27 réponses à ce sujet

[The Serge777]

This thread is my analysis of where DA2 fell short: Hawke's ability to impact the world around him (I'll be using a male pronoun for Hawke in this since played a male 3/4 times).  Don't get me wrong: there are a number of times in which your character's actions have meaning, but all too often not in the "right place."  What do I mean by "right place?"  Well, I mean in matters of significant overarching story and plot development.  While it's great to see how your lack of relationship building affects how your Companions treat you (particularly in the Last Straw), that's not nearly enough and it's the place where DA2 falters.

Now, let me be clear here: I love DA2.  I've played it four times in a row and I intend on playing it two more times to experience different classes and romances.  I've bought and played Legacy 3.3 times.  I am a Bioware fan, having played the BG franchise and other games that used the Infinity engine.  I am not a PC "elitist" (whatever that means), but I do consider myself an RPGer. So, do not presume that I'm bashing the game; rather, I'm throwing out areas in which Bioware/EA could have granted you greater influence on one's game experience.  Thusly, my nine thoughts:

1.  Hawke Sibling's Death:  There is NO reason why either of your siblings had to die.  The argument I heard most often for this was class/party balance and I cry BS. With three Hawke kids and three classes, you had a perfect little trifecta (not using the word right, but you get the point).  If you played a mage, then Carver was either a warrior or a rogue, and Bethany took the difference.  Or the game assigned the classes for you.  Now, your choices in Lothering could/should have impacted whether the ENTIRE family made it out alive.  Throwing in a couple extra scenes that show you picking up Aveline or not would have been a starting place (for example, deciding to avoid the Ogre but taking a longer way around with less access to loot)  And these are just a variety of ideas.  As an aside, surviving siblings can still become Wardens, Templars, or Circle Mages.

2.  Bloodmage Reaction:  No one ever notices that you're a bloodmage.  Ever.  While most critics of the game harp on your being a mage going ignored at some of the strangest times, aside from Cullen inexplicably not noticing, the game makes some effort to acknowledge why the Templars give Hawke a pass.  But, as a bloodmage, your Companions should have some idea. In particular, Fenris, Anders, and Merrill should have a conversation with you that has huge implications for your Friendship or Rivalry (F/R).  Hell, if you don't answer questions to their satisfaction, Anders or Fenris might even leave you regardless of how strong your relationship is with them. 

3.  Restricted Party Interactions:  Let me offer a caveat here before getting into it: I like the conversations in this game a little more than those in DAO.  They tended to be deeper and more closely tied to your F/R.  However, I regret that they occur in such a spread out fashion.  There should have been more opportunities to initiate converstaion in the Companion's base.   Keep the Quest option for big conversations, but allow a few player initiated, "more mundane" conversations opportunities to occur.  In short, Hawke goes out of his way to follow-up with his friends.  This also gets a little bit into the whole three year gap business.  Most of the more meaningful events occured during these times.  Hawke initiated conversations would allow those Codex entries to seem more organic and less like a dull biography.

4.  Templar vs. Mage Support:  There should be a moment in which your decisions in the first act influence which faction comes to you for a wider variety of sidequests.  You sort of get this based upon how you treat with the Starkhaven Mages, but it's not really enough.  You need a greater role as a Templar agent or Mage supporter.  You need to meet directly with movers-and-shakers in the Second Act (particularly Orsino) so you can get a feel for what's truly at stake.  This would reinforce that this sociopolitical issue is the game's driving narrative much, much sooner, and you would have a greater role to play in the final battles.  How badly a Mage supporter impacts Templar reputations and numbers should have resulted in different cut scenes during the Last Straw at the Circle with many more Templars going down; conversely, the reverse would occur in a Templar agent Hawke.  This sort of change would be especially key in how the next element is handled:

5.  Anders:  If you're Ander's friend or in a romance with him and you take the time to really, truly help him, you should have had the ability to talk him out of blowing up the Chantry.  Hell, if you did a really great job, there could have been a special quest that really allows him to be freed from Justice.  The Chantry could still be destroyed (I would argue "has to be"), but with the inclusion of other prominent mage NPCs (of which there's a dearth), one of them could have carried through on what Anders planned.  This way, you influence precisely what happens with someone whom you trust and/or love which gives you as a player a greater sense of influence and achievement, and your Hawke greater claim to a Champion with agency.

6.  Orsino:  For me, this was the absolutely dumbest boss fight in the game in a Mage-supporter run.  When Orsino gives into despair and becomes an abomination, I was pissed not because I liked him (didn't get to know him enough to like him... see #4), but because I should have had the opportunity to sway his decision.  And I should have gotten experience for it (see below). If I played the game in a way that showed I was capable of supporting Mages without resorting to blood magic and/or brutality, or if I had high enough Persuasion (yes, skills like this should definitely come back; see below), I should have been able to talk him down.  If Orsino's later killed by a Templar assassin or by Meredith, fine, but at least I can say that my actions determined how the end game pans out. The only time Orsino should be an enemy is if you side with Meredith.  At that point, he turns into an abomination (and I would argue that you should be able to talk him out of that if you make it clear that you don't support the Right of Annullment, wich would then turn Meredith against you).  Speaking of Meredith...

7.  Meredith:  More of the same.  If they wanted to show how crazy she was, they did a bad job of it.  Her paranoia should have been more obvious in the Second Act.  Her occasional bouts of sympathy for the Mages makes her paranoia seem out-of-place.  That having been said, like Orsino, you should have been able to talk her down from attacking you.  In essence, the final boss is determined by your choices, your influence, and your actions.  Yes, someone could still fight BOTH Orsino and Meredith, but it shouldn't be a given. 

8.  Experience for Story-Driven Influence: If I manage to talk someone out of some action that would otherwise result in combat, I should receive commensurate experience.  This sort of thing would encourage a greater RPG sort of play.  Elements along these lines are what made Planescape: Torment one of the best RPGs that used the Infinity Engine out there: your dialogue and ability to interact well with others (often requiring decent Intelligence, Wisdom, and/or Charisma) drove the story as much, if not more than, your physical abilities.

9.  Reintroduce RPG Skills:  I don't know how many people didn't use skills in DAO, but for me, such sklills are a given.  As a result, make taking them have a real impact on abilities or something.  Or don't.  Not everyone is going to play a silver-tongued diplomat or intimidating brute, but the option should be there beyond just one's tone.

So, those are my ideas of what DA2 could have done to ensure greater agency and player impact.  You'll notice that I didn't mention things like Mama-Hawke's death.  Well, there are and should be some things your Hawke can't always do.  Something like your mother's murder in a game in which you have had real influence and impact would really resonate.  Unfortunately, while I hated that she died, all it did was reinforce how limited my decisions were despite being a noble and, eventually, Champion.  It's these kinds of things, IMO, that should be incorporated into DA3.  Although I know that I'll eventually have a boss fight, I should feel that I influences how that fight occurs within a living, breathing game. The inclusion of more such elements would have made a good to great game a spectacular game.

Thanks for reading!  I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas.

[Darth Obvious]

Agree with just about all of that. Orsino and Meredith especially stand out as colossal blunders.

Orsino attacking you when you are trying to help him made absolutely no sense. Maybe I would let it slide if it was just some side quest that they forgot to finish properly, but this is part of the final sequence of the game/story(!). Utterly inexcusable.

Meredith was just some old lady who certainly didn't warrant being anything more than just a minor figure in the game, at most. Her story was barely touched upon, and then somehow in the end she becomes a Sith Lord or something with a magical lightsaber and the ability to animate statues. One of the biggest wtf moments in video game history, and one of the most poorly-written villains ever.

Bottom line is that DA2 suffers from really atrocious writing.

[Giltspur]

Pretty much agree on 2, 3 and 6. Not just blood mages--but in general I'd like to see some reactions to your class or spec.  Given how much of a deal the game makes about blood magic, that in particular should get acknowledged.  As for initiating dialogue with party members, is it the thing I miss most from DAO?  Maybe.  Being able to to talk about some of the things in the codexes is actually a good idea, especially if they were things Hawke might not have been present for.

Regarding Anders, I think that's just what he's going to do. I'd rather him always do it than some random mage. Unless of course Anders had some assistant, co-conspirator that he couldn't talk out of things or that would take a different path to the same end result.  At any rate, rather than stopping Anders, I'd have preferred to have the option to help him or try and turn him in.  Though, the latter is challenging.  Either you fail or have to make someone else's failure to stop him believable.  And that's not necessarily easy.  At the end of the day, the ending (as you suggest) needs to happen.

Regarding the siblings...yeah.  I'd like for both to have lived.  Not because I'm a sap though.  You see, I think the reason you put a family member in a story...is to make him/her suffer.  And the writers hadn't drawn enough blood from Carver/Bethany yet to kill one off.  Someone got off easy.

Regarding Meredith.  Disappointing.  I'd rather them show her not to be crazy.  I mean she is crazy.  But I want to see her compelling side--some echo of when she wasn't crazy.  You kind of get that when she talks about how she used to feel.  But whatever you do with her psychologically is ruined by the superjumps and glowy swords.

Modifié par Giltspur, 02 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[BBK4114]

I really like everything you've suggested.
The ones that I REALLY liked:

#3 & #5 - I really felt this. My favorite romance in this game was with Anders but with ALL of them I felt a disconnect. My Hawke couldn't arbitrarily tell them she loved them, or randomly kiss them. The fact that with Anders the female Hawke gets no information about his past is a big black hole. It would've taken very little effort or extra time for them to fix this. I would've appreciated being able to ask all the characters their opinion on issues from time to time. You should have been able to talk to Justice & make him see that what he is doing to Anders is UNJUST. And you definitely should've been able to stop Anders from planting the bomb. Your scenario would have been perfect. They could have said Grace did it, because she is dead and so the Rite of Anullment would have still be the horrendous decision it is in the game.

#6 - This really ticked me off too. I really believe in mage freedoms within this game. But by the end I had to agree with Hawke when she said she'd like to go through one week, just one without running in to an insane mage! Then to have Orsino pull that when you are helping him? Just a preposterous plot point in my opinion.

#9 Mass Effect uses the dialog wheel and still has the extra dialog for charm/intimidate influence. It should definitely have been in this game.

Thank you for your succinct post which didn't bash DA2. I really love a ton of things about the game but you really, really got to the heart of the true problems with the game.

[The Serge777]

Giltspur wrote...

Regarding Anders, I think that's just what he's going to do. I'd rather him always do it than some random mage. Unless of course Anders had some assistant, co-conspirator that he couldn't talk out of things or that would take a different path to the same end result.  At any rate, rather than stopping Anders, I'd have preferred to have the option to help him or try and turn him in.  Though, the latter is challenging.  Either you fail or have to make someone else's failure to stop him believable.  And that's not necessarily easy.  At the end of the day, the ending (as you suggest) needs to happen.

Right, it wouldn't be "some random mage," but a co-conspirator...  A mage NPC of significance.  I was thinking Grace, but that wouldn't work since she bites it another way.  And I think Alain is too innocent.  I think a new character would be more appropriate (or, perhaps one of the mages you save who's role is built up a bit more).  We kept hearing how involved Anders is in the Mage Underground, and yet we never have an opportunity to meet them in a pro-Mage playthrough, which seems like a missed opportunity.  Having another radical alongside Anders (this one being legitimately crazy, not possessed) would definitely have been a plus to give you an out with Anders.

Regarding the siblings...yeah.  I'd like for both to have lived.  Not because I'm a sap though.  You see, I think the reason you put a family member in a story...is to make him/her suffer.  And the writers hadn't drawn enough blood from Carver/Bethany yet to kill one off.  Someone got off easy.

I agree with this.  Hawke's story works best when you see him as the bad ass he is who's a PROACTIVE mover-and-shaker who, nevertheless, cannot always get what he wants with his family.  Having a sibling go through hell later on if both lived would have been dramatic if done properly (i.e. avoiding too much impotence on Hawke's part).

[jds1bio]

The Serge777 wrote...

1.  Hawke Sibling's Death:

I liked how it added replayability and variability to the party and your journey's experience.  I say they should take more chances like this, so I guess I disagree with you here.

The Serge777 wrote...

2.  Bloodmage Reaction: 

Yeah, a missed opportunity here, I agree.  I also think that the F/R wasn't used to its full potential, as you said, about party members potentially leaving the party.  Or perhaps even becoming major antagonists themselves.

The Serge777 wrote...

3.  Restricted Party Interactions:

I wonder what it would have been like if most of the F/R was set up in Act I, then put to the test or made more vibrant in Act II and Act III, like what was done in Legacy.

The Serge777 wrote...

4.  Templar vs. Mage Support: 

Agreed.

The Serge777 wrote...

5.  Anders: 

I think the way Anders is set up for the story is fine, but just like the recycled environments and the railroading of template/mage choices, his actions will drag down your subsequent playthroughs of DA2 because the game didn't even make it seem like your decisions truly influenced his actions.

The Serge777 wrote...

6.  Orsino: 

Yes.  The game briefly turned into Dead Space as his abomination took form.

The Serge777 wrote...

7.  Meredith: 

Getting to know Meredith better might have made for more interesting options.  Same with Petrice, I think, especially after my playthrough in which she lived on.  Between Meredith, Petrice, Orsino, and Anders, the game could have shown that Hawke influenced one of them more than the others - Meredith to be anti-mage, Petrice to be anti-Qunari, Orsino to be anti-templar, and Anders to be anti-Chantry - and the attack on the Chantry could have taken more than one static form.  Then the endgame would certainly have been influenced directly by Hawke, and perhaps variable enough to people's liking.

The Serge777 wrote...

8.  Experience for Story-Driven Influence:

Yeah, perhaps a bit too MMO-ified in influence.

The Serge777 wrote...

9.  Reintroduce RPG Skills: 

I'm on the fence on this one.  They seem like a good idea, but then specific skills only get matched up to specific quests and don't become a proper tactic against the battles and quests of the game.  If they can't integrate skills effectively into the core mechanic, then perhaps they're better left out.

But like you, I still enjoyed the game and ran through it multiple times, and I'm looking forward to the next one.

[Raycer X]

Wow, the OP summed most of what I felt about DA2 quite nicely.

The only thing I don't agree is #9. If we are able to craft potions, runes, and bombs/grenades just by having other NPC sources do it for us, then that would create a rather limited amount skills, wouldn't it?

I mean, the role of traps has been reduced to nothing more than environmental hazards (at least, that's how I see it) IE: spikes shooting from the walls, flamethrowers out of nowhere, 5+ feet long spikes firing straight out of the ground (whether wood or stone).

This wouldn't have left much room for skills aside from the formulaic positive/negative dialogue influence options.

[Captain_Obvious]

I can support the OP in most respects. I really like DA2, but it could have been much more fleshed out with some of the OP's points.

My one exception is this: In every RPG, your character is the main driving force behind events. Your character shapes the world, saves the galaxy, moves the mountains, and saves the poor village from destruction. One of the things that I actually found refreshing about DA2 was the feeling of being swept up in events that are completely out of your character's control. No matter what hard choices you make, there are forces at work that will negate your sacrifices. My opinion only, but I sort of liked the feeling of events spiralling out of control. Just like real life.

[Sepewrath]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said there. The problem these games have and it was a glaring flaw in Origins was they put you in god mode. Here's an example, how does an Elf decide that Alistair is the king of Ferelden? That makes no sense whatsoever, no one would let an Elf choose their king, Grey Warden or not. The fact that someone with a hundreds of years of hatred boiled up inside of them, can be simply swayed by some random stranger is ridiculous. Having it so that Hawke could do anything, having is so that Hawke could magically repair an irreparable situation would cheapen them.

The hero has to know failure, it cant always be Superman reversing the Earth to save Lois, because outside of that, not even Superman saves everyone. Why should the PC never face adversity? If Hawke was just going to barrel through to save his mother, tossing everything like trash, why even have the scenario where she is taken if it only serves as "just another combat scenario" If Hawke could solve every single problem they wouldn't be a character, they would be nothing more than an avatar fo greatness fantasies, that's all the Warden was and nothing more. Anders stuck with a spirit? No problem, the PC is here to rip right out, because he's just that great. No, you cant control everything, it weakens the story.

The other things you mentioned would lead to nothing but a bunch of meta gaming, which all of this wraps around. Like Cunning in Origins, just slap some points in there and no one can ever deny you. It derives every situation of weight when you can just fall back on that. I much preferred the options that depends on what you had done to that point.

[tomorrowstation]

Sepewrath wrote...

I disagree with pretty much everything you said there. The problem these games have and it was a glaring flaw in Origins was they put you in god mode. Here's an example, how does an Elf decide that Alistair is the king of Ferelden? That makes no sense whatsoever, no one would let an Elf choose their king, Grey Warden or not. The fact that someone with a hundreds of years of hatred boiled up inside of them, can be simply swayed by some random stranger is ridiculous. Having it so that Hawke could do anything, having is so that Hawke could magically repair an irreparable situation would cheapen them.

The hero has to know failure, it cant always be Superman reversing the Earth to save Lois, because outside of that, not even Superman saves everyone. Why should the PC never face adversity? If Hawke was just going to barrel through to save his mother, tossing everything like trash, why even have the scenario where she is taken if it only serves as "just another combat scenario" If Hawke could solve every single problem they wouldn't be a character, they would be nothing more than an avatar fo greatness fantasies, that's all the Warden was and nothing more. Anders stuck with a spirit? No problem, the PC is here to rip right out, because he's just that great. No, you cant control everything, it weakens the story.

The other things you mentioned would lead to nothing but a bunch of meta gaming, which all of this wraps around. Like Cunning in Origins, just slap some points in there and no one can ever deny you. It derives every situation of weight when you can just fall back on that. I much preferred the options that depends on what you had done to that point.

 My thoughts exactly. People gonna do what people gonna do, no matter what you say.  Makes them more real to me.

[BBK4114]

I already have reality tyvm. This is fantasy.

[Phantom_Demon]

Entirety of the game in one go: "Fanfic writer got in there, screwed the script up to make it more what they wanted, and made us think that this game was going to be epic." When in essence, it's not true. If they went this way, as Serge put it frankly, as they should have a few months ago, we'd have a more perplexed and interesting story, and not losing fans over this game, and the holes filled up with these bits and pieces in each part of the game. Wouldn't you all agree?

I say, allow Bioware to see this thread, and they too should follow on what needs to be added, as an update, not a DLC download, into the story. Heck, Seeing Carver as a witty Rogue would lighten my day, instead of the broody warrior he is. And Betheany would have to be the Rouge if you're a Mage, Carver, still the same as when you're playing a Rogue, the "broody warrior".

Makes me think as to why that couldn't have been implemented into the story. No loss, and, it would make a better idea if the Mother died instead of the twins. Because obviously she's no help in the story. All she is is a throw-away character. Just like Gamlen, but at least he has a Quest in the game, and some interesting dialog to boot.

Still, make it as follows, either Bioware does this because of Profit, or, do this because then people will see a large and intricate difference. I would say make an expansion, as a different dimension of the main story to be precise, opposite to that of the regular story. Still the same story, only with more content and more impact of choices you make in your time in Kirkwall than the original game itself has, not this box cover and game I see before my eyes as a coaster for my drink to be put upon.

Thus, Bioware will have to see this, as I say, "One size fits all game idea". It even has the DLC added into it from your memory of what's on your console or PC/Mac. This would be a much more diverse story than that of the Original DAII, and a real reason as to why Hawke needed/had to become the Champion of Kirkwall, instead of what we get in DAII. And make the dungeons more diverse than their original ones in DAII, and not cut and paste the same ones over and over again calling it a "dungeon" when it is the same crop cut dungeon from the one quest you did earlier.

If I had to buy the game over again, with these implemented into the story of DAII, you bet your sodding ass I would. But we can only dream. We can only dream.

Unless, of course, one of us sends the idea to Bioware and they ask us what should be put into the story of it.

I'm all for the idea, I'm just not an excellent story-teller like Varric tells his tales.

[LostInReverie19]

I agree with all of your points, OP. You expressed what I think about DA2 much more clearly and succinctly than I ever could. I hope Bioware takes some pointers from your post.

[Ariella]

The Serge777 wrote...

This thread is my analysis of where DA2 fell short: Hawke's ability to impact the world around him (I'll be using a male pronoun for Hawke in this since played a male 3/4 times).  Don't get me wrong: there are a number of times in which your character's actions have meaning, but all too often not in the "right place."  What do I mean by "right place?"  Well, I mean in matters of significant overarching story and plot development.  While it's great to see how your lack of relationship building affects how your Companions treat you (particularly in the Last Straw), that's not nearly enough and it's the place where DA2 falters.

Now, let me be clear here: I love DA2.  I've played it four times in a row and I intend on playing it two more times to experience different classes and romances.  I've bought and played Legacy 3.3 times.  I am a Bioware fan, having played the BG franchise and other games that used the Infinity engine.  I am not a PC "elitist" (whatever that means), but I do consider myself an RPGer. So, do not presume that I'm bashing the game; rather, I'm throwing out areas in which Bioware/EA could have granted you greater influence on one's game experience.  Thusly, my nine thoughts:

1.  Hawke Sibling's Death:  There is NO reason why either of your siblings had to die.  The argument I heard most often for this was class/party balance and I cry BS. With three Hawke kids and three classes, you had a perfect little trifecta (not using the word right, but you get the point).  If you played a mage, then Carver was either a warrior or a rogue, and Bethany took the difference.  Or the game assigned the classes for you.  Now, your choices in Lothering could/should have impacted whether the ENTIRE family made it out alive.  Throwing in a couple extra scenes that show you picking up Aveline or not would have been a starting place (for example, deciding to avoid the Ogre but taking a longer way around with less access to loot)  And these are just a variety of ideas.  As an aside, surviving siblings can still become Wardens, Templars, or Circle Mages.

I stopped right at this point as it doesn't take into account the STORY. Carver and Bethany are what they are due as much to story considerations as party balance or whatever gameplay. Bethany who's not a mage isn't Bethany, and a large part of her personality is wrapped up in the fact that the Hawke family has been forced to move constantly  to protect her.

Carver's tied up in the fact that he's in the shadow of his big brother/sister, and that causes a lot of tension between the two, as Carver blames Hawke for their situation in Kirkwall, including Bethany's death.

Storywise, it's more effective to have a loss shown to the player rather than just speaking about it (ie Dad). The opening works fine as is, and by complicating the gameplay issues you'll have to sacrifice story ones.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ariella wrote...

The Serge777 wrote...

This thread is my analysis of where DA2 fell short: Hawke's ability to impact the world around him (I'll be using a male pronoun for Hawke in this since played a male 3/4 times).  Don't get me wrong: there are a number of times in which your character's actions have meaning, but all too often not in the "right place."  What do I mean by "right place?"  Well, I mean in matters of significant overarching story and plot development.  While it's great to see how your lack of relationship building affects how your Companions treat you (particularly in the Last Straw), that's not nearly enough and it's the place where DA2 falters.

Now, let me be clear here: I love DA2.  I've played it four times in a row and I intend on playing it two more times to experience different classes and romances.  I've bought and played Legacy 3.3 times.  I am a Bioware fan, having played the BG franchise and other games that used the Infinity engine.  I am not a PC "elitist" (whatever that means), but I do consider myself an RPGer. So, do not presume that I'm bashing the game; rather, I'm throwing out areas in which Bioware/EA could have granted you greater influence on one's game experience.  Thusly, my nine thoughts:

1.  Hawke Sibling's Death:  There is NO reason why either of your siblings had to die.  The argument I heard most often for this was class/party balance and I cry BS. With three Hawke kids and three classes, you had a perfect little trifecta (not using the word right, but you get the point).  If you played a mage, then Carver was either a warrior or a rogue, and Bethany took the difference.  Or the game assigned the classes for you.  Now, your choices in Lothering could/should have impacted whether the ENTIRE family made it out alive.  Throwing in a couple extra scenes that show you picking up Aveline or not would have been a starting place (for example, deciding to avoid the Ogre but taking a longer way around with less access to loot)  And these are just a variety of ideas.  As an aside, surviving siblings can still become Wardens, Templars, or Circle Mages.

I stopped right at this point as it doesn't take into account the STORY. Carver and Bethany are what they are due as much to story considerations as party balance or whatever gameplay. Bethany who's not a mage isn't Bethany, and a large part of her personality is wrapped up in the fact that the Hawke family has been forced to move constantly  to protect her.

Carver's tied up in the fact that he's in the shadow of his big brother/sister, and that causes a lot of tension between the two, as Carver blames Hawke for their situation in Kirkwall, including Bethany's death.

Storywise, it's more effective to have a loss shown to the player rather than just speaking about it (ie Dad). The opening works fine as is, and by complicating the gameplay issues you'll have to sacrifice story ones.

For that story to work, you have to care for them. Placing them at the beginning has the disadvantage that you don't know them and thus not care for them. So their death at the start of the game is meaningless. Maybe after another run it will have some impact, but then of course it is no longer a surprise.

[Sepewrath]

I don't think the death at the beginning was suppose to have an impact besides empathy for someone who watched their kid die in front of them, or in Aveline's case, killing her husband. But the other deaths did mean something, I took Bethany everywhere with me and then I took her to the Deep Roads, thinking I was protecting her from going to the Circle and she died down there.


After growing attached to having her around, she was dead, the same goes for Leandra, you were use to just having her always in the house and then she died. If Hawke Superman'd it and none of that was allowed to happen, those are moments that couldn't be replaced. Constant triumph loses its appeal after awhile, you become numb to it; but a little adversity for the character, goes a long way to adding depth.

[ArcanistLibram]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I can support the OP in most respects. I really like DA2, but it could have been much more fleshed out with some of the OP's points.

My one exception is this: In every RPG, your character is the main driving force behind events. Your character shapes the world, saves the galaxy, moves the mountains, and saves the poor village from destruction. One of the things that I actually found refreshing about DA2 was the feeling of being swept up in events that are completely out of your character's control. No matter what hard choices you make, there are forces at work that will negate your sacrifices. My opinion only, but I sort of liked the feeling of events spiralling out of control. Just like real life.

Aside from the fact that a character who has no agency is incredibly boring to play, Hawke was marketed as the Champion of Kirkwall, the most important person and Thedas and the person responsible for the **** hitting the fan and the Chantry falling apart.

In the game, Hawke never takes charge of anything and isn't responsible for any of the major events in the plot. He's not a protagonist, he's a bystander. You can tell a story from a bystander's point of view and I'm sure you can make a game where people play as a bystander exciting, but that's not what we were told Dragon Age 2 was going to be.

[The Serge777]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said there. The problem these games have and it was a glaring flaw in Origins was they put you in god mode. Here's an example, how does an Elf decide that Alistair is the king of Ferelden? That makes no sense whatsoever, no one would let an Elf choose their king, Grey Warden or not. The fact that someone with a hundreds of years of hatred boiled up inside of them, can be simply swayed by some random stranger is ridiculous. Having it so that Hawke could do anything, having is so that Hawke could magically repair an irreparable situation would cheapen them.

Fair points; however, you'll note I didn't say that Hawke would/could do everything.  Indeed, I even supported keeping Leandra's death as a given.  And, regardless of what he does, Hawke is destined to be at the center of the events that lead to the dissolution of Circles across Thedas and be responsible, to one degree or another, for future diplomatic ties with the Qunari. 

What I'm getting at is that Hawke should be less of a reactionary figure.  He should have greater control over what happens because YOU as the player should have greater control over what happens.  If you don't want that kind of control in a millennial RPG, then you're probably better off playing an Action/Adventure like the Assassin's Creed franchise (love those games) or Devil May Cry.

The hero has to know failure, it cant always be Superman reversing the Earth to save Lois, because outside of that, not even Superman saves everyone. Why should the PC never face adversity? If Hawke was just going to barrel through to save his mother, tossing everything like trash, why even have the scenario where she is taken if it only serves as "just another combat scenario" If Hawke could solve every single problem they wouldn't be a character, they would be nothing more than an avatar fo greatness fantasies, that's all the Warden was and nothing more. Anders stuck with a spirit? No problem, the PC is here to rip right out, because he's just that great. No, you cant control everything, it weakens the story.

Did you read the entirety of my post?  I'm not sure you did.  The Chantry still has to blow up; Hawke can't stop it.  Leandra still has to die; Hawke can't stop that.  The Qunari still go nuts and Hawke has to put them down after hundreds (including the Viscount) die.  However, Hawke can and should be a more proactive actor in a story about his rise to become the Champion of Kirkwall.  The player should have the ability to navigate that rise more directly and forcefully.  The game should allow for a greater degree of options because it's an RPG.

The other things you mentioned would lead to nothing but a bunch of meta gaming, which all of this wraps around. Like Cunning in Origins, just slap some points in there and no one can ever deny you. It derives every situation of weight when you can just fall back on that. I much preferred the options that depends on what you had done to that point.

Sort of like making sure you take Isabela around for hours to make sure you get her Friendship at 50% before the Qunari go nuts so you can get the Ambrosia in Act III (and more XP)?  Or sort of like making sure that you keep Fenris around so you can have at least one Two-Handed DPSer if your Hawke isn't playing one?  Meta-gaming is part of such games, particularly for folks who play multiple times; however, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if the story allows for such an approach.

As for Cunning/Persuasion, I believe I wrote that there needed to be elements built into its acquisiton to make a person think twice before purchasing it.  Make Persuasion it's own Skill Tree, for example.  Or tie it to the three Hawke personality types a la Mass Effect.  And you could still have many situations dependant upon the actions you've taken.  If you've been a Templar supporter for the entire game, Orsino should probably NEVER be willing to treat with you diplomatically; however, if you have been a Mage Supporter and you are Persuasive enough and decide to take advantage of the appropriate dialogue option, you should be able to talk Orsino down so you can have a real impact on the world around you as the Champion is supposed to.  More importantly, the player should be able to end up with a Dragon Age conclusion more closely tied to his decision and acts, not the fixed whims of the designers.  Yes, I know that in the end, there'll be a final confrontation; however, I should be to dictate how that confrontation begins (at the very least). Again, this is an RPG, not an Action/Adventure.

[The Serge777]

 My thoughts exactly. People gonna do what people gonna do, no matter what you say.  Makes them more real to me.

And some people will listen to those they trust/love/admire/respect.  Not all the time, but plenty of times.

[The Serge777]

I stopped right at this point as it doesn't take into account the STORY. Carver and Bethany are what they are due as much to story considerations as party balance or whatever gameplay. Bethany who's not a mage isn't Bethany, and a large part of her personality is wrapped up in the fact that the Hawke family has been forced to move constantly  to protect her.

Or the family has spent a lot of time moving around to protect Hawke.  Or Carver.  In the same way that you can swap the palettes for the male or female Hawke, the same could have been done for Bethany and Carver.

Storywise, it's more effective to have a loss shown to the player rather than just speaking about it (ie Dad). The opening works fine as is, and by complicating the gameplay issues you'll have to sacrifice story ones.

I disagree.  Although I know how Hawke was supposed to feel (despite the fact that it didn't seem as though he was all that affected by seeing his sibling murdered RIGHT BEFORE HIS EYES!  I swear, Hawke is so... unemotional when tragedy meets him.  The Viscount's reaction to Seamus was the kind of reaction Hawke never has when his siblings or mother die), I didn't feel it because the game just started and I had not developed a rapport with the ill-fated sibling.  After multiple playthroughs, I did feel a loss of what could have been, but that's about it.

[nitefyre410]

Sepewrath wrote...

I disagree with pretty much everything you said there. The problem these games have and it was a glaring flaw in Origins was they put you in god mode. Here's an example, how does an Elf decide that Alistair is the king of Ferelden? That makes no sense whatsoever, no one would let an Elf choose their king, Grey Warden or not. The fact that someone with a hundreds of years of hatred boiled up inside of them, can be simply swayed by some random stranger is ridiculous. Having it so that Hawke could do anything, having is so that Hawke could magically repair an irreparable situation would cheapen them.

The hero has to know failure, it cant always be Superman reversing the Earth to save Lois, because outside of that, not even Superman saves everyone. Why should the PC never face adversity? If Hawke was just going to barrel through to save his mother, tossing everything like trash, why even have the scenario where she is taken if it only serves as "just another combat scenario" If Hawke could solve every single problem they wouldn't be a character, they would be nothing more than an avatar fo greatness fantasies, that's all the Warden was and nothing more. Anders stuck with a spirit? No problem, the PC is here to rip right out, because he's just that great. No, you cant control everything, it weakens the story.

The other things you mentioned would lead to nothing but a bunch of meta gaming, which all of this wraps around. Like Cunning in Origins, just slap some points in there and no one can ever deny you. It derives every situation of weight when you can just fall back on that. I much preferred the options that depends on what you had done to that point.

I  agree completely  and Superman is a greet example , no Hero can save every problem becasue if they did  there would not be a need for the Hero.

[Potato Cat]

Just like to say, I also actually quite liked DA2. But I DO agree with all your problems with the game.

But they could have easily have fixed most of those problems by adding a fourth act in between 2 and 3 to better build bonds with Meredith and Orsino and companions and romances. They also really rushed Act 3 anyway. I had like one whole conversation with Orsino, and while his moment of desperation leading to him turning into a Harvester was sad, I wasn't truly moved in the same way I would have been if we actually had the chance to get to know him.

The companion conversations system HAS to be looked at again. As you said, I missed the mundane conversations that really helped me bond with that character. But DAO's problem was you could get through all the conversations before you got your first ally. We need mundane conversations throughout the story, with big plot conversations accessible after certain points. Is it too much to ask for a happy medium between the DAO system and the DA2 system?

But we also need to remember, DA2 needed to be this linear for the writer's story for DA3. The Anders thing HAD to happen to incite Meredith to invoke the Right Of Annullment. But have no fear, I am certain DA3 will be much improved from DA2. Just not with the blood mages.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Sepewrath wrote...

I disagree with pretty much everything you said there. The problem these games have and it was a glaring flaw in Origins was they put you in god mode. Here's an example, how does an Elf decide that Alistair is the king of Ferelden? That makes no sense whatsoever, no one would let an Elf choose their king, Grey Warden or not. The fact that someone with a hundreds of years of hatred boiled up inside of them, can be simply swayed by some random stranger is ridiculous. Having it so that Hawke could do anything, having is so that Hawke could magically repair an irreparable situation would cheapen them.

The hero has to know failure, it cant always be Superman reversing the Earth to save Lois, because outside of that, not even Superman saves everyone. Why should the PC never face adversity? If Hawke was just going to barrel through to save his mother, tossing everything like trash, why even have the scenario where she is taken if it only serves as "just another combat scenario" If Hawke could solve every single problem they wouldn't be a character, they would be nothing more than an avatar fo greatness fantasies, that's all the Warden was and nothing more. Anders stuck with a spirit? No problem, the PC is here to rip right out, because he's just that great. No, you cant control everything, it weakens the story.

The other things you mentioned would lead to nothing but a bunch of meta gaming, which all of this wraps around. Like Cunning in Origins, just slap some points in there and no one can ever deny you. It derives every situation of weight when you can just fall back on that. I much preferred the options that depends on what you had done to that point.

Except that Hawke is a complete failure. Not the same thing as earning a happy ending.

[Zanallen]

I agree, though I don't think this is an issue strictly with DA2. Did Origins really handle this any better? Or any Bioware game, really?

[darkrose]

1.  Hawke Sibling's Death:  
The lack of any established emotional connection at that point in the game made this feel like cheap manipulation to me: "Oh, I'm supposed to feel sad here, right?" Knowing after playing the demo that Hawke's character choice was the only determining factor didn't help. 

2.  Bloodmage Reaction:  
No one ever notices that you're a bloodmage.  Ever.  While most critics of the game harp on your being a mage going ignored at some of the strangest times, aside from Cullen inexplicably not noticing, the game makes some effort to acknowledge why the Templars give Hawke a pass.

Not early enough for my liking. The fact that the first time someone calls you out as an apostate is Grace, and then it doesn't happen again until the end of Act 2 is ridiculous, especially since the bribes Athenril/Meeran would have paid on your behald would have ended after the first year. But yes

3.  Restricted Party Interactions: 
YES. The biggest flaw of the storytelling in DA2 was that is was all tell and no show. The idea that characters were interacting outside of the specific time jump points was completely negated by the fact that I had exactly two opportunities to speak with each companion, who just happened to be standing exactly where I left them three years ago.

6.  Orsino: 
Sweet holy Maker, yes. Orsino going Harvester makes absolutely no sense if you side with the mages, except as a heavy-handed attempt to introduce some moral equivalency. I didn't need him to do that in order to realize that yes, in fact, their are real, valid issues around how to deal with people who have phenominal cosmic power and look like lunch to demons. I felt like I was being railroaded into coming to the "both sides do it" conclusion when I'd already figured that out, thanks.

7.  Meredith:  
More of the same.  If they wanted to show how crazy she was, they did a bad job of it.

Again, telling and not showing. I heard over and over again that Meredith was crazy, but I actually never saw her being crazy until the end--when it turns out that she's crazy from Red Lyrium. That, actually, was the craziest thing about her: that she thought making a sword out of an evil artifact of great evilness was a good plan.

8.  Experience for Story-Driven Influence:
If I manage to talk someone out of some action that would otherwise result in combat, I should receive commensurate experience.  
Agreed.

9.  Reintroduce RPG Skills:  
I don't know how many people didn't use skills in DAO, but for me, such sklills are a given.  As a result, make taking them have a real impact on abilities or something.  Or don't.  Not everyone is going to play a silver-tongued diplomat or intimidating brute, but the option should be there beyond just one's tone.

Also agreed. I know it's a clunky mechanic, but I liked that I had to make a conscious choice for my Warden to max out that skill and thus forego points in something else. 

So, those are my ideas of what DA2 could have done to ensure greater agency and player impact.  You'll notice that I didn't mention things like Mama-Hawke's death.  Well, there are and should be some things your Hawke can't always do.  Something like your mother's murder in a game in which you have had real influence and impact would really resonate.

I was furious with the Zombie Mom subplot, because like the sibling death at the beginning, it felt like I was being emotionally manipulated. Yes, I want to have an emotional reaction, but having it telegraphed so obviously diluted any impact for me. I don't want to be able to see the strings being pulled.

Modifié par darkrose, 06 août 2011 - 01:38 .