583 réponses à ce sujet

[iggy4566]

Areksu wrote...

iggy4566 wrote...

It never ends.

Nope, it never ends. Someone says one thing and then people like me can't help, but add their opinion.

I was refering to Txgoldrush going on and on.

Modifié par iggy4566, 26 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .

[txgoldrush]

Il Divo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

A) That doesn't make Jacob goody goody, that just doesn't make him a bastard or an apologist like Miranda. None of the ME2 cast is goody goody. Even Garrus is brutal and ruthless. ME2 had a noticably darker cast than other bioware games.

A) How? Because he doesn't have a DnD alignment written under his name? He still fills that same role where you'd find Carth or Kaidan, or even Alistair. He's the mediator, the guy trying to do some good in the world, who opposes random acts of violence, with a sense of justice. Jacob really would act similar to any of those three characters in similar circumstances.

Wrong...The Archdemon is by definition, the main antagonist of Dragon Age, just like Soverign is in the first ME game. And no, Loghain is not the central conflict the PCs focus on, its always been the darkspawn. Loghain is less of an "antagonist" than Saren is in ME1. And taking all six star wars movies as a whole...Anakin/Vader is actually the MAIN PROTAGONIST.

Sovereign is not the main antagonist of Mass Effect. Anakin is simply the focal character of the first three films, which changes once we hit the original trilogy. And he's still the central villain, despite the Emperor pulling the strings. Likewise with Saren and Sovereign. We spend the events of Mass Effect hunting Saren, trying to figure out his plans. Loghain is the focus point of our efforts in DA:O. He's the one who abandons Ostagar, places a bounty on the Wardens, manipulates Red Cliff/the Circle, and is the focus of the Landsmeet.

C) Is Aveline really that good? Not really, she at times, unlike Alistair, Carth, Kaiden, Dawn Star, light side Bastila, and Leliana....will support an immoral action for the greater good. In fact, she wants you to extrajudically execute the magisters son. She will also look the other way whenever Hawke breaks the law, as well as his or her friends. She will support the Templars against the mages even if innocent mages are being killed. Far from the other typical goody leads, she is far more morally grey. Same with Sebastian who is in a personal conflict.

C) And Carth has a revenge complex. And Alistair wants to kill Loghain. And Bastila lied about your character's identity. Good does not mean perfect, as other Bioware characters have proven. She is not morally grey. She's still presented as the strong-willed female character, with a great sense of justice, who doesn't believe in killing for profit, lying, etc.  

F) Somewhat true, but DAO is far worse than most Bioware games. In Jade Empire, most of the characters will play a role in the story in one form or another. In ME1, Ashley and Kaiden are critical as well, and Liara doesn't have to even be recruited. Still a window dressing effect, but far less than DAO. At least the characters get their moments on Virmire. In ME2, they ARE the story.

D) I'm wondering if you've even played Mass Effect at this point. Liara must be recruited. She is how you get to Ilos in the first place. Ashley/Kaidan also are not necessary to the plot line. Virmire itself is simply an emotional plot point.

Most Bioware characters are window-dressing. A character playing a small role in the story does not make them essential to the plot. It simply demonstrates that Bioware wanted to explore a certain character type. Mission's role in the story is to unlock the door to the Vulkar Base. Jolee's role is to get you deeper into the Forest. Zaalbar doesn't actually do anything plot-essential. HK/Juhani don't even need to be recruited.

There are a million different characters who help you over the course of KotOR, and most other Bioware games. Any one of them could be potential squad mates, but Bioware did not choose those characters. Likewise with Mass Effect, Jade Empire, and Dragon Age 2.   

Varric and Anders, yes, but Aveline and Isabela as well. And even non essentials will play a role in the plot. Fenris is the ONLY exception.

See above response. Character being optional is not the only way that a character becomes window-dressing. If you think Mission opening a security door gives her a special role in the plot, well, that's a very strange position.

In DAO, only Allistair will play any major role in the main plot except for one moment with Morrigan. Everyone else are talking codex entries, much more so than other Bioware games KOTOR and after.

E) There is not a single Origins character that I would consider a talking codex entry. Actually, Mass Effect is the only game I would attribute where a character was designed as a codex, mainly due to Tali.

Sten
Shale
Wynne
Zevran
Leliana
Oghren

Character optional =! talking codex entry.

G) Keep grasping straws, but DAII is more similiar to The Witcher games Acts structure than Biowares "linear intro-open middle-linear end" approach. You cannot deny this. Not only that companions got one mission per act. Way more than the three talks and small sidequest formula.

F) I really don't care about the Witcher. Dragon Age II follows the Bioware plot structure almost exactly, and it follows the ME2 plot structure 100%. I showed you exactly how. You're barely even coherent at this point.

And Sky and Varric are NOT the same archetype other than the fact that they are rogues, and definitely not the same BIOWARE archtype.. Sky is a "Locke Cole" type character, a do gooder, a freedom fighter, and an avenger. Varric is not, he is only in for the friendship, not for some higher purpose. He has to morals other than love of his friends. In fact, he is kind of shady at times.

G) What? The fast-talking, Rogue, who likes to gamble? As I said, you're playing the detail game, trying to pass off Varric as some unique Bioware character, while claiming the entire DA:O cast is a cliche`. Varric is a fun character, but is not particularly different, beyond being a Dwarf Rogue. That doesn't stop him from being one of my favorite Bioware characters.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/LoveableRogue

A) And Jacob is above all acts of ruthlessness? if he was a "goody goody" like Alistair, Carth, and Kaiden...he would not even be in Cerberus in the first place. Just because he does not like the most hideous stuff doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the goals of Cerebrus. In fact, him and Kaiden could be foils.

Soverign IS THE MAIN ANTAGONIST. The most visible villian =/= main antagonist. Soverign is behind everything including Sarens indoctrination and transformation. Loghain is NOT the main villian of DAO, which is clearly the Archdemon. Yes Loghain antagonizes you for most of the game, but the CENTRAL CONFLICT is between the Wardens and the Blight. Loghain was just an obstacle. Loghain even isn't that great of a character. A similiar character in Fable III, King Logan, was a much better character with much better motives. But even in that game, The Crawler is by definition the MAIN antagonist.

Vader is the central figure and protagonist of Star Wars. It is entirely possible to have bad guys be the protagonist, and good guys be the antagonists (which the former in SW is true, but not the latter). The entire series was about Vaders conflict with the Dark Side in which he finally wins by sacrificing himself to kill Sidious. But Darth Sidious is by techinical definition, the MAIN ANTAGONIST. Once again most visible villian =/= main antagonist.

C) And those characters are not nearly as flawed as Aveline. Aveline can allow extrajudicial executions and will gain approval by executing Bartarnad and Keldar and rivbalry if you spare them. And "Demands of the Qun" truly put her on the spot as somewhat of a hypocrite. Not only that, she will support the Templars killing the mages at the end of the game and will support the templar postion regardless of th eimpact it has on a mage.

In fact, treating Aveline like Allistair and Isabela like Morrigan will get you a lot of rivalry points. They simply have more complex views on the world around them.

D) I always recuited Liara first and not recruiting her you lose a lot pf plot, its like not re-recruiting Terra in FFVI, it won't feel right. Also you do not have to be essential to the plot to play a huge role in it. The thing is DAO characters do not even play a role in the main plot (outside theirintroduction) outside Alistair and Morrigan, while Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, while not being essential to the plot, plays emotional roles in the plot. Same thing with most of Jade Empires crew, not essential but still play a role. See Dirge....

Yes, other Bioware games can treat their characters as window dressing, however, DAO is just a worst offender. DAII on the other hand really involve Aveline, Varric, Isabela, Bethany, Carver, and Anders. Merrill and Sebastian also play major roles in certain parts. Only Fenris is a "window dressing" character.

E) Talking codex entry is a character that just tells you all about themselves but rarely show you anything. That is the problem with DAO, most of the characters journey and development ALREADY HAPPENED. Bioware does have this problem, however, DAO is much worse. ME2 is much better and DAII nearly kills the talking codex entry.

F) So its act based story through a 10 year time period is typical Bioware formula? Hint, its not.

Bioware formula is usally...linear beginning- open middle (and ususally four major quests) and a linear close. DAII simply does not follow this formula. You are grasping straws..and in fact, each act's main plot formula is different...Act I is open with the least focus, Act II is two main storylines, the Qunari and Leandra, and Act III is linear when it comes to main plot.

Also ME2 changes the plot sturcture of the Bioware fomula quite a bit and is actually Bioware's most open world RPG, especially after Horizon. It has some elements to the old Bioware formula, but not all.

What you showed me is wrong.

G) Lovable rogue is broad and really many Bioware games have more than one, in which DAII has two. However, the goody goody freedom loving Sky is way more cliched than a Varric who really cares about nothing other than his friends. In fact Varric is the most apathetic member in the cast when it comes to the conflict, even more si than Isabela, who seems to side more with the mages. RPG rogues come in mostly two types, the freedom loving rebel who is a good guy, or a complete anti-hero. Varric is niether of this, he just wants to get by, while supporting his friends.

And I am not talking about broad archtypes, which probably can"t be avoided, I am talking about more specific ones that Bioware recycle. The thing is, only Merrill is truly similiar to another Bioware character, even if the DAII cast does fit common archtypes.

[txgoldrush]

Areksu wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

Areksu wrote...
No, I'm saying that the choice effects gameplay in a negative way. If you choose to hand over Isabella, you lose the only melee rogue you have, thus bringing unwanted metagame influence into the moral choice. DA:O avoids this problem. Also, the dialogue with Morrigan in the first game is counterbalanced by Alistair pointing out that you'd have to fight through an army to do that, rendering it impossible. Killing Patrice was completely within reason and hinted at by the dialogue.

Yeah you lose your dual melee fighter, that's kind of the point. Hawke is suppose to be thinking about the practicality of giving his person away vs the moral underlying of them paying for their crimes. This is how they tried to sell Loghain; Riordan and Anora were saying how beneficial he could be, how practical it would be to keep him. While Alistair was going about how morally you cant let this guy live. But the problem is that he is just interchangeable with Alistair, no matter which you pick, there is no difference.

You still end up with a SnS guy, who can get mauled by Morrigan no matter what you do. The choice is irrelevant, there is nothing to be gained, there is nothing to be lost. It is literally a fake choice. It would be like in the ME2 SM, if my Engineer died, when I went back to the ship, there was just another one in their spot. It made me pick whether or not they died, pointless. That is how basically all the choices in Origins went, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Sacred Ashes. Would you be willing to sacrifice Leliana and Wynne for the Reaver Spec. But then like I said, in spots like that, or choosing the Templar's in Circle Tower, there were gameplay work arounds, that negates the impact of the choice.

And I am fine with that being your opinion. I favor game design where choices in game don't detract from the core gameplay, but rather offer different and unique ways of playing the game. I don't expect or want an exact gameplay clone of Isabella. It would be much more fulfilling if some other unique kind of character who fills a similar role would take her place as part of the moral decision. I'd rather do that than have my game deprive me of fun game mechanics for being good.
Also, Origins was more flexible. You could get away with killing off Leliana because Zevran could be specced for doing the same things that she does. Morrigan could likewise be given the spirit healer tree by tome to fill the roll of Wynne. In other words, there were ways to deal with the loss of a party member in Origins because the game was flexible enough to do that. Dragon Age 2 is not as flexible. Also, Dragon Age: Origins follows a different formula for story than Mass Effect. What is expected from the Dragon Age series in terms of storyline is different than what is expected of Mass Effect's storyline.

and why do consquences have to be flexable? Then they will no longer have much of an impact if you could get around them. See Fable III's endgame....its too easy for good players to win a perfect victory despite the fact that good players are more likely to get their kingdom wiped out.

Losing a healer like Anders is a consquence that you have to face should you execute him. It works...it makes you think about what you are doing a lot more.

[txgoldrush]

iggy4566 wrote...

Areksu wrote...

iggy4566 wrote...

It never ends.

Nope, it never ends. Someone says one thing and then people like me can't help, but add their opinion.

I was refering to Txgoldrush going on and on.

Then what is so different about DAO than any other Bioware games or its sequel when it comes to choice and consquence? If you look at it closely...nothing really. Thats the point.

fans go on and on with their illsuion on why DAO choice is so great as well.....

[iggy4566]

txgoldrush wrote...

iggy4566 wrote...

Areksu wrote...

iggy4566 wrote...

It never ends.

Nope, it never ends. Someone says one thing and then people like me can't help, but add their opinion.

I was refering to Txgoldrush going on and on.

Then what is so different about DAO than any other Bioware games or its sequel when it comes to choice and consquence? If you look at it closely...nothing really. Thats the point.

fans go on and on with their illsuion on why DAO choice is so great as well.....

You do have some very good points on the matter but ya are kinda rambling.

[Il Divo]

txgoldrush wrote...

A) And Jacob is above all acts of ruthlessness? if he was a "goody goody" like Alistair, Carth, and Kaiden...he would not even be in Cerberus in the first place. Just because he does not like the most hideous stuff doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the goals of Cerebrus. In fact, him and Kaiden could be foils.

But why? You've essentially defined him by the terrorist affiliation and completely ignored everything he said on the matter. Jacob did not join Cerberus to kill random innocence, to conduct horrific experiments, or to attempt world domination. He came to protect the galaxy, in particular humanity, after his faith in the Alliance was shaken. But he still is the nice guy of the group, who tries to treat everyone fairly. That's exactly what you would expect from everyone listed above.

Soverign IS THE MAIN ANTAGONIST. The most visible villian =/= main antagonist. Soverign is behind everything including Sarens indoctrination and transformation. Loghain is NOT the main villian of DAO, which is clearly the Archdemon. Yes Loghain antagonizes you for most of the game, but the CENTRAL CONFLICT is between the Wardens and the Blight. Loghain was just an obstacle. Loghain even isn't that great of a character. A similiar character in Fable III, King Logan, was a much better character with much better motives. But even in that game, The Crawler is by definition the MAIN antagonist.

Again, stop with your rambling. It's becoming tiresome. I don't care if you think King Logan was a better character with better motives.

Even your central conflict argument is questionable. The Blight is simply the backdrop over which the events of the game take place. Yes, we're out to stop the Blight, but comparatively speaking the game is more concerned with Loghain's past actions and aims for Ferelden. Simply look at all the sequences where we are shown the situation back in Denerim. It's pretty similar to all the scenes where we see Malak/Saren/Master Li developing his latest plans.

Vader is the central figure and protagonist of Star Wars. It is entirely possible to have bad guys be the protagonist, and good guys be the antagonists (which the former in SW is true, but not the latter). The entire series was about Vaders conflict with the Dark Side in which he finally wins by sacrificing himself to kill Sidious. But Darth Sidious is by techinical definition, the MAIN ANTAGONIST. Once again most visible villian =/= main antagonist.

 We don't see Sidious for two whole films. We barely even hear about him during that period. Luke spends the first 2.5 films dealing with Darth Vader. No, Sidious is not the main antagonist.

C) And those characters are not nearly as flawed as Aveline. Aveline can allow extrajudicial executions and will gain approval by executing Bartarnad and Keldar and rivbalry if you spare them. And "Demands of the Qun" truly put her on the spot as somewhat of a hypocrite. Not only that, she will support the Templars killing the mages at the end of the game and will support the templar postion regardless of th eimpact it has on a mage.

And throughout the game, there is also a huge number of moments where I gain approval rating from Aveline by being selfless, protecting the weak, not going on a murdering spree, not demanding money from people, etc. She does plenty which I would expect of a Lawful Good character.

Yes, other Bioware games can treat their characters as window dressing, however, DAO is just a worst offender. DAII on the other hand really involve Aveline, Varric, Isabela, Bethany, Carver, and Anders. Merrill and Sebastian also play major roles in certain parts. Only Fenris is a "window dressing" character.

No, they're all window-dressing except Varric (who is telling the story) and Anders. The main plot does not revolve around any of those characters. Sebastian (who is dlc by the way) and Merrill never play a major role. Simply providing a few sentences of dialogue does not make that character critical to the main plot line.

Again, the Mission example comes up. Mission is not critical to the main plot because she opens a security door. Merrill is not critical because she releases Flemeth. Likewise, Aveline and Isabela are along for the ride, having no more involvement than Morrigan's brief moment with the dark ritual.  

 I purposely point out Bastila, Carth, Varric, and Alistair as essential characters because Bioware designed much of the main storyline with these guys in central roles. Bastila is the source of your questline in KotOR. Varric is the story-teller. Alistair has build up as a potential king/the Arl Eamon issue. And Carth (to a lesser extent) has his storyline play out over the greater course of the main quest.

E) Talking codex entry is a character that just tells you all about themselves but rarely show you anything. That is the problem with DAO, most of the characters journey and development ALREADY HAPPENED. Bioware does have this problem, however, DAO is much worse. ME2 is much better and DAII nearly kills the talking codex entry.

No, it's not. A talking codex entry is a character whose purpose is to give you all the details that you would expect to find in a codex entry, which typically deal with locations/technology/history. This is also typically done regarding a group. Ex: Quarians, Mandalorians, Krogan, Qunari, etc. Characters telling you about their past does not make them talking codex entries. It makes them characters.

Tali is typically regarded as a talking codex entry because she rarely (if ever) tells you anything about herself in Mass Effect 1. All her topics of conversation can literally be confined to the codex, excluding that her father is on the admiralty board. Compare this with Canderous or Wrex. They both explain to you their respective people's history (which can be placed in the codex), but they do it through example of their own experiences, which also gives you insight into their character. Once again, a talking codex is not a character with a past.

F) So its act based story through a 10 year time period is typical Bioware formula? Hint, its not.

Bioware formula is usally...linear beginning- open middle (and ususally four major quests) and a linear close. DAII simply does not follow this formula. You are grasping straws..and in fact, each act's main plot formula is different...Act I is open with the least focus, Act II is two main storylines, the Qunari and Leandra, and Act III is linear when it comes to main plot.

Also ME2 changes the plot sturcture of the Bioware fomula quite a bit and is actually Bioware's most open world RPG, especially after Horizon. It has some elements to the old Bioware formula, but not all.

What you showed me is wrong.

No, you're simply delusional. Let me try this one last time.

Mass Effect 2:

Introduction-->Freedom's Progress-->Choose your mission-->horizon-->Choose your Mission--> Linear segment.

DA2 follows this to the letter if you switch Horizon with Deep Roads and Freedom's Progress with Kirkwall.

I really don't care what you think of the Act structure or the ten year period. The way the story functions, the player is introduced to all these elements in the manner of a typical Bioware game. Go to Kirkwall, choose a mission order, deep roads, choose a mission order, linear sequence to the end. Call it an act structure. Call it whatever you want, but Bioware is still following their pattern. They've simply broken down the length of the choose your mission sequence into more pieces.

G) Lovable rogue is broad and really many Bioware games have more than one, in which DAII has two. However, the goody goody freedom loving Sky is way more cliched than a Varric who really cares about nothing other than his friends. In fact Varric is the most apathetic member in the cast when it comes to the conflict, even more si than Isabela, who seems to side more with the mages. RPG rogues come in mostly two types, the freedom loving rebel who is a good guy, or a complete anti-hero. Varric is niether of this, he just wants to get by, while supporting his friends.

So is "good goody character", but you don't seem to mind confining Origins (and every other Bioware cast) into this narrow role. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 juillet 2011 - 03:30 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

@Il Divo

A) When everyone in your group is a douche, it isn't hard to be the "nice guy".

DA:O was about stopping the Blight. If you claim that it is about securing the Fereldan throne, then you have completely misunderstood the entire premise of the game. I'm sorry to say, but it is simply wrong to think otherwise.

And Star Wars is actually the saga of Anakin Skywalker. It goes from having Anakin being the main protagonist to become the main antagonist (for 2 films, Palapatine was main antagonist for the last one), yet he was always THE main character. Likewise, while Vader may eclipse Palpatine in two movies as the main antagonist, Palpatine is, without any doubt, the main antagonist of the Star Wars saga.

C) Aveline also gives approval if you kill the magistrates son, and if you kill Bartrand IIRC. She does not fit "Lawful Good" character descriptions.

D) Isn't Liara the "important" party member of Mass Effect ala Alistair, while Kaidan and Ashley only serves to provide a solution, like Morrigan?
And if only inclussion in the main storyline is required for characters to qualify as important, then Merrill would be amongst them. She is the one who "resurrect" Flemeth.

E) I agree with you on that one.

[Il Divo]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

@Il Divo

A) When everyone in your group is a douche, it isn't hard to be the "nice guy".

You're assuming that this is all relative. For one, not everyone in ME2 is "a douche".  Second, even ignoring the entire party, Jacob act like a 'nice guy'. When does Jacob ever really do anything one might consider 'evil'? At least, beyond anything that we see Carth/Alistair/Kaidan do?

DA:O was about stopping the Blight. If you claim that it is about securing the Fereldan throne, then you have completely misunderstood the entire premise of the game. I'm sorry to say, but it is simply wrong to think otherwise.

DA:O's premise is about stopping the Blight, but the Archdemon itself is given the MacGuffin treatment. The Darkspawn/Archdemon are never really developed as the main antagonists. What we learn of the Darkspawn really amounts to codex entries. Compare that to Loghain's role which is similar to Saren, Master Li, or Malak.

And Star Wars is actually the saga of Anakin Skywalker. It goes from having Anakin being the main protagonist to become the main antagonist (for 2 films, Palapatine was main antagonist for the last one), yet he was always THE main character. Likewise, while Vader may eclipse Palpatine in two movies as the main antagonist, Palpatine is, without any doubt, the main antagonist of the Star Wars saga.

Fair enough.

C) Aveline also gives approval if you kill the magistrates son, and if you kill Bartrand IIRC. She does not fit "Lawful Good" character descriptions.

Carth is out to kill Saul Karath, Alistair wants Loghain dead, etc. More important than any individual action is that character's personality taken as a whole. Aveline is the honorable guard captain who overall tries to obey the law, disaproves of selfish actions, and doesn't promote needless violence as a general rule. She wants to keep the peace between everyone as much as possible.  

D) Isn't Liara the "important" party member of Mass Effect ala Alistair, while Kaidan and Ashley only serves to provide a solution, like Morrigan?

And if only inclussion in the main storyline is required for characters to qualify as important, then Merrill would be amongst them. She is the one who "resurrect" Flemeth.

Actually, I'd dispute that any ME character is really 'important'. Liara does perform a plot essential action, but she doesn't have a much larger role than that. That's why I reference Mission's security door. Plot importance (in my opinion) is the extent of inclusion in the main storyline. But performing one minor plot action does not make that character important.  Compared to Liara, Alistair has a much larger build up as an essential character, due to the Landsmeet, even if you decide against crowning him.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 juillet 2011 - 05:17 .

[tomovitch]

Fact remains, they are telling a story out of a book that would change the world for evah.
A big event had already occured and the seeker was trying to find out what happend. And I think thats why the ending can't be changed because the fact must remain the war between mages and templers start, showing what both are capable of. The war can't start without both factions slaughtering each other accuring to the story. The chantry is there to remain peace and so it was blown up which led to both factions go their own way and because they hate each other the war starts.

I think bioware is preparing some stories and it comes all together and thats why they don't make to manny big different outcomes (endings). I mean how hard will it be to lets say make a game thats formed out of 3 other games (origins, DA2, maybe a third). If all of those titles have very different outcomes they have to make several versions of the game and I don't know how much time they may spend on making a game or if the creators are to lazy to make such content. Why I think those stories come together in one game?
It's because flemeth takes part in both games saving the hero. Both heroes owe their lives to flemeth and she says that both will do great (which is the case). Also she says you will meet again with her and also in the end both have dissapeared. I'm sure there are a lot of more clues to be found but my conclusion is the heroes will come together at some point in a game and in that game you will make real changes to the world like the changes in MA3.