270 réponses à ce sujet

[ApostleinTriumph]

Hawke is basically nobody, there is no reason to care for him. The Champion bullcrap is just there to cover that. Under that, he is just someone who came to city to make money, and got inbetween political issues and used the opportunity. He is not anyone important at all.

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing. And that's why DA2 sucked. It doesn't feel like DA at all, it feels like some cheap RPG that imitates what DA:O did but fails at it.

[Sylvianus]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Hawke is basically nobody, there is no reason to care for him. The Champion bullcrap is just there to cover that. Under that, he is just someone who came to city to make money, and got inbetween political issues and used the opportunity. He is not anyone important at all.

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing. And that's why DA2 sucked. It doesn't feel like DA at all, it feels like some cheap RPG that imitates what DA:O did but fails at it.

I agree. The sad part is that he was presented as the most important person of Thedas. I hope they will not try to make us swallow that in DA3.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 août 2011 - 10:26 .

[Captain_Obvious]

I liked the characters from DA2 better.  In Origins, I really felt I knew Morrigan and Alistair; everyone else was sort of ho-hum.  The companion interactions in DA2 seemed much more meaningful.  I guess it's sort of the difference between talking to followers and talking to friends.  Followers are in your camp, you lead, they follow, they are always there barring late-game problems that seem to sneak up on you.  With DA2 you had to make a conscious choice to go talk to that person.  If you cared about them, you had to seek them out.  Granted, the game gave it to you as a quest, but it still felt more meaningful. 

When late game problems arose, I either had total culpability for not fostering that friendship, or I reaped the benefits of making good friends. 

On a side note, that chantry cheerleader drives me bonkers with his Maker this and Maker that, but I still take him everywhere. 

[Sylvianus]

I rather think he meant that DA2 seemed less correspond to the world of dragon age without all these words.

[ApostleinTriumph]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing.

So cause Hawke isn't a random big hero being puppeteered into beating one big bad villain he sucks?

No, he sucks because he has no relation to what we have seen from DA:O. There is a reason that game was awesome, namely, the story of Blight, Grey Wardens and Darkspawn. The entire story revolved around that. It shouldn't be that hard to make something similar in the sequel! But no, they took all of that out, and gave us a nobody. Nobody. 

Legacy DLC was good. The reason was that they went back to what made DA:O good. There were "quests" in DA2 that you find some item that someone lost and you go and deliver it, gain your gold, and that's it. Yep, that's DA2 for you. Take all that made the previous game good, fill it with nothing.

And the rest of the story is just about Qunari, Lyrium, and Templars v. Mages. Where is the darkspawn stuff?

[Huntress]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing.

So cause Hawke isn't a random big hero being puppeteered into beating one big bad villain he sucks?

Yes, people asked for a hero who do not give a rat about saving the world because "saving the world was getting old", now they whine because hawke is not saving it or not doing much about it, well hawke job was to gain power at all cost not saving the world.. If you want to play a warden and save the world of Thedas buy DAO is a very good game.

[alex90c]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing.

So cause Hawke isn't a random big hero being puppeteered into beating one big bad villain he sucks?

No, he sucks because he has no relation to what we have seen from DA:O. There is a reason that game was awesome, namely, the story of Blight, Grey Wardens and Darkspawn. The entire story revolved around that. It shouldn't be that hard to make something similar in the sequel! But no, they took all of that out, and gave us a nobody. Nobody. 

Legacy DLC was good. The reason was that they went back to what made DA:O good. There were "quests" in DA2 that you find some item that someone lost and you go and deliver it, gain your gold, and that's it. Yep, that's DA2 for you. Take all that made the previous game good, fill it with nothing.

And the rest of the story is just about Qunari, Lyrium, and Templars v. Mages. Where is the darkspawn stuff?

Dragon Age is about the entire universe and all the stuff that happens in it; there's a reason it's not called Dragon Age: Grey Wardens.

Mind you, Hawke's rise to power in DA2 sucked pretty hard since he just ended up as Serah Errand-Boy.

[Sylvianus]

Well, you know, For starters, a hero who isn't useless in the plotline and not boring, with a goal would be a good base.

[Tommyspa]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I prefer the companions of DA2 over DAO as a group, the whole they have their own business is far more interesting than the clingy warden love fest.

Hehe, sums it up pretty well. Thinking about it now though, Awakening's were an improvement on DAO's. Loved Anders and Nathaniel, Justice and Elven Morrigan were interesting, Sigrun I had to kill when she turned on me. I don't miss her. And Oghren is just unbearable... while I don't like every DA2 companion, they're all very well written.

With the exception of Loghain. Good god, Loghain was an awesome character. I will be waiting for my live Loghain cameos...

[Sylvianus]

I love Loghain, but I have to practice justice of the king in each of my playthrough. I love him, but I kill him. 

The king's justice is implacable, uncompromising, and can not bend. :'(.

[Captain_Obvious]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

And the rest of the story is just about Qunari, Lyrium, and Templars v. Mages. Where is the darkspawn stuff?

I actually find Templars v. Mages much more interesting than darkspawn stuff.  Have you seen the threads here about siding with Templars or saving the mages?  Epic slug fests, moderators stepping in, flamewars, generally exciting stuff.  People have opinions on Templars v. Mages.  Anyone have an opinion on darkspawn other than "gotta kill them all?" 

I'm not going to weigh in on which game I liked more, but I like the idea of conflict between Templars v. Mages more than Darkspawn v. Everyone. 

[Cosmochyck]

I agree that the games seemed to not be interconnected, but I really enjoyed both. They were just different. I tend to play each game as a standalone anyway, as things are always different and changed. As for feeling attached - couldn't give up Alistair or Fenris if I tried!! Especially Fenris - damn that sexy voice and brooding!

Modifié par Cosmochyck, 02 août 2011 - 11:30 .

[ApostleinTriumph]

Huntress wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing.

So cause Hawke isn't a random big hero being puppeteered into beating one big bad villain he sucks?

Yes, people asked for a hero who do not give a rat about saving the world because "saving the world was getting old", now they whine because hawke is not saving it or not doing much about it, well hawke job was to gain power at all cost not saving the world.. If you want to play a warden and save the world of Thedas buy DAO is a very good game.

I'm not asking for another "save the world" scenario. That would be ridiculous because Blights don't happen every day, and finding a situation that could spell disaster for whole world every game would get old just like you said. I'm just asking that the story of the game should at least touch those concepts I notified in that post you quoted.
They should matter! If all I'm doing WHOLE GAME is running around the city and solving the problems of other people, while listening to a mage that whines constantly, with characters that are as interesting as a sack of potatoes (besides Varric...Varric was awesome), then it is not Dragon Age that I loved.

The game could be about stories that take place during the last blight, someone getting stuck in Deep Roads or some tunnel adjacent to it due tosome landslide or whatever.  There would be survivors like you and you would try to leave there with the help of them. And then, something would happen to you that would make you important in that whole scenario. Or as we see, for the Darkspawn to appear, you don't need a blight, there are places teeming of them. The point is, the possibilities are endless. What did we get instead? Afarmboy that fled Lothering, ended up in Kirkwall, did a bunch of pointless stuff (finding lost items for unknown people, it so felt like DragonAge),was rewarded the Champion title due to being at the right place right time and found himself in the middle of a conflict and forced to choose one. That's not exciting at all. Why am I playing this game then?

Captain_Obvious wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

And the rest of the story is just about Qunari, Lyrium, and Templars v. Mages. Where is the darkspawn stuff?

I actually find Templars v. Mages much more interesting than darkspawn stuff.  Have you seen the threads here about siding with Templars or saving the mages?  Epic slug fests, moderators stepping in, flamewars, generally exciting stuff.  People have opinions on Templars v. Mages.  Anyone have an opinion on darkspawn other than "gotta kill them all?" 

I'm not going to weigh in on which game I liked more, but I like the idea of conflict between Templars v. Mages more than Darkspawn v. Everyone. 

There were Templars and Mages in DA:O aswell, but their story was connected to the main story, the Blight. Something far more interesting. I don't find neither siding with sadistic knights nor with whiny wizars particularly exciting. The story just feels so empty. You go to a bunch of places and do stuff, but it just feels pointless. What's the big picture?

Modifié par ApostleinTriumph, 02 août 2011 - 11:52 .

[Sylvianus]

Anyway a hero isn't a bad thing and that's asked. The games that work have true heroes. If I need to have a representative character of life, boring, helpless and useless, I watch the news and some Tv documentary . Depart from these concepts is anything but a reasonable thing to do for a rpg. This already limits the number of choices and therefore important to do in a game.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 août 2011 - 11:55 .

[Captain_Obvious]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

There were Templars and Mages in DA:O aswell, but their story was connected to the main story, the Blight. Something far more interesting. I don't find neither siding with sadistic knights nor with whiny wizars particularly exciting. The story just feels so empty. You go to a bunch of places and do stuff, but it just feels pointless. What's the big picture?

I really didn't find the "Blight" all that interesting.  Yep, that's the enemy, no matter the illusion of choice, and I have to kill the big, bad enemy.  Boring, and been done hundreds of times.  An enemy that is not so clear, however, in my opinion makes a better story. 

[naledgeborn]

Party Camp vs Kirkwall. I think that's what it boils down to. Not as much as a tight knit group as the former despite the upgrades to cutscene mechanics. Also the Characters from Origins were more fleshed out and had more depth. Not Saying the DA2 crew was bad they just didn't shine at the right moments I guess? Or since Hawke was voiced the companions didn't get as much shine.

[ApostleinTriumph]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

There were Templars and Mages in DA:O aswell, but their story was connected to the main story, the Blight. Something far more interesting. I don't find neither siding with sadistic knights nor with whiny wizars particularly exciting. The story just feels so empty. You go to a bunch of places and do stuff, but it just feels pointless. What's the big picture?

I really didn't find the "Blight" all that interesting.  Yep, that's the enemy, no matter the illusion of choice, and I have to kill the big, bad enemy.  Boring, and been done hundreds of times.  An enemy that is not so clear, however, in my opinion makes a better story. 

I don't find the conflict between Mages and Templars particularly exciting either. There is no reason to care. Okay, so they don't like each other and want to have a fight. Who cares? They can beat each other to death forever, I don't care. It would be much better if you had option to not get involved at all. Darkspawn are the enemy of all, so there is always a reason to care. Don't fight them, and get annihilated.

The "big bad enemy" needs heroes to be defeated. Heroes make good games, as the poster above me says. Without heroes, you stop caring. Shephard is a hero, Warden was a hero, Revan was a hero, even Geralt from Witcher was a hero to some extent (and he doesn't care for it nor he wanted to be, that's why that game kicked ass). Hawke is not a hero.

[naledgeborn]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...

Hawke is not a hero.

Wrong. S/He kicked out the Qunari before the Arishok could force proselytization on the city's nobility. Whether s/he wanted to or not depends on how you RP'd it.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 03 août 2011 - 12:17 .

[pbaq]

One of the main differences between the two sets of characters, I think, is that is DA2 they were more polarizing. In Origins, I felt like we were a team, and at the end of the game, your relationships were very defined. The characters in DA2, with the exception of Varric, just felt like they were hanging around to see what would happen. They were clever, they were well written, but I couldn't invest in them because I felt like they didn't invest in Hawke. The FRIENDSHIPS weren't developed. I never bought that any of them gave a flying crap about what I did, and the interactions were very well written, but they were shallow. That being said, Hawke is not the Warden, and vice versa. The Warden garnered awe from his party by the time it was all said and done, and some of your party in DA2 at best gave you grudging respect. All in all, I'm still playing the damn thing, so I can't sit here and say it sucks (aside from the tiny print--I still can't read the damn screen) but they were two VERY different games.

[Priisus]

Depends on how you define attachment. There are characters that I really like because they're enjoyable to be around with and there are characters that are not likeable but is good (well-developed).

In my case, it will be with Anders from both Awakening and DA2. Awakening Anders is a fun guy to be around but I find Sigrun and Velanna to be the more interesting characters. I've grown more attached to Sigrun because I like her story arc even though Anders is by far the "nicest" companion in Awakening.

I came to DA2 having a blank state, when Anders was announced as LI I was like "meh" because Awakening Anders is more like a bro to me and I don't think I can ever treat that guy properly as an LI. In DA2, he whines a lot and complain about mages this, mages that all the time, he is so not likeable anymore but guess what... in the end he won me over... He is now a character that I want to care about... I personally think that his story arc is one of the most developed besides Morrigan. And I have grown attached to him in this strange way. Isabella too... she feels to me like the kind of girl that you don't want your older brother to bring home... But she turns out to be a very fun person to be around and her development on the rivalry romance path makes me love her in the end. I have similar experience with Carver, Fenris and Merrill the more I play the game.

I may not like the DA2 crew's personalities but they have grown really attached to me in this way... I can only say the same for Morrigan, Sten and Shale from the Origins list even though I really, really like Alistair.

My 2 cents. I think one of the best thing about the DA games so far are the companions which for me >>>>> ME crew.

[AmstradHero]

ApostleinTriumph wrote...
Did you notice how I did not use the words "Grey Warden", "Blight", "Taint", "Darkspawn" there? Yep, real thing. And that's why DA2 sucked. It doesn't feel like DA at all, it feels like some cheap RPG that imitates what DA:O did but fails at it.

The franchise is called Dragon Age. It's about events within the Dragon Age in Thedas. Thedas involves a lot more than simply darkspawn. Consider the depth of history in Thedas, and there have only been five blights in that entire history. A sequel with a primary focus on darkspawn would cheat players of experiencing the full depth of the setting.

ApostleinTriumph wrote...
And the rest of the story is just about Qunari, Lyrium, and Templars v. Mages. Where is the darkspawn stuff?

Again, it's not called Darkspawn Age. Focusing only on the darkspawn would make the game feel flat and uninteresting, and present a fairly bland and one-dimensional setting. If DA2 had focussed entirely on darkspawn, it would have felt like a dull repeat of DA:O.

ApostleinTriumph wrote...
I don't find the conflict between Mages and Templars particularly exciting either. There is no reason to care. Okay, so they don't like each other and want to have a fight. Who cares? They can beat each other to death forever, I don't care. It would be much better if you had option to not get involved at all. Darkspawn are the enemy of all, so there is always a reason to care. Don't fight them, and get annihilated.

Your posts seem to suggest that you only care about fighting darkspawn and nothing else. I want more to my stories than "oh no, a horde of evil creatures want to destroy the world". The intrigue of DA:O wasn't generated by the darkspawn threat. That was the catalyst and the driver of the plot, but it lacked the punch of the individual stories that drove its plot.

A poisoned Arl and a son possessed by a demon, an ancient curse fuelling a conflict between a Dalish tribe and interlopers, internal conflict between mage groups, and a dwarf obsessed with a power that was buried for a reason. These were the drivers behind the core stories of interest that made people interested in the game.

The darkspawn were merely the "big bad evil" threat that was needed to fulfill the common need of players to have some big threat that they can keep in mind as something to defeat. It wasn't until you had the conflict of Awakening that they actually became an interesting entity in their own right.

DA2's core problem with the writing is that the player can often feel like they are dragged along for the ride rather than actively pushing the events of the story forth. Hawke is a key player in a plot that evolves around him/her rather than being the protagonist who makes the plot happen. This means that the player doesn't really get a sense of agency in making decisions, because many of the key events occur outside of their control, and they merely are there to "clean up the mess".

The effect of DA2's story on the world of Thedas is far greater than DAO's, with Morrigan's disappearance and child being the only thing with the potential to carry anywhere near as much weight.

The writers forced a particular outcome for the development of the overall story arc of the Dragon Age franchise. It seems obvious to me that this is for payoff in subsequent titles  However, because this always plays out in exactly the same way no matter what Hawke does, the player feels railroaded. If more variance had been introduced such that final conflict could have eventuated from different circumstances based upon Hawke's choices, as opposed to the choices of NPCs, then DA2 would feel like a far better game, because the player would feel far more empowered and as though they were playing an active role in the story rather than a reactive one.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 03 août 2011 - 11:10 .

[AmstradHero]

pbaq wrote...
They were clever, they were well written, but I couldn't invest in them because I felt like they didn't invest in Hawke. The FRIENDSHIPS weren't developed. I never bought that any of them gave a flying crap about what I did, and the interactions were very well written, but they were shallow.
... The Warden garnered awe from his party by the time it was all said and done, and some of your party in DA2 at best gave you grudging respect.

I respectfully disagree. I understand where you're coming from, but in terms of the characterisation and character (and those are two different things) of the NPCs in DA2 was still powerful.  It felt like there was a lot less content per party NPC, but in DA2 there was still the potential to develop decent friendships with characters. I'd definitely say that the lack of content meant that romantic relationships felt rushed and shallow, but that's only one aspect of the relationship with the characters.

Aveline and my FemHawke frequently had disagreements about how deal with certain circumstances, but there were aspects on which we agreed - as such it took a long time for the relationship to progress to where they were full rivals (as per the visible mechanic of rivalry/friendship), but through those ongoing exchanges it definitely felt as though the two women developed a strong feeling of respect for one another despite fundamental differences in their outlook on life. She and Varric became good friends as well, and she even travelled with Isabela enough (and shared a similar glib & fun-loving attitude towards life) that they felt like kindred spirits as well.

I'd contend that DA2 actually feels a little more "old-school" in this regard because the player only really gets to know a character well by taking them along on most of their adventures and hearing their opinions on situations or having agreement/disagreement about particular actions. It doesn't have the flexibility of DAO whereby you can get an extremely large amount of dialogue out of the character simply by talking to them in the camp and offering them presents every now and then.

Ultimately, it's often possible that people's attachment with a character depends partially upon the personality of the protagonist that they are roleplaying. I didn't find I had a whole lot of attachment to Morrigan on my first playthrough of DAO. She was amusing for her snark with Alistair, but I got bored of her and ditched her later. Yet later with a female character, I actually felt I developed a bond of friendship and respect with her and liked the character more as a whole. As with characters in any storytelling medium - your mileage may vary.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 03 août 2011 - 11:39 .

[Dubya75]

xnoxiousx wrote...

Even though my warden was not voice i cared deeply for him alot more than hawke. Even the party members in  da2 i did not like or thought were as good some were okay or good but i though da1 all of them were great and amazing.

Can't say I agree...at all.
I like the characters in DA2 a lot more than the ones from Origins (except Oghren. I do miss him)The DA2 characters seem more real to me, and I've already forgotten the warden. Hawke on the other hand will be remembered.
I suspect when DA3 comes out we'll all be crying about missing our DA2 companions...