583 réponses à ce sujet

[ademska]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Oh I did played BioWare's Blue Garret Hawke who is more merciful than BioWare's Purple Marian Hawke. Garret Hawke let Anders live. He knew everything that come out of Anders' mouth after his inspirational speech. Did Anders kill himself? Go ahead and screen shot the moment that Anders kill himself as you claimed. He really need justice by his own hands. Talk about regret, justice and killing himself isn't going to bring back innocent lifes. He should had listen to Garret's diplomatic and compromised talks about not hating the templars . But NO. He went ahead with the plan secretly.

oh, hi, yes, good morning. or afternoon.

in the rivaled anders pro-templar ending, anders kills himself. if you click this link and claim you don't see his intention to committ suicide as soon as the battle is over, you are being willfully ignorant.

you cannot sway him to not follow through on his beliefs, because he is a person possessed of a spirit, and the world just doesn't damn work like that. the fact that we've all been arguing for days and no one will budge on his position should tell you just how stubborn people can be.

what you can do is make him a different person. rivalling anders can cause him to side against everything he believes and fight the templars.

if you had played a diplomatic garrett hawke who had been vehemently pro-mage and nice to anders, then spared him, you would have seen an anders who was certain of his decision in the chantry, not regretful, who was at peace with his merger with justice, not tormented, and who was positively giddy about the future fighting for mage rights, not suicidal. one is not necessarily better than the other, but they are objectively different.

this, my friend, and pay attention here... is a consequence of consistent choices you made throughout the game.

Modifié par ademska, 21 juillet 2011 - 07:31 .

[ademska]

Addai67 wrote...

And Origins had your companions with their personal quests and character arcs.  There's no difference there, so it's a wash and the greater plot choices available in Origins- even if you were still moved along in linear fashion- put it ahead of DA2 on the question of choice and consequence.  Because DA2 was marketed to present more than Origins in the way of choice and consequence,  things you would actually see in-game, the lack is all the more glaring.

yes, there is a difference, thanks to the dichotomy of the friendship/rivalry scale vs origins' approval bar.

if zevran's approval drops to minimum, he leaves the party and nothing comes of it, unless you force him into a fight, and then he's dead.

if anders' rivalry goes to max, he has a completely different game-spanning character arc from the friendship path with separate dialogue, and he actually discusses his fate in-game (if spared).

it's not comparable. i don't honestly care what the marketing department said, i care what the game did, and what the game did was present me with a multitude of ways to influence my characters beyond simply raising their approval of me, and i actually saw the results of it in-game, with significantly altered cutscenes depending on how i treated them, which is more than can be said for dao.

you yourself admitted that dao proceeded in a linear fashion. dao and da2 are both linear games with a set ending regardless of the choices you made. the difference is that in dao, your primary moments where you saw real consequence of your actions (and not in epilogue cards or a game area reskin) were... basically the dark ritual and your warden's potential death. that was a good one. (there might be some others, feel free to enumerate and elaborate.)

in da2, a large percentage of companion dialogues/cutscenes and every companion act 3 dialogue/cutscene differed based on the choices you made with your companions (ie how far along friend/rivalry path they were). you may not have liked the execution, and/or you may not have liked the companions enough to think this worthwhile, but it is indisputable objective fact.

in da2, i wasn't the kingmaker, i was the friend. some people don't like that, and i more than understand that opinion, but it is an opinion.

Modifié par ademska, 21 juillet 2011 - 07:46 .

[FieryDove]

ademska wrote...

yes, there is a difference, thanks to the dichotomy of the friendship/rivalry scale vs origins' approval bar.

if zevran's approval drops to minimum, he leaves the party and nothing comes of it, unless you force him into a fight, and then he's dead.

He doesn't join the crows and attack you later? I once had low approval with him and he did that. But he was still in the party roster.
.

[tmp7704]

ademska wrote...

if zevran's approval drops to minimum, he leaves the party and nothing comes of it, unless you force him into a fight, and then he's dead.

I'd say having the companion abandon you permanently is a serious consequence and outcome of how you choose to treat them, in itself.

[ademska]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'd say having the companion abandon you permanently is a serious consequence and outcome of how you choose to treat them, in itself.

i didn't say it wasn't.

what i said, what i've been saying, is that it doesn't compare to the change hawke incites in companions in da2, simply because of the game mechanics of divergent f/r vs linear approval

in my earlier post you claimed i was creating a false dichtomy, but please, don't assume i am making blanket statements. both games have plot and companion choice-consequence. each just has a different focus and does one with greater visibility than the other.

[tmp7704]

ademska wrote...

what i said, what i've been saying, is that it doesn't compare to the change hawke incites in companions in da2, simply because of the game mechanics of divergent f/r vs linear approval

I think it compares -- under the hood DAO actually does have the same approval/disapproval scale DA2 uses, and it modifies the companions' reactions and dialogues based on where you happen to be on that scale in a very similar way. DA2 adds more detail to the negative half and may use different consequences for heading that route than DAO, but the underlying mechanics really are very similar and as such well comparable.

Or to put it differently -- for a number of companions in DA2 following one end of the scale makes them ultimately change their mind about some matter, while following the other end results in no such change to speak of. Which, when you think about it isn't different from how it works out in DAO.

[ademska]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think it compares -- under the hood DAO actually does have the same approval/disapproval scale DA2 uses, and it modifies the companions' reactions and dialogues based on where you happen to be on that scale in a very similar way. DA2 adds more detail to the negative half and may use different consequences for heading that route than DAO, but the underlying mechanics really are very similar and as such well comparable.

Or to put it differently -- for a number of companions in DA2 following one end of the scale makes them ultimately change their mind about some matter, while following the other end results in no such change to speak of. Which, when you think about it isn't different from how it works out in DAO.

i had a response written out before i realized we're (mostly) arguing semantics. so, with the caveat that i consider 'rivalry' not negative at all and actually an entirely separate method of interacting with a character, i'll go ahead and say that on several counts i agree with you. however, it's that detail of consequence you cited in da2 that makes the system so much more reflective of choice. i would expect no less from a game that puts most of its emphasis on cast rather than plot.

like i said, both games have their focuses, but that doesn't preclude choice and consequence outside of that focus. i never said dao didn't have companion choice, i said da2 had much, much more of it.

edit: though i will outright disagree with your second statement. every character in either game has a starting neutral point and a set of defining characteristics. in dao, this:

ultimately change their mind about some matter, while following the other end results in no such change to speak of.

is true. in da2, however, the majority (though not all) of the companions go through divergent character development on either end of the scale. i've written big manifestos in this thread on the differences between anders on friendship and anders on rivalry (i use him because his is the most overt). without hawke's influence, he would be neither of those people.

Modifié par ademska, 21 juillet 2011 - 09:31 .

[tmp7704]

ademska wrote...

like i said, both games have their focuses, but that doesn't preclude choice and consequence outside of that focus. i never said dao didn't have companion choice, i said da2 had much, much more of it.

Mhmm i think we can leave it at this -- i'm inclined to agree overall, and we seem to just differ over whether the companion-related choices are really "much much more" elaborate compared to DAO, or simply "more".

in da2, however, the majority (though not all) of the companions go through divergent character development on either end of the scale.

It could be we were playing with different set of characters and so we have different experiences here, but i can't say i've noticed much of what i'd consider character development for Varric and Merrill on the friendship path. For this matter i'm not sure if there's much of development for Anders on this path as well (and especially not sure if Hawke makes any contribution here that makes some actual difference) considering you basically just consent to Anders' gradual slipping into madness on this route, one that's the Justice's influence rather than Hawke's... one which is strong enough to overrule everything else, even the PC's attempts to counter it (given that the explosive outcome happens either way)

[Addai]

ademska wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And Origins had your companions with their personal quests and character arcs.  There's no difference there, so it's a wash and the greater plot choices available in Origins- even if you were still moved along in linear fashion- put it ahead of DA2 on the question of choice and consequence.  Because DA2 was marketed to present more than Origins in the way of choice and consequence,  things you would actually see in-game, the lack is all the more glaring.

yes, there is a difference, thanks to the dichotomy of the friendship/rivalry scale vs origins' approval bar.

There were consequences for the characters at different stages of approval/ disapproval in Origins, too.  DA2 added slightly more for the negative side, that's all.  An improvement, but hardly the massive change you're talking about. 

I personally don't like it when NPCs character arcs are too dependent on the PC, but you're arguing smoke.  To you, the difference between rivalry and friendship Anders may seem so huge that it blows out anything from Origins, but I've done both rival and friendship with him and Anders is still whiny, clingy, obsessive and he still does what he does.  He's the worst example of PC choices affecting the game.

you yourself admitted that dao proceeded in a linear fashion. dao and da2 are both linear games with a set ending regardless of the choices you made. the difference is that in dao, your primary moments where you saw real consequence of your actions (and not in epilogue cards or a game area reskin) were... basically the dark ritual and your warden's potential death. that was a good one. (there might be some others, feel free to enumerate and elaborate.)

I'm sure you know them.  And you don't get to exclude epilogue cards, because that's part of seeing the consequences of your choices.

I would have liked a more personal story, if that's what we actually got.  The game is just too thin and paltry to carry it out.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ademska wrote...
oh, hi, yes, good morning. or afternoon.

in the rivaled anders pro-templar ending, anders kills himself. if you click this link and claim you don't see his intention to committ suicide as soon as the battle is over, you are being willfully ignorant.

See. That's what I meant. He didn't decide to commit suicide like you wrote. He intent to commit suicide which he never did. What good is that? You don't merit people based on talks only. Anders always express himself  in the way you shown in the video. From commenting the templars to the day before the mass murdering. Remember his friend Karl who he killed by his own hands? Nothing he said is very convincing. He has zero credibility. I would rather trust Fenris to compromise with the mages than him curing the patient for free. It's not that I hated Anders. BioWare's Purple Marian Hawke was in love with him. But when advised ( especially by BioWare's Blue Garret Hawke ) repeatedly throughout the course of 7 years to work out peaceful way with the templars and he still murdered innocents women and kids in the middle of city, what else can you tell? That he changed? One thing for sure is, that's all in your head.

ademska wrote...
you cannot sway him to not follow through on his beliefs, because he is a person possessed of a spirit, and the world just doesn't damn work like that. the fact that we've all been arguing for days and no one will budge on his position should tell you just how stubborn people can be.

That's why he didn't changed for 7 years.

ademska wrote...
what you can do is make him a different person. rivalling anders can cause him to side against everything he believes and fight the templars.

Yeah. His sweet talks only. His action at the end still prove the opposite.

ademska wrote...
if you had played a diplomatic garrett hawke who had been vehemently pro-mage and nice to anders, then spared him, you would have seen an anders who was certain of his decision in the chantry, not regretful, who was at peace with his merger with justice, not tormented, and who was positively giddy about the future fighting for mage rights, not suicidal. one is not necessarily better than the other, but they are objectively different.

I'm fully aware about it. That's the very reason why I say his regret and intention to commit suicide at the end mean nothing to me. He was very sure with his action that he has no regard at all with innocent people that he mass murdered..

ademska wrote...
this, my friend, and pay attention here... is a consequence of consistent choices you made throughout the game.

No. This is consistent statics personality that DA 2 is showing. Not character development.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 22 juillet 2011 - 12:48 .

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

ademska wrote...

you cannot sway him to not follow through on his beliefs, because he is a person possessed of a spirit, and the world just doesn't damn work like that. the fact that we've all been arguing for days and no one will budge on his position should tell you just how stubborn people can be.

That's why he didn't changed for 7 years.

But he does change, in the beginning there's clearly a lot of the Anders from Awa still there joking with Varric and Isabela etc. This changes until Act3 when through the influence of Justice he's become far more driven and obsessive. 

Modifié par Morroian, 22 juillet 2011 - 01:34 .

[xkg]

ademska wrote...
in the rivaled anders pro-templar ending, anders kills himself. if you click this link and claim you don't see his intention to committ suicide as soon as the battle is over, you are being willfully ignorant.

Now that I am curious.
At the begining my Hawke clearly stated his intention - "I want to be a dragon". Ten years since then and he is still just a human. Maybe my game is bugged.

[xkg]

txgoldrush wrote...
When it comes to PLOT, DAO and DAII are almost exactly the same in regards to choices affecting things. Only endgame choices matter.

And for side quest stuff, DAII actually shows you the consquences of your actions in game while DAO gives you ending cards.

Me: What about this X choice.
You: DA2 has more choices.

Me: *making a list of DA:O choices and posting it*
You: DA2 has more choices.

Me: Give me some examples of those choices.
You: DA2 has more choices.

Again and again and again, are you a parrot ?

I already know what you think about it - thats why I asked you to list all important choices/consequences in DA2..

Modifié par xkg, 22 juillet 2011 - 02:28 .

[ademska]

xkg, are you just doing this on purpose? ignoring where all of us have like completely specifically and explicitly laid out multiple examples of choice and consequence within da2 itself? it's a ****ing 40 hour game, people are not going to list EVERY SINGLE CHOICE AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE IN IT and i've sure as **** not seen you do the same because otherwise it would have taken up 20 pages

whatever, this thread was baller back around page 10 but i am so donesies.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

ademska wrote...

you cannot sway him to not follow through on his beliefs, because he is a person possessed of a spirit, and the world just doesn't damn work like that. the fact that we've all been arguing for days and no one will budge on his position should tell you just how stubborn people can be.

That's why he didn't changed for 7 years.

But he does change, in the beginning there's clearly a lot of the Anders from Awa still there joking with Varric and Isabela etc. This changes until Act3 when through the influence of Justice he's become far more driven and obsessive. 

I'm not sure how you see that as changes. Anders was obsessive since Awakening. The Spirit of Justice only fuel those hatred.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ademska wrote...
whatever, this thread was baller back around page 10 but i am so donesies.

Your wall of text around pages 5-7 is over exaggerated and full of personal bias that provide little evidence to convince most of us. Basically you disregard companion actions that reflect their consistent static personailty towards the end. The Eluvian Mirror, Fenris and his family issue, the chantry explosion, The sacred relic of qunari etc... If everything you wrote can be viewed the way you wrote, most people ( not only me ) will not complaint about not being able to connect to the companions or shallow characters. As it appears, BioWare has no desire to make the characters interesting and fun with their one dimensional interactions system and limited direct companions interaction with players. Your wall of so called evidences may only work if and only IF people really do care about the companions and the story. But as it appears, BioWare only concern more about combat and action then true character development.

[xkg]

ademska wrote...

xkg, are you just doing this on purpose? ignoring where all of us have like completely specifically and explicitly laid out multiple examples of choice and consequence within da2 itself? it's a ****ing 40 hour game, people are not going to list EVERY SINGLE CHOICE AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE IN IT and i've sure as **** not seen you do the same because otherwise it would have taken up 20 pages

whatever, this thread was baller back around page 10 but i am so donesies.

Yes i am doing it on purpose. And my purpose is to compare big meaningful choices and consequences in both games.
So i don't want EVERY SINGLE CHOICE - i want choices that have some impact (i.e giving back corpse of someones wife doesn't count).

My list of DAO choices and consequences is rather short - at least provide as many examples as i did.
And indeed DA2 is 40 hour game with tons of useless quests ... but the choices are so few that you shouldn't have any problem to post them all.

Modifié par xkg, 22 juillet 2011 - 04:59 .

[Travie]

As long as they don't give the 'illusion' of choice when there isn't any, what happens to your mother is a great example, then I don't mind them putting me down (VERY FEW) linear paths to show me something cool.

...but don't make me think that I can control the outcome when everything is already set in stone.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

ademska wrote...
whatever, this thread was baller back around page 10 but i am so donesies.

Your wall of text around pages 5-7 is over exaggerated and full of personal bias that provide little evidence to convince most of us. Basically you disregard companion actions that reflect their consistent static personailty towards the end. The Eluvian Mirror, Fenris and his family issue, the chantry explosion, The sacred relic of qunari etc... If everything you wrote can be viewed the way you wrote, most people ( not only me ) will not complaint about not being able to connect to the companions or shallow characters. As it appears, BioWare has no desire to make the characters interesting and fun with their one dimensional interactions system and limited direct companions interaction with players. Your wall of so called evidences may only work if and only IF people really do care about the companions and the story. But as it appears, BioWare only concern more about combat and action then true character development.

Wrong.

If you want to talk about shallow characters, talk about the extremely overrated DAO cast, who are not only mostly talking codex entries, but come in the story WITH THE MOST INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT ABOUT THEM ALREADY DONE!!!! They barely even develop as characters outside maybe Allistair and Leliana...Zervan and Morrigan don't change unless they are romanced (but Zevran never truly changes). Not only that, except for Wynne and Shale, they are clones of every other Bioware character. At least only Merrill strongly resembles another Bioware character (Tali) in DAII.

Constant static personalities? Not really. Yes, companion actions are the same for most of the game, HOWEVER, what they learn after the Act III companion quest is completely DIFFERENT whether they are friends or rivals (or the outcome of the quest itself). They're final battle speech is DIFFERENT whether they are rivals, friends, or romantic partners, as well who you side with.

Could character development be better? Yes. But DAII allows you much more character development options than other Bioware games in which outside maybe the dueteragonist, its romance, normal, or dead.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 22 juillet 2011 - 11:47 .

[FJVP]

txgoldrush wrote...

Wrong.

If you want to talk about shallow characters, talk about the extremely overrated DAO cast, who are not only mostly talking codex entries, but come in the story WITH THE MOST INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT ABOUT THEM ALREADY DONE!!!! They barely even develop as characters outside maybe Allistair and Leliana unless they are romanced (but Zevran never truly changes). Not only that, except for Wynne and Shale, they are clones of every other Bioware character. At least only Merrill strongly resembles another Bioware character (Tali) in DAII.

Constant static personalities? Not really. Yes, companion actions are the same for most of the game, HOWEVER, what they learn after the Act III companion quest is completely DIFFERENT whether they are friends or rivals (or the outcome of the quest itself). They're final battle speech is DIFFERENT whether they are rivals, friends, or romantic partners, as well who you side with.

Could character development be better? Yes. But DAII allows you much more character development options than other Bioware games in which outside maybe the dueteragonist, its romance, normal, or dead.

Might I just remind you that DA2's story spans over 7 years, while DAO's only spans over a year. Also, Origins' plot is based around stopping the Blight, so focusing on develeloping the characters isn't such a necessity. DA2 revolves around showing Hawke's story and how (s)he became Champion, so companion development has more importance due to the fact that during most of the game you don't know what the main focus of the plot is.

[txgoldrush]

FJVP wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Wrong.

If you want to talk about shallow characters, talk about the extremely overrated DAO cast, who are not only mostly talking codex entries, but come in the story WITH THE MOST INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT ABOUT THEM ALREADY DONE!!!! They barely even develop as characters outside maybe Allistair and Leliana unless they are romanced (but Zevran never truly changes). Not only that, except for Wynne and Shale, they are clones of every other Bioware character. At least only Merrill strongly resembles another Bioware character (Tali) in DAII.

Constant static personalities? Not really. Yes, companion actions are the same for most of the game, HOWEVER, what they learn after the Act III companion quest is completely DIFFERENT whether they are friends or rivals (or the outcome of the quest itself). They're final battle speech is DIFFERENT whether they are rivals, friends, or romantic partners, as well who you side with.

Could character development be better? Yes. But DAII allows you much more character development options than other Bioware games in which outside maybe the dueteragonist, its romance, normal, or dead.

Might I just remind you that DA2's story spans over 7 years, while DAO's only spans over a year. Also, Origins' plot is based around stopping the Blight, so focusing on develeloping the characters isn't such a necessity. DA2 revolves around showing Hawke's story and how (s)he became Champion, so companion development has more importance due to the fact that during most of the game you don't know what the main focus of the plot is.

However, the characters in other Bioware games develop much better than the ones in DAO, especially Jade Empire. Just because you are focused on an objective doesn't mean you can neglect character development or skimp on it.

Not to mention that characters do develop over those seven years in DAII, especially Anders.

[FJVP]

txgoldrush wrote...

However, the characters in other Bioware games develop much better than the ones in DAO, especially Jade Empire.

This is up to opinion, and I haven't played enough BW games to make a solid counter-argument.

Just because you are focused on an objective doesn't mean you can neglect character development or skimp on it.

In DA:O the main focus is the Blight, your companions are focusing on the Blight and helping you, so their personal issues are have to be put aside while the threat remains. In DA2 there's no apparent threat until Act 3, so the companions can focus on resolving their problems while helping out Hawke with his. That's what I was trying to say.

Not to mention that characters do develop over those seven years in DAII, especially Anders.

Again, that was the point I was trying to get across. A person develops more in 7 years than in a single year, especially when there's nothing else that takes up your time.

[FieryDove]

txgoldrush wrote...

Just because you are focused on an objective doesn't mean you can neglect character development or skimp on it.

This part I agree with, so why did they skimp on it in DA2?

I really hope they go back at least partially being able to talk to companions whenever we want. Keep the quest/act related ones sure but just not what we had in Da2. (I also vote no to daa style companion conversation) But that's just me...I love to talk, love laundry lists of important and not so important things but all that now is big ticket items. $$$$$$$$

[txgoldrush]

FieryDove wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Just because you are focused on an objective doesn't mean you can neglect character development or skimp on it.

This part I agree with, so why did they skimp on it in DA2?

I really hope they go back at least partially being able to talk to companions whenever we want. Keep the quest/act related ones sure but just not what we had in Da2. (I also vote no to daa style companion conversation) But that's just me...I love to talk, love laundry lists of important and not so important things but all that now is big ticket items. $$$$$$$$

You couldn't really talk to companions whenever you want in past Bioware games either, other than that "we'll talk more later" crap. In most Bioware games, each character got three conversations and a small quest. While it fleshes them out, however, it makes all their interesting developments all in the past. DAII format is better, you learn more about chareacters during their quests AND by generally having them in the party. Not only that, they can alter scenes, opening and closing options. While you can't talk to them outside Questioning Beliefs and othe rmoments like a normal Bioware game, it is better than what we had before.

Its another unwarranted criticism stemmed from the fact that players are so used to formula that they are not used to the format change. And the designers did confirm that they had just as much dialogue as the DAO characters.

[FieryDove]

txgoldrush wrote...

You couldn't really talk to companions whenever you want in past Bioware games either, other than that "we'll talk more later" crap. .

What? I'm playing DAO right now...is the collector edition that special?

ME2...yeah I can see, must calibrate more....ugh