223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

@Upsetting: The whole point wih Peatrice is that a sizable amount of the Chantry didn't really support her. If she has a squad of templars at her command (templars that should be watching mages nonetheless) that kind of ruins that. And it would have to be more than 6 seeing as Hawke can easily take out 6 templars (as seen in Anders' recruitment mission).  

@TEWR: The didn't bother investing Alrik or the hordes of templars Hawke kills. I don't think anyone in Kirkwall gives a damn when someone ends up dead. They probably assume you did something to deserve it or you got caught by the flying ninja bandits. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 août 2011 - 12:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

erynnar wrote...

DAO gave me more an illusion that they mattered and a sense of urgency or agency (werewolves or elves).  But I didnt' feel that with DA2. I didn't fret over the decision to save the mages or turn them in. Or let Anders kill the girl or not.  But why didn't I? The choices didn't matter any more, really than me siding with the elves or the werewolves, but it felt more urgent or important.

I'm guessing that's because you bought in to the Warden and the story as a whole.  It's just as possible for a player to say, not buy into the idea that he or she should care about Ferelden or like the Grey Warden organization and feel like everything the player has to do in that game is a tedious chore.

Same with Hawke and Kirkwall, if you don't care and don't feel involved or drawn in, of course it's all going to seem pointless.

In Exile explains this concept better.  If I had a link I'd use it.

Maybe I got lucky in that the Hawke I decided to play was a bit of a narcissist and thought he was smarter than everyone else.  And he was going to prove it by working out a way to keep the peace in Kirkwall - those idiotic "extremists" were ruining this - and maintain the somewhat balanced status quo.  He had something of an altruistic motive in addition in the sense that he believed peace was ideal.  That he failed utterly in a personal goal was for me, as a player, a ton of fun to experience.

Ryzaki wrote...

@Upsetting: The whole point wih Peatrice is that a sizable amount of the Chantry didn't really support her. If
she has a squad of templars at her command (templars that should be watching mages nonetheless) that kind of ruins that.

Then have a silly unbeatable trap that she's setup that you're standing on.

Literally any contrived excuse would have been better than none at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 août 2011 - 12:09 .

[TEWR]

There weren't any witnesses for Alrik. All of his cohorts that were there were dead and Ella is either dead, free, or back in the Circle, and I don't think the Circle even knew she had snuck out. I think Alrik was doing that of his own volition.

There's nothing for them to investigate.

At least with Petrice you have rumors of her seeking help and possibly witnesses (as Lowtown does have people in it at night time)


EDIT: Even if the Circle did know, she could say they did rape her (a lie) and she doesn't want to talk about it and is traumatized. And it would be nice if the Templars respected that. Give them some good amidst the sea of idiocy/douchery.

Seriously, we only met 2 definite good Templars: Keran and Thrask. Emeric winds up dead and it's hard to say what side he supports. Carver's an ass. Cullen's a moderate nutjob.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 août 2011 - 12:10 .

[tmp7704]

Anarya wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

This gets a bit subjective and thus useless, but IMO the clowny, exaggerated aspect of DA2 works against its goal of telling a dark, mature story. 

It is pretty subjective. I disagree and did not find DA2 "clowny". Exaggerated, yes, especially when compared to Origins, but I didn't feel any kind of conflict between the tone of the story and how the game looked and played.

Lack of conflict between exaggerated aesthetics and the story could mean the story was perceived as equally exaggerated... wouldn't that mean both of you say roughly the same thing, just using different terms? As long as you'd agree that "exaggerated" conflicts with "dark, mature" (especially the latter, i'd guess)

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

That would make the inability to kill her despite threatening to do so even more of a wallbanger. :/

Easy, add more Templar bodyguards.  Make fighting her there look like it would be absolute suicide.  Heck, even allow you to fight but make it a situation like in ME2's Arrival DLC where you literally cannot win.  Or throw in a line about how she will have Leandra killed if you get really uppity and there you go.  Any of these scenarios would be preferable to a clumsy but-thou-must.

She'd almost be approaching Duncan-during-the-human-noble-origin levels of ruthlessness by that point.  Almost.

Brockololly wrote...

My personal problem with DA2's Flavor type choices or more RP dialogue type choices like Shorts mentioned last page is that for me, its next to pointless given the voice and paraphrases obfuscating the dialogue and it kills any nuance I'd prefer in trying to build a PC through dialogue choices.

And for me, the voice is key to the very same thing.

Insert my usual spiel about 3rd and 1st person playstyles not being compatible, yada yada yada.

You know Upsettingshorts, I was thinking on that. I do favor the 1st person or silent one. But playing Legacy the 3rd person voiced didn't bother me as much. Like TW2, the enviornments were pretty, the combat more engaing, the party banter was, as always great (well, that part is not in TW2 and one reason why I favore DA).. So I may prefer 1st, but I sure had fun with Hawke in Legacy and I liked the cut scenes more.  

I am guessing if the details and the rest are more engaging, I find the 3rd person not so bothersom.

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

There weren't any witnesses for Alrik. All of his cohorts that were there were dead and Ella is either dead, free, or back in the Circle, and I don't think the Circle even knew she had snuck out. I think Alrik was doing that of his own volition.

There's nothing for them to investigate.

At least with Petrice you have rumors of her seeking help and possibly witnesses (as Lowtown does have people in it at night time)

Nope but you can walk right up to the Grand Cleric and Knight Commander and take papers that only he should've had recently after his death. You get a few arched brows and an awkward silence but no one actually investigates anything. Same with Lord Harimann. (minus the papers) and hell you kill Harimann in broad goddamn daylight. No one gives a ****.  

@Upsetting: Yeah...not buying it. Too contrived for me personally. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 août 2011 - 12:10 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

@Upsetting: The whole point wih Peatrice is that a sizable amount of the Chantry didn't really support her. If she has a squad of templars at her command (templars that should be watching mages nonetheless) that kind of ruins that. And it would have to be more than 6 seeing as Hawke can easily take out 6 templars (as seen in Anders' recruitment mission). 

I think the entire thing would have been better had Petrice has a sizeabe (though not majority) following from the Chantry itself. It would have given her more legitimacy, and would have better conveyed the idea that Kirkwall is a polity that is sharply divided, imo. And it would have been more realistic considering that it's the Qunari we are talking about.

As it stands, I do not like the idea of Petrice being a lone wolf extremist sister.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 août 2011 - 12:12 .

[upsettingshorts]

(Added a substantial edit to previous post regarding Hawke)

@erynnar :  Oh, what I mean by 1st and 3rd person isnt necessarily the position of the camera but the player's role in relation with the protagonist.

For example, when someone says "I felt like the Warden was my character and Hawke was someone else's" that's a first person cRPG gamer taking issue with a third person cRPG protagonist like say, Shepard.

As someone who has always treated cRPG protagonists - especially BioWare ones - as "someone else's character" the transition from silent-to-voiced protagonist is entirely positive in my book. Whereas to a first person gamer it's a sideways move at best, and a total contradiction of the reasons they play cRPGs in the first place at worst.

That doesn't explain all the issues that people are upset about with DA2, but I do believe it explains a lot of them - as many of the changes from DAO to DA2 in my mind fall under "explicitly 3rd person" features.

Ryzaki wrote...

@Upsetting: Yeah...not buying it. Too contrived for me personally. 

IC Contrivance > OOC metagame determination that the game is forcing you to do something

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 août 2011 - 12:13 .

[Addai]

Anarya wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

This, exactly. Maybe people define "dark, mature" stories differently than I do, but a "hero" story in which the hero ultimately can't really save the day, even if s/he succeeds? That's pretty dark.

This gets a bit subjective and thus useless, but IMO the clowny, exaggerated aspect of DA2 works against its goal of telling a dark, mature story. 

It is pretty subjective. I disagree and did not find DA2 "clowny". Exaggerated, yes, especially when compared to Origins, but I didn't feel any kind of conflict between the tone of the story and how the game looked and played.

It's not just the look.  The NPCs, also, were extremes of personality and some of the dialogue... urgh.  I'm biased here, but the one that comes to mind is "drown us in blood."  And every single mage in Kirkwall is bonkers.  And so on.  It is in the story elements, too.

[TEWR]

So Hawke has some papers. They never said "Hey! Ser Alrik always carried these around! How did you get them?!".

They say "Where did you get these? Ser Alrik was recently murdered!"

For all they know, Hawke snuck into the Circle and stole them or someone else snuck them out as evidence against the Chantry of Kirkwall.

And yes, I'm just making up a bunch of excuses to justify my very shabby reasoning why Hawke would be forced into doing that quest =P

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

erynnar wrote...

DAO gave me more an illusion that they mattered and a sense of urgency or agency (werewolves or elves).  But I didnt' feel that with DA2. I didn't fret over the decision to save the mages or turn them in. Or let Anders kill the girl or not.  But why didn't I? The choices didn't matter any more, really than me siding with the elves or the werewolves, but it felt more urgent or important.

I'm guessing that's because you bought in to the Warden and the story as a whole.  It's just as possible for a player to say, not buy into the idea that he or she should care about Ferelden or like the Grey Warden organization and feel like everything the player has to do in that game is a tedious chore.

Same with Hawke and Kirkwall, if you don't care and don't feel involved or drawn in, of course it's all going to seem pointless.

In Exile explains this concept better.  If I had a link I'd use it.

Maybe I got lucky in that the Hawke I decided to play was a bit of a narcissist and thought he was smarter than everyone else.  And he was going to prove it by working out a way to keep the peace in Kirkwall - those idiotic "extremists" were ruining this - and maintain the somewhat balanced status quo.  He had something of an altruistic motive in addition in the sense that he believed peace was ideal.  That he failed utterly in a personal goal was for me, as a player, a ton of fun to experience.

Ryzaki wrote...

@Upsetting: The whole point wih Peatrice is that a sizable amount of the Chantry didn't really support her. If
she has a squad of templars at her command (templars that should be watching mages nonetheless) that kind of ruins that.

Then have a silly unbeatable trap that she's setup that you're standing on.

Literally any contrived excuse would have been better than none at all.

Well, you're supposed to care to some extent. I guess that is where the writing comes in. It worked for me, but I can see how it wouldn't for everyone. If you didnt there wouldnt be a game. The Blight would destroy the world end of game. That would be really short. 

I guess it's the same as the writing for Hawke didn't really grab me.  Why was I suspposed to give a tinker's damn about my family? I hardly knew them. Why was I supposed to give a damn what happened to Kirkwall, or the mages and templars? I just wanted my Hawke to get the money from the first act and leave.  I really didn't have any motivation to stay.

So, I can see how it is the writing that either works for you in DA2 and not DAO, or vice versa. I didn't buy the whole Hawke has to love these people and stay in Kirkwall schtick.

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So Hawke has some papers. They never said "Hey! Ser Alrik always carried these around! How did you get them?!".

They say "Where did you get these? Ser Alrik was recently murdered!"

For all they know, Hawke snuck into the Circle and stole them or someone else snuck them out as evidence against the Chantry of Kirkwall.

And yes, I'm just making up a bunch of excuses to justify my very shabby reasoning why Hawke would be forced into doing that quest =P

ROFL! *Tickles Eth* It's fun to see what you come up with. 

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

(Added a substantial edit to previous post regarding Hawke)

@erynnar :  Oh, what I mean by 1st and 3rd person isnt necessarily the position of the camera but the player's role in relation with the protagonist.

For example, when someone says "I felt like the Warden was my character and Hawke was someone else's" that's a first person cRPG gamer taking issue with a third person cRPG protagonist like say, Shepard.

As someone who has always treated cRPG protagonists - especially BioWare ones - as "someone else's character" the transition from silent-to-voiced protagonist is entirely positive in my book. Whereas to a first person gamer it's a sideways move at best, and a total contradiction of the reasons they play cRPGs in the first place at worst.

That doesn't explain all the issues that people are upset about with DA2, but I do believe it explains a lot of them - as many of the changes from DAO to DA2 in my mind fall under "explicitly 3rd person" features.

Ryzaki wrote...

@Upsetting: Yeah...not buying it. Too contrived for me personally. 

IC Contrivance > OOC metagame determination that the game is forcing you to do something

Oh, oh, oh, sorry! I misunderstood you. Ah, food for thought!  Thanks Upsettingshorts.

[upsettingshorts]

erynnar wrote...

I didn't buy the whole Hawke has to love these people and stay in Kirkwall schtick.

Indeed, I'd say it's a failure of the writing.  However, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to buy into something that another doesn't.  

The writers still have to look back and think, "Okay, how could we improve this so that more people are drawn into the story?  How can we reduce the number of people who simply didn't give a damn?" 

However, it would be unrealistic to think that there's a story out there that would interest everyone.

[erynnar]

Addai67 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

This, exactly. Maybe people define "dark, mature" stories differently than I do, but a "hero" story in which the hero ultimately can't really save the day, even if s/he succeeds? That's pretty dark.

This gets a bit subjective and thus useless, but IMO the clowny, exaggerated aspect of DA2 works against its goal of telling a dark, mature story. 

It is pretty subjective. I disagree and did not find DA2 "clowny". Exaggerated, yes, especially when compared to Origins, but I didn't feel any kind of conflict between the tone of the story and how the game looked and played.

It's not just the look.  The NPCs, also, were extremes of personality and some of the dialogue... urgh.  I'm biased here, but the one that comes to mind is "drown us in blood."  And every single mage in Kirkwall is bonkers.  And so on.  It is in the story elements, too.

Except my Hawke mage. Or maybe she is since I am the one directing her?

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So Hawke has some papers. They never said "Hey! Ser Alrik always carried these around! How did you get them?!".

They say "Where did you get these? Ser Alrik was recently murdered!"

For all they know, Hawke snuck into the Circle and stole them or someone else snuck them out as evidence against the Chantry of Kirkwall.

And yes, I'm just making up a bunch of excuses to justify my very shabby reasoning why Hawke would be forced into doing that quest =P

ROFL! *Tickles Eth* It's fun to see what you come up with. 

My mind has SOOOO many ideas for what DA2 could've been. They're all just bouncing around in there because the gorilla in my mind is tossing them against the wall of my skull

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I didn't buy the whole Hawke has to love these people and stay in Kirkwall schtick.

Indeed, I'd say it's a failure of the writing.  However, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to buy into something that another doesn't.  

The writers still have to look back and think, "Okay, how could we improve this so that more people are drawn into the story?  How can we reduce the number of people who simply didn't give a damn?" 

However, it would be unrealistic to think that there's a story out there that would interest everyone.

Very true! I mean there isn't one magical story that everyone will love or buy into. But I totally see how some would have the same problem with the have to be a Warden story. Same thing, different stories. ROFL!

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So Hawke has some papers. They never said "Hey! Ser Alrik always carried these around! How did you get them?!".

They say "Where did you get these? Ser Alrik was recently murdered!"

For all they know, Hawke snuck into the Circle and stole them or someone else snuck them out as evidence against the Chantry of Kirkwall.

And yes, I'm just making up a bunch of excuses to justify my very shabby reasoning why Hawke would be forced into doing that quest =P

ROFL! *Tickles Eth* It's fun to see what you come up with. 

My mind has SOOOO many ideas for what DA2 could've been. They're all just bouncing around in there because the gorilla in my mind is tossing them against the wall of my skull

As long as it's ideas it's tossing and not say, poo.

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...
As long as it's ideas it's tossing and not say, poo.

Nah he saves that for my enemies. I housetrained him to do that

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 août 2011 - 12:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

My mind has SOOOO many ideas for what DA2 could've been. They're all just bouncing around in there because the gorilla in my mind is tossing them against the wall of my skull

As long as it's ideas it's tossing and not say, poo.

What's worse than poo is crappy ideas.



Joking Ethereal.

[EDI8Joker]

Mr.House wrote...

Those games also had longer dev times, DA2 had a very short one.

I can't help but feel this simple fact is often overlooked in all the game's criticism.  I'm no fan of DA2 (would give it a 6/10 at best), but conceptually, most comments I hear from the creative staff (Laidlaw included, even though I find most of his post-release feedback disrespectful to DA fans) indicate good/potentially great ideas that were never realized because of a limited development window.  The 'cash in quick' vibe does seem evident, and I think that's such a shame.  Bioware/EA had a chance to make this franchise an amazing, long-term product, but they missed the mark with DA2.

Regardless, I like what I hear from DG and hope Bioware can find a way to revitalize the DA universe when DA3 arrives

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

My mind has SOOOO many ideas for what DA2 could've been. They're all just bouncing around in there because the gorilla in my mind is tossing them against the wall of my skull

As long as it's ideas it's tossing and not say, poo.

What's worse than poo is crappy ideas.



Joking Ethereal.

You. You're good.

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I didn't buy the whole Hawke has to love these people and stay in Kirkwall schtick.

Indeed, I'd say it's a failure of the writing.  However, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to buy into something that another doesn't.  

The writers still have to look back and think, "Okay, how could we improve this so that more people are drawn into the story?  How can we reduce the number of people who simply didn't give a damn?" 

Or realize that people might not give a damn at the end and provide a meaningful choice to act on that feeling.

I really think if they just gave you the option at the end to just give  the middle finger to Orsino and Meredith and fight your way out of  that piece of **** city that would have been more than enough for some people. And then just have it 50/50 whether the Templars/Mages win out for the battle of epilogue slide supermacy and have both sides hating Hawke.

I just think the writers did a poor job of establishing story/character  parameters for why Hawke should stay in Kirkwall or why the player  should give a damn. Its not like Origins where even if you wanted to  ditch Ferelden, Alistair would give you reasons why you needed to stay  that made sense. And unless your character was suicidal, once it was  established you needed to stay in Ferelden to stop the Blight, you had
to do just that or the world would end and there was a reason it needed to be a Warden to do the job.

Whereas in DA2, it devolves into "You're Champion of  Kirkwall because you're a mass murderer! Solve our problems!" and the game never gives explanations as to why it needs to be Hawke, beyond some vague title thats never really explained.

Modifié par Brockololly, 02 août 2011 - 12:31 .

[Realmzmaster]

Kroitz wrote...

I´ve read many times now that DA2 was planned as an experiment. Why can´t they just experiment with an new IP instead of a brand many fans recognize ... oh, answered my own question. never mind.

If I remember correctly DAO itself was an experiment of a new IP.  Before DAO came out everyone thought it should have been Balur's Gate III.

If DAO had called itself Baldur's Gate III, most gamers would have really been upset. Because they would have seen DAO (Baldur's Gate III?) as an experiment. Even more so than when it called itself the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

So DA2 is an experiement just like DAO was an experiment and a new IP.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Honestly, I felt ME1 had the best rationale for Shepard doing what he does. And it's proactive, relatively speaking.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 août 2011 - 12:33 .