214 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

JohnEpler wrote...

I realize now that I am probably partially responsible for a small amount of heartache, as I also did the scenes that killed off your sibling in the Deep Roads. Though I don't think any of the player lines were quite as good as Boulton's 'You always were a heartbreaker, Bethany.' Still conflicted on whether or not hiding the actual kill was the right call. At the time I felt so, but I go back and forth on that one.

Hiding it was the right choice.  I could not have born it to see Bethany's blood splash to the ground.

It was depressing enough as it was.  I went back and left her to the templars.  At least that way I could get her back when Act 3 go time came around.

[Addai]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Siding with the Templar to try and stop Anders and his plans, only to fail and have it happen anyway, left me incredibly satisfied as I imagined Hawke looking upon the world with horror as he failed to achieve what he wanted.

And you don't think- all Hawke had to do was go to Anders' clinic and slit his throat?  Just once during all that time that Anders actually trusted him and it would have been incredibly easy to do?  That feels artificial and makes the protagonist look like a tool.

There is a similar dynamic in Merrill's story line.  It's not tragic because it's all predicated on the unexplained stupidity of Marethari not moving the clan and Merrill's vacant single-mindedness.  I was in horror when I was having to kill the clan (I know you can save them, if Hawke makes a nonsensical empty promise), but in the end it just made me angry, not sad in a satisfying way, as it would have if that result really felt like it had had logical premises.  I could name a few other examples of people who are acting stupidly not out of good characterization but because it feels like the plot is artificially forcing them- the Arishok and Elthina come to mind.

I like dark, complicated story lines.  Kirkwall was just too much of a cartoon freak show for me to care about the tragedy.  Part of that is the aesthetic of the game, but it's also the fact that the story traded the paranormal and idiocy (Hawke's and a lot of other people's) for human complexity and weakness.

[jamesp81]

Melca36 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I realize now that I am probably partially responsible for a small amount of heartache, as I also did the scenes that killed off your sibling in the Deep Roads. Though I don't think any of the player lines were quite as good as Boulton's 'You always were a heartbreaker, Bethany.' Still conflicted on whether or not hiding the actual kill was the right call. At the time I felt so, but I go back and forth on that one.

Ok I have a silly question...Is Bethany supposed to look more sick than Carver in that scene?

Oh an I am glad we didn't experienc "The Kill". I would have to put the game aside for a few days if that happened:crying:

I would have liked a drunk Hawke scene a few weeks after returning from The Deep Roads though.

I don't normally do this, but I'm going to just this once.

For drunken, angry, broken Hawke goodness, see the fanfic in my tagline entitled "Hawke's Oath".  Takes place about 2 months after the Deep Roads.  It may be what you had in mind.

[jamesp81]

I'll add one that might make the list.

When doing Mirror Image, the Vatteral kills Pol. Merrill's grief at his death his palatable. I wish the devs had given us a "paragon interrupt hug" similar to the scene with Tali's father from Mass Effect 2, though. I should've been able to hug the poor girl.

[HTTP 404]

this makes me want to play the most depressing playthrough ever! choosing all the depressing consquences. taking sibling to deep roads,etc

[jamesp81]

rak72 wrote...

I think one reason why DA2 didn't have such a stellar reception was because the writers were trying to get kicks feeding off our tears. The player needs to feel they accomplished something great after they finish a game. For me I didn't feel I accomplished a single thing, I just disappeared all alone, somewhere in the mountains. Whats the point.

At the end of DAO I was all, "woo hoo, I'm queen of Fereldan, I have a hot husband, and I saved Fereldan!!! Time to wave to my admirers".

At the end of DA2, I was like, "pft, what a load of cr*p, at least let me disappear with the hot chantry boy".

I have mixed feelings here.

I want happy endings.  However, the second installment in many series tends to be darker than the ending.  I'm OK with that if Bioware is planning a happy ending later.  If not, or if Hawke's story remains unresolved, I'm not happy about that.

DA2 was very dark for my tastes.  I craved a fulfilling conclusion but didn't really get one.  I just hope I can get one in later titles for Hawke since I didn't get one here.

Modifié par jamesp81, 11 août 2011 - 04:08 .

[Quething]

HallowedWarden wrote...

I agree very much with this. That's why I wish that the relationship with Gamlen could have been really improved-upon post-Leandra's death. She did give Hawke a very compelling reason to actually stay in Kirkwall. Other than, "this is how it was written, this is how it should be," I can't see why Hawke actually stayed in the city after Leandra was murdered--especially if both siblings were dead.

You could argue that Bethany is in the Circle, so Hawke stays in the city to at least be close to her, or the same with Carver and the Templars. However, if all three of them are gone... Why not just leave and be done with Kirkwall and the pure insanity therein?

Well, if you're an Andersmancer. He's not going anywhere until The Mages Are Free, so if you love him neither are you. The other three would happily bail with you, though.

I suppose you could also be roleplaying a Hawke who's genuinely come to see Kirkwall as home and feels an attachment to and responsibility for the city. Varric tries to suggest as much a couple times, but to me it rings really hollow, and I felt the game never gave me any real support toward that end and did a fair bit to discourage it.

Part of it is that there's a lot of regular reinforcement of your identity as a Ferelden, through all three acts. You get insulted for it, can express pride in it, and Alistair might even ask you to come home. Half the most important people in your life are from there, whether originally or recently, compared to only one local (well, two if you count Leandra, but her only actual conversations with you involve Ferelden and your past there). You've even got a mabari following you around. It didn't feel like Hawke ever surrendered that identity or considered herself a Marcher, and certainly no one else saw her as one.

Another bigger part of it is tied in to the element of tragedy, again. In DA:O, as, f'rex, an Aeducan, I genuinely felt like Orzammar was my home; I felt invested in it, and interested in the way it shaped my character. Random NPCs knew who I was - shopkeeps offered me gifts, historians solicited my patronage, and I got opportunities to talk to and connect with these characters and learn about their culture and perspectives. When I left the city, I knew those people were still back there, and I thought "that shopkeep is now subject to Bhelen's rule," and that mattered to me. The Alienage, likewise, was very real to my Tabris, with Alarith telling stories and my mom's old friends dropping wedding gifts on me. The people there had obvious connection to my Warden and she to them. Vigil's Keep had Varel and Wade and Herren and some crazy-ass dwarves; when darkspawn threatened it, I cared, because they were there and I liked them and they counted on me. I had a clear sense of what my duties and privileges were and what my place was in all those social hierarchies, and who I'd be hurting and how if I left or messed up or failed to act.

You don't get that in Kirkwall. You don't get to talk to or develop affection for random, arbitrary NPCs outside your party. Corff never knows your name. Worthy and Tomwise get exactly one generic bark per act. Everyone else is dead, or part of the mage/templar mess, which means they're dead. Seamus? Dead. Nyssa? Dead. The Viscount? Dead. That Pryce kid? Okay, alive, but on a farm somewhere far from Kirkwall, and Feynriel likewise has no part of Kirkwall post-Act 1. Your miners get eaten by a dragon. Gamlen lives, but he was deliberately written to be hateful. Who in this city am I supposed to connect to or care about? Bodhan and Orana are the only people who care that Hawke's around or would notice if she left, and they'd go with her. With every interactable NPC ending up dead or gone, Hawke's Kirkwall becomes solely comprised of rapist templars, necrophiliac blood mages, and parachuting gangs. Even if Hawke's the idealist type who wants to help people, there's nobody left to help, and on the off chance you actually find someone, you fail and they get skewered by their blood mage husband or obsessive Chantry mother or lunatic blood mage kidnapping buddy anyway. You can't even keep a bloody Coterie thug alive for ten minutes as your business partner! So why keep bothering?

[wetnasty]

Wow when you look at it, this was probably the most depressing BioWare game ever made.... Hopefully this just sets up for something epic in the future though.

[LadyJaneGrey]

HallowedWarden and Quething pointed out exactly where the game fell apart my first play-through.  Here's what I left in the review thread a few months ago:

While I felt a drive to pursue the companion quests and individual faction quests, the overarching story seemed to fall apart in the beginning of the third act; outside of “I have to stay and deal with this to further their story to finish” I didn't feel a push to keep going; my family was gone, I had no LI, I had a huge amount of money and a lot of political clout from defeating the Qunari, I was given dialogue opportunities to say I'd leave, and both the mages and templars were going even more crazy...so why would I stay in Kirkwall?  Especially for three years?

[jamesp81]

thats1evildude wrote...

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

I certainly don't deny that most of our writers tend to prefer tragic moments. For me, personally, I've never really trusted an author who wasn't willing to kill a likeable character. Happy endings often feel cheap and unearned.

I can relate. I tend to prefer characters who are a little wounded by their experiences. I like bittersweet endings where the protagonist may achieve his goals but goes through hell to do so, or that the victory is ultimately a hollow one because of the sacrifices they've made. DA2 does a pretty good job of putting the hero through such a story, but it lacks the triumph that makes it meaningful.

Happy endings are not inherently bad if there's a sense of accomplishment to go with them. Why should you form attachment to characters you know you're going to lose? If the hero's struggles never amount to anything, then what's the point of the journey? We need fiction to escape the dreariness of our everyday lives.

I think you dismiss the value of escapism in video games at your own peril.

I'm pretty much 110% opposed to grimdark storytelling in general if the result is loss or hollow victories.  The win at the end of the story is best when the goodguys are dragged to the bottom before getting there.

There's a reason Lord of the Rings is one of the definitive literary works of western civilization.  It does a masterful job of putting the characters in to a truly hopeless situation but, in the end, they still win.

[jamesp81]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

There's a point where an abundance of tragedy just makes it all pointless to me. 

 

I'm inclined to lean this way. Tragedy is best when used sparingly. Think of it like the exploding bodies bug. If a body occasionally explodes into a fine paste because you did some incredible hit, its fun. But when each and every body explodes because you glanced at it harshly, it loses any entertainment value.

Though I will admit I prefer happy endings being possible in games. I can get enough tragedy in the real world. I play RPGs to escape and feel empowered. Which isn't to say a happy ending can't come at a cost. That's fair.

Thank you.  I get enough tragedy in real life

[jamesp81]

I'll say one last thing and leave it.

I can appreciate that the writers of DA are quite talented. I think that's been established.

But from what JBH has wrote, I do not have high hopes that further titles will appeal. I am not interested in pouring 120+ hours into a series of games only to have the protagonist or his friends suffer a horrible fate. I won't be parting with my money for that sort of plot.

Same reason I won't be parting with my money if Mass Effect 3 takes a turn towards the "epic fail, we lost, everyone died" kind of writing.

Don't take it as non-constructive criticism, but I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would pay money for something that leaves them feeling depressed. DA2 gets a nominal pass since it's not the last title and we don't know the end yet.

[Pzykozis]

Hmm, I love grimdark, as long as it makes sense GRRM falls flat for me because I don't think the world he made really makes sense, but the darkness still appeals. Lovecrafts work in particular (whilst completely overly wordy) is some of my favourite.

All that remains is probably the most a game has gone to get me invested emotionally. I wish there was a way in which, without trying to fail (i.e. the opposite of failing at the end of ME2) the game ended.. badly.

I enjoy that Hawke remains human throughout the game, no man is a castle etc. he may be rich, famous and powerful but he's not immune to bad times nor is he god able to solve all problems by looking at them. It was a real highlight of the game.

Edit: @poster above me, feeling depressed? No that's not it at all, it sparks engagement it makes the world feel real. Nothing gets me more interested than tragedy and despair. It's a form of release. Or perhaps I'm just messed up and just want to see the world burn, possibly completely true. 

Modifié par Pzykozis, 11 août 2011 - 06:17 .

[Ryzaki]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
I'm inclined to lean this way. Tragedy is best when used sparingly. Think of it like the exploding bodies bug. If a body occasionally explodes into a fine paste because you did some incredible hit, its fun. But when each and every body explodes because you glanced at it harshly, it loses any entertainment value.

Though I will admit I prefer happy endings being possible in games. I can get enough tragedy in the real world. I play RPGs to escape and feel empowered. Which isn't to say a happy ending can't come at a cost. That's fair.

Agreed ful heartedly but especially the bolded. Too much tragedy takes away the punch in the gut. Nothing in DA2 made me cry as hard as the US/Alistair sacrifing himself for femWarden. That was good tragedy. It stood out, it didn't blend into a tragic black hole. 

I prefer happy endings as well. I was wishing the DR would've had more of a cost attached to it. It feels too much like a "get out of jail free" card for the moment. 

[Darius Vir]

jamesp81 wrote...

I want happy endings.  However, the second installment in many series tends to be darker than the ending.  I'm OK with that if Bioware is planning a happy ending later.  If not, or if Hawke's story remains unresolved, I'm not happy about that.

DA2 was very dark for my tastes.  I craved a fulfilling conclusion but didn't really get one.  I just hope I can get one in later titles for Hawke since I didn't get one here.

Agreed.

This is the (a) problem with the switching of protagonists for each game.  It's really great for a dramatic story to have a nadir  in the middle, IF you can climb out of it later with the same protagonists. 

We know Hawke won't be be the protagonist again, and honestly I doubt we'll see him/her at all (fine with me...I don't have any interest in seeing my former PC as an NPC).  It really makes it difficult to stomach playing the bad point, when you leave your character in said bad point and never see them again. 

Modifié par Darius Vir, 11 août 2011 - 07:06 .

[Dave of Canada]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm pretty much 110% opposed to grimdark storytelling in general if the result is loss or hollow victories.  The win at the end of the story is best when the goodguys are dragged to the bottom before getting there.

There's a reason Lord of the Rings is one of the definitive literary works of western civilization.  It does a masterful job of putting the characters in to a truly hopeless situation but, in the end, they still win.

There's also a reason Lord of the Rings is considered standard fantasy these days, though. I've never been a fan of purely happy endings, there's no such thing as a happy ending when we're involved in war and we're dealing with politics / magic.

It's one of those things which attracted me to the Dragon Age world in the first place, where you're not going to be the kickass hero that saves the day and achieves the happiest ending of them all. It's possible to achieve in Origins with the Dark Ritual, though we don't know what kind of ramifications that'll lead to. It might infact make Thedas more screwed up than it already is, therefore losing the "I'm the ultimate hero" feel.

Now we're heading toward a Mage / Templar conflict, there's no such thing as a happy ending where that's heading. Protagonist #3 will have to deal with it and we're not going to find ourselves in a Thedas where mages are freed without anything having changed on a large scale for the good or the bad, nor do I assume the Templar supports (like myself) will find ourselves in a world we desire quite easily.

One of my personal flaws with Dragon Age: Origins is that having the ultimate victory ending being possible makes it rather standard quite quickly, notable examples:

You've sided with the Mages, you're told they could possibly be possessed and that's why you need to suggest the Templar alternative. Most players don't listen and they feel perfectly justified when you've reached the ending and the mages are perfectly fine, the possession warning was a false alarm. Therefore, mages become standard for the average player on repeat playthroughs.

You're offered to kill the Werewolves and cure the Hunters or kill the Dalish and "avenge" the curse for the Werewolves, some people might find this choice difficult and it's kind of hard to find the "happy" ending. That is, until you've found that you're capable of curing them and allowing them on their merry way and the Dalish are cured. Therefore, curing werewolves becomes standard for the average player. Though since it isn't as hidden by epilogues, it might become standard by the first playthrough.

Same thing with the Connor situation, people might've felt bad but they killed Connor or Isolde and dealt with the situation following their decision. That is, until they found out about the mages being capable of curing them. (One happy ending leading to another happy ending.)

I'm a bigger fan of the decisions where both have consequences, both have merit and there's no "right" way of doing it. Remove the mage solution from the Connor situation and you've got a very difficult choice, no one choice is considered the "right" choice and replaying the game will probably still make the person think if they haven't planned out their playthrough ahead.

Although I love bittersweet and bad endings, I'm understanding that other people not feeling the same way as I do. This is all just my opinion.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 août 2011 - 08:35 .

[jamesp81]

Pzykozis wrote...

Hmm, I love grimdark, as long as it makes sense GRRM falls flat for me because I don't think the world he made really makes sense, but the darkness still appeals. Lovecrafts work in particular (whilst completely overly wordy) is some of my favourite.

All that remains is probably the most a game has gone to get me invested emotionally. I wish there was a way in which, without trying to fail (i.e. the opposite of failing at the end of ME2) the game ended.. badly.

I enjoy that Hawke remains human throughout the game, no man is a castle etc. he may be rich, famous and powerful but he's not immune to bad times nor is he god able to solve all problems by looking at them. It was a real highlight of the game.

Edit: @poster above me, feeling depressed? No that's not it at all, it sparks engagement it makes the world feel real. Nothing gets me more interested than tragedy and despair. It's a form of release. Or perhaps I'm just messed up and just want to see the world burn, possibly completely true. 

Like I said, I get enough realism in reality.  The purpose of entertainment is to get away from that sort of thing.

[TEWR]

That's something I didn't like about Origins. Every playthrough I do the same thing because there are no ramifications for my choices. If I save the mages, they're all the good ones. No group of blood mages were saved and killed Templars and mages before escaping and wreaking havoc on a group of refugees in Ferelden. It's just "You saved the mages! Hooray!"

The Anvil of the Void and the Bhelen/Harrowmont one was better, though because Bhelen's better for Orzammar I believe he's usually picked. What sucks is that my Dwarf Noble couldn't become king.

This is why I don't consider Origins an amazing game. It's just a good game to me.

edit: that doesn't mean I want tragedy all over the place though. I want there to be a balance. I want some good endings, some bad endings, and some moral dilemmas.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 août 2011 - 08:45 .

[jamesp81]

There's also a reason Lord of the Rings is considered standard fantasy
these days, though. I've never been a fan of purely happy endings,
there's no such thing as a happy ending when we're involved in war and
we're dealing with politics / magic.

There's no such thing as magic either, so I don't view it as particularly relevant.

LotR gets called the "standard" for a reason.  It's the one all others are compared to.  Writing grim, unsatisfying plotlines is not "more mature", it's just grim and depressing.  I get that some people like that.  Can't really imagine why, but some people do.

Again, if DA3 is nothing but a Hobbesian Choice writ large, I'll pass.  DA2 gets a pass because it's not the conclusion of the entire saga as it were, just as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was not the conclusion of that trilogy.

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is why I don't consider Origins an amazing game. It's just a good game to me.

Pretty much agreed, though I have to admit I laughed when siding with Harrowmont (which many assumed was the "good" decision) yielded an unsavory result and made people side with Bhelen as the standard.

[Herr Uhl]

jamesp81 wrote...

Like I said, I get enough realism in reality.  The purpose of entertainment is to get away from that sort of thing.

The more realistic the entertainment is, the easier it is to immerse yourself. Which is the means of getting away from reality.

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is why I don't consider Origins an amazing game. It's just a good game to me.

Pretty much agreed, though I have to admit I laughed when siding with Harrowmont (which many assumed was the "good" decision) yielded an unsavory result and made people side with Bhelen as the standard.

I made that mistake too. I sided with Harrowmont first and was like  when I found out he was an idiotic, incompetent, weak ruler.

So then I sided with Bhelen from then on, even as a Dwarf Noble (which seriously pains me to do. Though I do get Trian's Maul, but I'd rather have been able to take the throne.)

[jamesp81]

Herr Uhl wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Like I said, I get enough realism in reality.  The purpose of entertainment is to get away from that sort of thing.

The more realistic the entertainment is, the easier it is to immerse yourself. Which is the means of getting away from reality.

I don't need depressing writing to immerse myself in a story that already contains multiple elements that are reality-breaking.  Dwarves, Elves, and magic being three of them.

Demanding realism in such an environment doesn't make sense.  There's also a reason the heroic epic is the most copied and most frequently told story.  People tend to prefer it.

There is a not a single story every written in the heroic epic pattern that is even loosely believable because no one is that awesome.  And yet, it maintains its popularity.  Suspension of disbelief is clearly in force here for most people, myself included.

Depressing and unfulfilling storytelling should be avoided.

[Dave of Canada]

jamesp81 wrote...

Depressing and unfulfilling storytelling should be avoided.

Unless that's the purpose of the series. ("Unfulfilling" is subjective.)

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 août 2011 - 09:20 .

[jamesp81]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is why I don't consider Origins an amazing game. It's just a good game to me.

Pretty much agreed, though I have to admit I laughed when siding with Harrowmont (which many assumed was the "good" decision) yielded an unsavory result and made people side with Bhelen as the standard.

I made that mistake too. I sided with Harrowmont first and was like  when I found out he was an idiotic, incompetent, weak ruler.

So then I sided with Bhelen from then on, even as a Dwarf Noble (which seriously pains me to do. Though I do get Trian's Maul, but I'd rather have been able to take the throne.)

That was actually a pretty good bit of trickery on the writer's part.  At first I wasn't sure who to support.  First time through I went with Harrowmont because, frankly, Bhelen came off as an annoying jerkass without a clue.  Harrowmont gave the impression of knowing what he was doing, when in fact he was just very skilled as a politician, thus coming off as sounding smart even when he really wasn't anything special.

Still, this is a decision where I'm not sure either one is really right.  Bhelen did turn out better for Orzammar in the short term as far economic and military power was concerned.  But he also started showing signs of being a bully and a tyrant, so I'm not convinced that the Bhelen option might not turn out to be trouble in the long term.  I could easily see both options turning out very badly.

Harrowmont = isolationism, economic recession, internal unrest.  This poses a danger to Orzammar's long term ability to hold the city against the darkspawn

Bhelen = good in the short term, but in the long term we could easily see a dwarven version of the Tevinter Imperium, a sort of imperialist, expansionist power.