583 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

Yrkoon wrote...

Act one isn't about the Arishok at all. It's about raising money for a deep roads expedition, and then going on it, and then discovering an evil red Idol.... and then waiting 3 years for something to come up.

I never said Act I was about the Arishok, but that you did forge a personal connection with him.

And using a Dead Viscount and a retreating Qunari to explain why the Templar vs. Mage conflict decidesw to heat to a boil 3 years later isn't a "connection". it's the opposite of a connection. It's a lack of one. It's a completely different road.

The power vacuum in Kirkwall at the end of Act II accelerates the resolution of a situation that would have eventually exploded at some point. Personally, I would have preferred to see it unfold gradually rather than have Varric point out the obvious. Regardless, it is a connection, though, admittedly, maybe not the one many would have hoped for.

It's like the devs sat down to write the plot, and after getting up to a terrific climax and resolution in act two, they looked at the finished product and said: "wow, that was awesome but... sh*t. The game's only 20 hours long. Quick, lets toss together something for act 3. Oh I know, how about Mage vs. Templar? That's always a good one."!

I honestly believed Act II was the end of the road for Hawke, having been previously biased by the trailers. Likewise, I found it would be too short if that were the case. Does Act III seem a bit forced, rushed even? Personally, yes.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

Act one isn't about the Arishok at all.  It's not even indirectly about the Arishok.    You only have 2 quick conversations with him and they're about  Gunpowder.   You've got more dealings with friggin Thrask and Fenrial than you do with him.    Act one's Main plot  is  about raising money for a deep roads expedition, and then going on it, and then discovering an evil red Idol.... and then waiting 3 years for something  else to come up.

Act 1 serves two purposes.

1) Provide a method for Hawke to return to nobitiliy, which leads to his increased involvement with the Qunari Conflict, by the Viscount's request. It also demonstrates how Hawke has met the Arishok and why the final encounter is between these two characters.

2) It introduces us to the two major conflicts of the story, the Qunari and the templars/mages. Like the Archdemon itself, the 50gp is really just a plot device to explore the important elements of the story.
 
In a way, Dragon Age 2's side plots were handled better, since they relate to the focus of the story (Mages vs. Templars). Origin's plots involving the Dwarven King, Broken Circle, etc, are interesting but are not relevant once the respective quest chains are completed.
 

And using a Dead Viscount and a retreating Qunari to explain why the  act three Templar vs. Mage conflict decides to heat to a boil 3 years later isn't a "connection". it's the opposite of a connection. It's a lack of one. It's a completely different road.

The dead viscount leaves a power vacuumin its wake, which Meredith attempts to fill. With Meredith's new power and Anders' attack on the Chantry, everything finally goes to hell. Act 2 shows us how Hawke comes by the title, Champion of Kirkwall, and demonstrates how he more fully becomes caught up in the events of the game, despite having very little choice. Kirkwall is portrayed as a city waiting to explode with conflict. This is built up in Acts 1 and 2. Act 3 represents the culmination of this affair.

I will say however that Act 3 has a weaker connection in comparison to the first two parts.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Yrkoon]

OdanUrr wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Act one isn't about the Arishok at all. It's about raising money for a deep roads expedition, and then going on it, and then discovering an evil red Idol.... and then waiting 3 years for something to come up.

I never said Act I was about the Arishok, but that you did forge a personal connection with him.

  Well, I really disagree with this.  You don't forge a personal connection with him in act 1. You don't  forge a  personal connection with him even by Qunari standards in act one..  You have a grand total of 2 conversations with him.  Just enough for him to learn your name  (as he specifically points out).

OdanUrr wrote...

And using a Dead Viscount and a retreating Qunari to explain why the Templar vs. Mage conflict decidesw to heat to a boil 3 years later isn't a "connection". it's the opposite of a connection. It's a lack of one. It's a completely different road.

The power vacuum...

What power vacuum?     Everyone from Varric,  to Avaline,  to guards on the street, and even the Viscount himself tell you, in no uncertain terms in act one that the real power in Kirkwall is Merideth.   And she doesn't go anywhere at the end of act 2, does she?      Sure, The Viscount makes it a point to tell you that his role is to "keep the balance" or whatever.  But we see no tangeable signs of this, just  his own words from his own lips.  Everything occuring on the streets and coming out of the lips of the NPCs all  point to something else.    Perhaps they  should have given us some  in game examples in act 1/act 2 of him keeping this balance?   (sorta  like what Grand Cleric Elthina does at the beginning of act 3) But  as it stands, he does nothing to define his government position and consequently, his death manages to carry so much less weight  in the plot than it should

I honestly believed Act II was the end of the road for Hawke, having been previously biased by the trailers. Likewise, I found it would be too short if that were the case. Does Act III seem a bit forced, rushed even? Personally, yes.

You know, the really  tragic thing is that IF DA2 had ended at the end of act two,  I probably would have hailed DA2 as a mediocre game with a freakishly  FANTASTIC ending.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:28 .

[0x30A88]

DA:O had many a choice, to name a few:

- mages vs templars vs fail mages.
- Connor: save by lyrium or blod, kill.
- dwarven king -- this one was complicated and the best choice is a combination of two.

These affected what army you got and side quests. In DA2 there were choices, but the outcome was pretty much similiar, even the last choice. Isabella was the hardest one in DA2, though it only leads to a quest that may made crafting epicly overpowered potion possible.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:55 .

[txgoldrush]

iggy4566 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

xkg wrote...

It is a good story. People just view it in a wrong way.

If there are enough people who view it in worng way then there is something wrong with the story not with the people. Think about that.

It's not even a story. It's three friggin stories (which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. BG1 was two very distinct stories, but they were  tightly and masterfully weaved into each other)  And that's the difference.    In DA2, the 3 main plots weren't connected. At all. There were huge gaps. it was almost like playing 3 different games... only worse because you  weren't playing 3 different games.  You were consistantly being pounded upside the head with the  exact same unchanging setting, dealing with the exact same unchanging people, and doing the exact same type of unimaginative poorly written quests/busy work.

 It was a literary  mess. An unbelieveable one, considering  that Bioware is usually the industry LEADER when it comes to putting out amazingly written stories.

How are the 3 acts not concected?

Plain and simple...by theme. The theme on how human weakness creates and escalates problems and conflicts. Notice how most of the stories, from the secondary quests to the companion quests as well as main plot deals with the above theme. Wrapped on the outside of the frame with a theme on how one person is not solely to blame on a social collapse.

The narrative plays by different rules than the average RPG, which simply put, throws off many RPG gamers.

And the style of three loosely connected acts has been done before and has been proven to work.

http://www.cormacmcc...thecrossing.htm

While in no way a video game writing team can stand up to the greatest living American author, this book proves this format CAN BE DONE!!!!!

[txgoldrush]

Gisle Aune wrote...

DA:O had many a choice, to name a few:

- mages vs templars vs fail mages.
- Connor: save by lyrium or blod, kill.
- dwarven king -- this one was complicated and the best choice is a combination of two.

These affected what army you got and side quests. In DA2 there were choices, but the outcome was pretty much similiar, even the last choice. Isabella was the hardest one in DA2, though it only leads to a quest that may made crafting epicly overpowered potion possible.

No, its extremely shallow.

The ONLY time when a choice truly mattered was trying to save Connor in Redcliff.

[alex90c]

txgoldrush wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

DA:O had many a choice, to name a few:

- mages vs templars vs fail mages.
- Connor: save by lyrium or blod, kill.
- dwarven king -- this one was complicated and the best choice is a combination of two.

These affected what army you got and side quests. In DA2 there were choices, but the outcome was pretty much similiar, even the last choice. Isabella was the hardest one in DA2, though it only leads to a quest that may made crafting epicly overpowered potion possible.

No, its extremely shallow.

The ONLY time when a choice truly mattered was trying to save Connor in Redcliff.

DA:O maintained the illusion of choice very well.

DA2 just constantly said "UP YOURS PLAYER, YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING AHAHAHAHAHAHA". Perfect example is Shepherding Wolves. Try telling Petrice no.

Modifié par alex90c, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:01 .

[Corto81]

alex90c wrote...
DA:O maintained the illusion of choice very well.

DA2 just constantly said "UP YOURS PLAYER, YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING AHAHAHAHAHAHA". Perfect example is Shepherding Wolves. Try telling Petrice no.

Exactly.

And while most of the game offered only the illusion of choice well (as opposed to game-changing choices a la Witcher 2), it was enough to give you the feeling you were involved in the world.

And while some of the choices were relatively cosmetic (you pick who rule Orzammar, Breciian Forest etc.), they showed.
Landsmeet mattered - Alistar or Loghain, etc.

Comparing choices from DA:O to DA2 is a joke, and an insult to DA:O.

[rabbitor]

I don't really see those game changers in Twitcher 2. Well, you decide which one of two act 2 versions you will be playing but aside from that choices matter the same way they do in Dragon Age games.

[tmp7704]

rabbitor wrote...

I don't really see those game changers in Twitcher 2. Well, you decide which one of two act 2 versions you will be playing but aside from that choices matter the same way they do in Dragon Age games.

Yeah, as long as we ignore 1/3rd of the game content becomes different depending on the choice you make, it's the same.

[MeAndMySandvich]

tmp7704 wrote...

rabbitor wrote...

I don't really see those game changers in Twitcher 2. Well, you decide which one of two act 2 versions you will be playing but aside from that choices matter the same way they do in Dragon Age games.

Yeah, as long as we ignore 1/3rd of the game content becomes different depending on the choice you make, it's the same.

I'd actually go so far as to say 1/2 when you count the end of Act I and Act 3.

[FieryDove]

txgoldrush wrote...
No, its extremely shallow.

I agree, the choices in DA2 seem shallow.

Corto81 wrote...

And while some of the choices were relatively cosmetic (you pick who rule Orzammar, Breciian Forest etc.), they showed.
Landsmeet mattered - Alistar or Loghain, etc.

We don't know if they are all cosmetic. If one chose Bhelen instead maybe Dwarves would be able to do more against the DS like ending them forever. If one picked Harrowmount maybe dwarves would get overrun and wiped out completely.

If we sided against the elves maybe entire countries were turned into puppies.

If we agree with Morrigan - no, I think Wynne would still live through...anything. Still pretty good choices.

imho...no fact!
No really just imho.

[txgoldrush]

alex90c wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

DA:O had many a choice, to name a few:

- mages vs templars vs fail mages.
- Connor: save by lyrium or blod, kill.
- dwarven king -- this one was complicated and the best choice is a combination of two.

These affected what army you got and side quests. In DA2 there were choices, but the outcome was pretty much similiar, even the last choice. Isabella was the hardest one in DA2, though it only leads to a quest that may made crafting epicly overpowered potion possible.

No, its extremely shallow.

The ONLY time when a choice truly mattered was trying to save Connor in Redcliff.

DA:O maintained the illusion of choice very well.

DA2 just constantly said "UP YOURS PLAYER, YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING AHAHAHAHAHAHA". Perfect example is Shepherding Wolves. Try telling Petrice no.

I can change alot in DAII, I can choose who lives and who dies, who can turn against me, whether Aveline can marry or not, whether Petrice lives or dies, whether Gamlen finds his daughter, and whether I become the mages champion or oppressor.

Yes, its true that you can't change much in the big picture HOWEVER, the personal aspects of the story change wildly from player choices, more so than DAO.

If you take out DAO's and DAO Awakening's ending cards, you will find that DAII actually shows more of the consquences of your actions than DAO and its expansion does. Its no where near The Witcher 2 when it comes to consquences, but DAII is just the same as any Bioware game including DAO (despite its unique plot structure), haters simply refuse to admit that

Modifié par txgoldrush, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:46 .

[tmp7704]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yes, its true that you can't change much in the big picture HOWEVER, the personal aspects of the story change wildly from player choices, more so than DAO.

I'd say it's about comparable with DAO -- in the first game you have the same kind of control over whether people live or die, help a companion to possibly get married, and depending on the origin you also have influence over fate of your family members.

[Frybread76]

Changing whether Aveline gets married? Damn, that's certainly the world-altering choice and reason I pay money for RPG!

[xkg]

txgoldrush wrote...

I can change alot in DAII, I can choose who lives and who dies, who can turn against me, whether Aveline can marry or not, whether Petrice lives or dies, whether Gamlen finds his daughter, and whether I become the mages champion or oppressor.

If you take out DAO's and DAO Awakening's ending cards, you will find that DAII actually shows more of the consquences of your actions than DAO and its expansion does.

There are too many choices in origins so I wont list all here but on top of my head (only important choices)

txgoldrush wrote...
I can change alot in DAII,
I can choose who lives and who dies,
whether Petrice lives or dies,

I can kill Zevran, Wynne, Leliana, Shale, Dog at Ostagar, leave Sten in his cage for certain death,
I can kill Loghain, Flemeth
I can kill Werewolves/Dalish
I can decide the fate of Conor/His mother

I can decide the fate of Jowan, if I let him free i can find him later defending refugees, or i can send him to the fade and later i can spare or execute him.

I can even choose to die MYSELF, or just let Alistair/Loghain sacrifice him self .
Of course I can perform Morrigan's Ritual and no one will die.

If I really want and manage to ****** off/kill all my companions I can be left with only Alistair in my party before the final battle.

txgoldrush wrote...
who can turn against me

Wynne, Leliana, Shale, Oghren, Zevran, Sten can turn against me.

txgoldrush wrote...
whether Aveline can marry or not

Yep, I can decide whether Alistair will marry Anora, ohhh I can even marry him/her myself
I can decide about Oghren - Felsi relationship

txgoldrush wrote...
whether Gamlen finds his daughter

How about Alistair and his sister Goldanna. Gamlen's daughter is a pure "cosmetic choice", Alistair quest has serious impact on the story.

txgoldrush wrote...
and whether I become the mages champion or oppressor.

I can become QUEEN/KING of Ferelden.

And mages - here I have even more choices than DA2.
First I can decide thier fate (tower) - if I let them live then later I can set (or not) the entire circle free (boon).
In DA2 siding with mages or not is really meaningless - in DAO it has real impact later (like Irving helping with Conor's quest)



Anyone ? feel free to give some more examples from DAO or counter those examples with DA2 choices.

I have Updated this list a little.

Modifié par xkg, 20 juillet 2011 - 04:20 .

[FieryDove]

xkg wrote...

Wynne, Leliana, Shale can turn against me.

Zevran and Oggy can also. Sten can attack you, does that count?

[alex90c]

xkg wrote...



There are too many choices in origins so I wont list all here but on top of my head (only important choices here)

txgoldrush wrote...
I can change alot in DAII,
I can choose who lives and who dies,
whether Petrice lives or dies,

I can kill Zevran, Wynne, Leliana, Shale, Dog at Ostagar, leave Sten in his cage for certain death,
I can kill Loghain, Flemeth
I can kill Werewolves/Dalish
I can decide the fate of Conor/His mother

I can even choose to die MYSELF...

txgoldrush wrote...
who can turn against me

Wynne, Leliana, Shale can turn against me.

txgoldrush wrote...
whether Aveline can marry or not

Yep, I can decide whether Alistair will marry Anora, ohhh I can even marry him/her myself
I can decide about Oghren - Felsi relationship

txgoldrush wrote...
whether Gamlen finds his daughter

Oh this is such cosmetic choice that i wont even bother to search for any examples here. there are tons of them in DAO.

txgoldrush wrote...
and whether I become the mages champion or oppressor.

I can become QUEEN/KING of Ferelden.


Anyone ? feel free to give some more examples from DAO or counter those examples with DA2 choices.

I guarantee you, txgoldrush will find some way to make out the DA2 "choices" were better.

[xkg]

FieryDove wrote...

xkg wrote...

Wynne, Leliana, Shale can turn against me.

Zevran and Oggy can also. Sten can attack you, does that count?

Yep of course. It's been so long since I've played DAO so i really don't remember all the details

[iggy4566]

both sides keep adding gasoline to the open fire.

[Yrkoon]

The fact that there's even a fire in the first place is a testiment to the fact that something went terribly wrong with DA2.

We didn't see this kind of consistant and extended vitriol across the board when ANY OTHER Bioware sequel came out. Didn't happen with BG2, didn't happen with ME2.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 19 juillet 2011 - 11:46 .

[OdanUrr]

Instead of comparing DA2 against DAO at every single turn, why don't we analyze what kind of choices we'd like for an eventual DA3? And please, don't say things like, "choices that matter."

Modifié par OdanUrr, 20 juillet 2011 - 12:10 .

[iggy4566]

Yrkoon wrote...

The fact that there's even a fire in the first place is a testiment to the fact that something went terribly wrong with DA2.

We didn't see this kind of consistant and extended vitriol across the board when ANY OTHER Bioware sequel came out. Didn't happen with BG2, didn't happen with ME2.

Both sides need to stop crying at one another.

Modifié par iggy4566, 20 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[Walrusninja]

DA2 is certainly different from 1, and they changed some things and characters that didn't need changed, but it was still a great game. Like ME2, they experimented. I think 3 will nail the formula in all areas due to that exploration of new ideas and the feedback we give. There was room to slicken and speed up combat, but maybe a mid-ground would be better. It was great to explore a different part of the world, but we didn't get to see enough of it. There was room to add a little artistic flair, though maybe a mid ground again. So there you have it. They've expanded the formula and potential, and in doing so, we've told them where the limits are, so for 3 they should nail it

What did genuinely annoy me? The inability to change certain things. There were some cool decisions to be made, but a few BIG things couldn't be changed..... 1 springs to mind especially, involving Anders, need I say more. Lack of consistancy. Anders is barely even the same guy, the elves have gone from uninspired pointy eared humans that sound stoned - to Welsh Navi. They also replaced all their armour with green playdough. I liked some of the stylising, I thought Merril was brilliant and adorable. Origins elves were too close to humans, but I think DA2 went too far the other way. Accents were mixed, I felt the desire to murder that stupid Irish elf in the Dalish camp who insults you repeatedly, sounds like Irish Shatner( I'm from Northern Ireland, he was just a pain hah).
Then there's the big focus on romance instead of story and the fact that I can decide everybody's sexuality for them. I mean, I like a variety of types in the game, but I shouldn't be able to tell characters who THEY are. That's not RPG material. RPG material is making MY character who I want and being able to influence the actions, stay the hand etc. of others, not decide who everyone is as I go. I like properly written characters! Less time on making everyone sexual raffles and romance stuff and more time on story and character development and writing please!

My point? Choice can be good and bad. I like the ability to change some things, especially my character, who he is, what he wears etc. The likes of being able to tell all your friends what clothes they have to wear .... is actually kind of ridiculous when you think about it. "Here friend wear what I tell you to!" or "be who I tell you to be!" how immersive! So in a way I prefer the ME2 approach, although maybe let us change the likes of little bits and pieces, or be able to give gifts that they'll wear and just a bigger "wardrobe" would be better. Being able to dress them up is tradition really, but it never really made sense. I prefer the idea that they're not total lemmings, they're friends with identities and preferences etc., once again the idea of properly written characters, not tools you use.
Being able to have my character influence situations or have his say at least, is brilliant. I think that's what DA2 lacked in places, but then again, Hawke was just a normal person for most of the game. No Gey Warden Jedi tricks this time, people won't bow to the will of some bum from a distant land.

There's a fine line here. Bioware tried new stuff in DA2, same in ME2. Some of it worked, some didn't. That's how they learn, that's what'll carve the future of gaming, knowledge through trying things out.

Hope you like my ..... book 
.

Modifié par Walrusninja, 20 juillet 2011 - 01:20 .

[Corto81]

Walrusninja wrote...
DA2 is certainly different from 1, and they changed some things and characters that didn't need changed, but it was still a great game.
.

No it wasn't.

For plenty of reasons stated a million times on this board and across the interwebz.

And what do you call experimenting exactly?
Re-used areas?
Non-responsive choices?
MMO-type retarted 10-minute tops-quests?
No exploration or research?
etcetc...


Meh.