assigned the same task. One succeeded, and one did not. Insisting that they are both the same in terms of how important they were to the story clearly doesn't make any sense, as the destruction of Ferelden makes pretty clear.

[FieryDove]

In Exile wrote...

No, you don't understand. When I say DA2 lived up to that, I mean it handled travelling through time as well as DA:O did space, which is to say it was really **** at it. 

Maybe, but Dao only had to contend with a year or so, change or lack of is easier to take than 7-10 I'm guessing for most.

[In Exile]

FieryDove wrote...
Maybe, but Dao only had to contend with a year or so, change or lack of is easier to take than 7-10 I'm guessing for most.

But DA:O had a major change: the blight advancing across the land. Not to mention time sensitive events (the Tower of Magi, the Brecilian Forest, Conner) that just stay suspended for months if you leave midway, or even if you wait long enough.

Go to the mage tower last. Suddenly, you have to deal with Uldred having done what he did after Ostagar, nearly 8 calendar months before. It doesn't make sense. 

[In Exile]

Edit:

To make it clear, I am not trying to undermine DA:O... other than to say that the many flaws from DA2 were all design elements from DA:O, and so long as people say that DA:O had a better design with respect to these things than DA2, there's no hope for anything good in DA3. 

[quote]JaegerBane wrote...
I've heard this type of thing further up the thread. While I concede that Darkspawn Chronicles doesn't actually show us the only possible future that could happen if the Warden hadn't been in the picture, it is, however, the *clearest example possible* to show the consequences of the Warden being absent. [/quote]

I'm not denying that. What I am saying though is that the DLC does not actually show us that anything the Warden did was unique, special, or otherwise impossible to do aside from killing the archdemon.

But that can't be enough to show the many actions of Warden are important; if the only difference between DA2 with Hawke and DA2 with Varric as the protagonist is that the Final Boss isn't killed, no one would say Hawke's decisions start to matter. 

[quote]My issue with simply disregarding the outcomes of DC is essentially, there's no logical reason to do so. The Warden didn't exactly have it easy either, and DA:O made it pretty clear that victory at denerim was only achieved by the skin of the Warden's teeth. It's not like he had an easy ride.[/quote]

Victory at Denerim was a fluke (in the sense you're talking about) because the whole plan was a Hail Mary for the Warden to reach the Archdemon. That was it. The Warden pulled it off and killed it, ending the Blight.

But it wasn't the allied armies that did anything, other than keep the darkspawn off the Warden so that the Warden could make it to Fort Drakon. Alistair's allies did the same.

[quote]My point is ultimately the the difference between success and failure was made up by a very small margin, and whatever that margin was, the Warden was up to handling it - whereas Alistair plainly wasn't. You could argue that Alistair just had bad luck or whatever but you're essentially hand-waving at that point, as there's no evidence to back it up.[/quote]

Alistair didn't have ''Power Word: Reload''. The final battle with the archdemon is something you can lose and get the ''Game Over'' screen. The Warden doesn't win by default. 

The ''small difference'' could be that for the Warden, a stray arrow for Leliana pierced the archdemon's eye instead of not.

[quote]
Yes. My point is that he doesn't do them as well. Otherwise DC plainly wouldn't have resulted in the situation it ends up with. [/quote]

Sure it would have. Again, Alistair makes it to Fort Drakon, which is all those armies had to allow the Warden to do. The Archdemon is still there, stranded. Nothing of significance changes.

[quote]Again, you're ignoring the fact that the Warden succeeded where Alistair had failed.[/quote]

I'm not. I've said multiple times (in just this post!) that Alistair is failed to kill the archdemon. But as a basic logical fact, that says nothing about whether Alistair failed to gather the armies via treaty.

In fact, that Alistair made it to Fort Drakon at all says he did do it.
I

[quote]It's all very well splitting hairs about what Alistair did and didn't do, but at the end of the day, Alistair was a grey warden who was in possession of the treaties - by your own logic, he should have been able to do just as the Warden did.... but he failed. Clearly, there were other factors at play, and whatever they were, they went beyond simply having the treaties and the taint.[/quote]

There was one factor at play: killing the archdemon. Seriously, Alistiar followed in the Warden's footsteps so perfeclty that even the final battle took place in the exact same spot.

[quote]Since we don't actually see what Alistair did during his quest there isn't much point trying to assign credit to him for doing just as the Warden did, particularly since the end result was so different.[/quote]

Alistair gathered allies and pushed the Archdemon to Fort Drakon. The end result was almost identical except in a frantic combat with a giant dragon, the giant dragon happened to win. 

It would be one thing if in DA:O the Warden won because of the allies. But that's not what happens. The Warden wins because the Warden (for whatever reason) manages to kill the archdemon. That doesn't tell us anyone is special.

It's like someone arguing Hawke is special because only Hawke could kill the Act 1 Deep Roads Final Boss, the Act 2 Final Boss or the Act 3 Final Boss.

[quote]And why did he fail? Killing the Archdemon was relatively simple barring it's size and toughness, [/quote]

Err...what? Killing a dragon is simple?

You're honestly about to argue that killing the archdemon was supposed to be no big deal?

[quote]which ultimately, had Alistair been just as up to the task, he would have succeeded.... assuming that the Warden was just some average joe in the right place at the right time. [/quote]

Alistair isn't an average at all. He was selected for the Grey Wardens by Duncan personally, just as the Warden was. He became King of Ferelden and brought an army with him to Denerim. 

If we say that the difference between the Warden and Alistair is that the Warden is good at killing... that tell us that anyone who happens to be good at killing can be the Hero of Ferelden. And that's not your argument. But it's what follows from this defence.

[quote]Ultimately, for all you know Alistair may have ballsed up the Urn of Sacred Ashes and those troops you see are there on Teagan's rebel direction. Alistair may well not have advanced at the rate of the Warden and hence was weaker when it came to the climax.[/quote]

And for all you know, Alistair tripped over a rock and sprained his ankle before fighting the archdemon, and the Warden didn't. We could continue this ''My father can beat up your father!'' talk, but the darkspawn DLC pretty much shows that someone else (Alistair) could walk in the Warden's footsteps exactly, sans actually killing the archdemon. Which, if you look at DA:O, is exactly 2 hrs out of an 80 hr game, or about 1 day out of 12 months.

[quote]There are so many factors here that come together, but ultimately, the situation speaks for itself - The Warden and DC's Alistair were assigned the same task. One succeeded, and one did not. Insisting that they are both the same in terms of how important they were to the story clearly doesn't make any sense, as the destruction of Ferelden makes pretty clear.[/quote]

I don't know what you're arguing against, but it isn't me. What I said was that the Warden was not a lynchpin of anything. The darkspawn DLC shows us exactly the scenario that people argue the absence of Hawke would cause (everything goes on about the same) and the defence being used is the exact same one people use to defend Hawke (no one could defeat x beside Hawke!). 

Modifié par In Exile, 16 juillet 2011 - 03:28 .

[Kilshrek]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

The situation is not helped by the divergent way that Hawke is portrayed, especially when it comes to portrayals of Hawkes's abilities as a hero. In all side quests, most companion quests and many main quests Hawke is able to resolve impossible situations and achieve victory with little to no cost. Hawke can destroy pride demons, defeat magisters and save kidnapped nobles with ease. Hawke can even secure the personal loyalty of companions while acting against their interests and beliefs, e.g. keeping Orana as a slave, dealing with Torpor with Anders present, etc. These outcomes make Hawke's plot enforced failures even more jarring.

Truth.

[Theagg]

In Exile wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
Maybe, but Dao only had to contend with a year or so, change or lack of is easier to take than 7-10 I'm guessing for most.

But DA:O had a major change: the blight advancing across the land. Not to mention time sensitive events (the Tower of Magi, the Brecilian Forest, Conner) that just stay suspended for months if you leave midway, or even if you wait long enough.

Go to the mage tower last. Suddenly, you have to deal with Uldred having done what he did after Ostagar, nearly 8 calendar months before. It doesn't make sense. 

Yep, this, In my current Origins replay, I, having started the Witherfang quest, have pulled out of the Ruins well before completing that quest and am headed off to Orzammar instead. Which, of course, takes weeks in game time to reach, let alone do stuff there.

Meanwhile Connor is still in his bedroom and has been for quite some time. I think the Tower quest is the only one that locks you in from the start if I recall. (once you go through the doors) Branka locks you in towards the end of tthe Paragon quest. The sense of proper time passing in Origins really is lamentable.

[JaegerBane]

In Exile wrote...
I don't know what you're arguing against, but it isn't me. What I said was that the Warden was not a lynchpin of anything. The darkspawn DLC shows us exactly the scenario that people argue the absence of Hawke would cause (everything goes on about the same) and the defence being used is the exact same one people use to defend Hawke (no one could defeat x beside Hawke!). 

In Exile, I won't quote you line for line to avoid the Walls of Text, so I'll sum up my reponse:

You'll have to forgive me but from what you've just written there, it sounds like you're making a self-contradictory point. On the one hand you claim that the Warden is not important to the plot, and that it would have gone on without him.... and on the other hand, concede that things worked out differently without him there and therefore the plot ends in a very different fashion.

The whole situation with Grey Warden treaties and the various problems hitting the different groups existed independantly of the Warden's success at the Joining, so I don't really understand why you think it such a significant issue that Alistair ended up carrying out the same course of action... i mean, to put it bluntly, how else would you have expected him to go about replacing the king's army? Of course there's going to be some similarities to how Alistair would have went about his task, but whatever he did, he didn't do it as well. You're making a blind assumption that his only reason for failure was that he choked at the final hurdle... in a story where the improvement of the character, from zero to hero, is a major aspect of it. You have no idea why he failed. Given how the story works, however, it's likely that he wasn't as experienced or developed as the Warden was at the end - which is a question of the character's capability that has developed over the course of the story, not simple chance. As you said yourself, the armies themselves didn't actually make that much of a difference.

The main issue I have with what you're saying seems to centre on the Archdemon being a binary value that was 1 for the Warden and 0 for Alistair. This is nothing like the situation for Hawke, because, unlike the Warden, No matter what experiences he went through, the game world is left in disarray and both sides are in ruins. His experience and his capability did not matter one jot to the conclusion of the plot, whereas the same for the Warden was the difference between the end of Ferelden and it's survival. No matter how many assumptions you make, this final point can't be simply ignored. And that is precisely why people were dissatisfied with DA2's conclusion in comparison to DA:O's.

This is all I have to say on the matter to be honest, as I said, you argument is coming across that you're arguing that black is white but also black, and it's getting a little frustrating to comprehend.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 16 juillet 2011 - 04:55 .

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And if you are going whine about
DAII's ending, do I need to pull up Fallout 2's main ending, Planescape
Torment's, or Baldur's Gate II's ending to show how much hypocrites old
school RPG elitists are?

Please do, because I remember Fallout 2, despite the one ending, having a metric crap ton of other events that you could influence. Granted it was in the epilogue form which is strangely detested, I can give you a minimum of 3 "major" events in the world that the PC could influence as well come the end of the game. You end the game in one way(by beating the big bad), but there are multiple "endings" to the story of the chosen one.

Not to mention the fact that many of us "old School RPG elitists" are pretty darn OK with a single ending, if  that ending  gives some measure of CLOSURE. 

And Torment....  sure, Torment ultimately had one ending too.    And even worse,  you were told about this ending in the prologue.  But what made that ending so unequivocally satisfying, is that there were at least  a DOZEN  different ways to bring  it about.   You could commit suicide, you could    solo Kill   TTO or you could ressurect your party to help you;  You could merge with TTO;  you could employ logic and convince TTO that he  doesn't exist  etc.  And this of course assumes you even decided to end your game at the Fortress.  Torment offers ways to end your journey much sooner.


At this point tho, I don't know what nausiates me more, DA2's terrible ending, or  the people here   who  will go to any length necessary, no matter how silly,   to  defend it.

What sickens me more is people complaining about aspects in DAII that most RPGs in the past have. You hear all the whining about not being able to customize your teammates armor, but then PST didn't let you equip everything on everyone either.

Yes, you can get to PST's one ending in many different ways, however, that doesn't escape the fact that you can't change that one ending.

Fallout 2, one main ending, Vault 13 residents and tribals create a new village of Arroyo together, no matter what the player did or how good or evil he was. There was no option for evil players to kill them all, or join the Enclave, etc.

[erynnar]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And if you are going whine about
DAII's ending, do I need to pull up Fallout 2's main ending, Planescape
Torment's, or Baldur's Gate II's ending to show how much hypocrites old
school RPG elitists are?

Please do, because I remember Fallout 2, despite the one ending, having a metric crap ton of other events that you could influence. Granted it was in the epilogue form which is strangely detested, I can give you a minimum of 3 "major" events in the world that the PC could influence as well come the end of the game. You end the game in one way(by beating the big bad), but there are multiple "endings" to the story of the chosen one.

Not to mention the fact that many of us "old School RPG elitists" are pretty darn OK with a single ending, if  that ending  gives some measure of CLOSURE. 

And Torment....  sure, Torment ultimately had one ending too.    And even worse,  you were told about this ending in the prologue.  But what made that ending so unequivocally satisfying, is that there were at least  a DOZEN  different ways to bring  it about.   You could commit suicide, you could    solo Kill   TTO or you could ressurect your party to help you;  You could merge with TTO;  you could employ logic and convince TTO that he  doesn't exist  etc.  And this of course assumes you even decided to end your game at the Fortress.  Torment offers ways to end your journey much sooner.


At this point tho, I don't know what nausiates me more, DA2's terrible ending, or  the people here   who  will go to any length necessary, no matter how silly,   to  defend it.

What sickens me more is people complaining about aspects in DAII that most RPGs in the past have. You hear all the whining about not being able to customize your teammates armor, but then PST didn't let you equip everything on everyone either.

Yes, you can get to PST's one ending in many different ways, however, that doesn't escape the fact that you can't change that one ending.

Fallout 2, one main ending, Vault 13 residents and tribals create a new village of Arroyo together, no matter what the player did or how good or evil he was. There was no option for evil players to kill them all, or join the Enclave, etc.

I think I have a right to **** about those things in DA2. I haven't played FST or Fallout. I played DAO, so I get to compare and contrast what I got in the first with its sequel.