220 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw stated something in another thread that's been said/pointed out before: that the Dragon Age series was never meant to be about one hero and that it's about Thedas and its history as a whole (I'm paraphrasing, of course). It's perfeclty legitimate to call the game Dragon Age 2 as the second entry into the series

I don't think many people are arguing that it has a different protagonist, but that the game was completely changed from what people enjoyed about Origins - it seemed to me that Origins was aimed at the "old school" RPG fans, and the sequel changed what some fans liked about Origins to appeal to a completely different audience. Hawke is pretty much a 'fixed' character, where we have very little control over his personality, especially when he says things out of our control and makes vocal responses that have very little to do with the dialogue options that we chose.

Dragon Age 2 is much more linear than Origins; the fact that The Warden could resolve some problems diplomatically (like the dichotomy between the werewolves and the elves in Nature of the Beast and the venture into the Fade in Arl of Redcliffe) in a similar fashion that the Courier can in New Vegas (as the other protagonists were able to in Fallout 1 and 2) is virtually absent with Hawke, who needs to resolve virtually all his problems by killing everything in his path.

When there were players dissatisfied with the changes implemented to the point that different creators have acknowledged the criticism in different avenues, the creators blamed the fans instead of taking responsibility for the changes they made of their own volition, which I find absurd.

[IanPolaris]

Travie wrote...

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...
Woo said, before the game came out, that they fully expected to lose fans, and were banking on bringing in new ones to replace them (which fully pissed me off at the time... and still does). They knew exactly what they were doing. 

...and then the game was a horrible failure. The End.

(I love happy endings)

Yes I know.  That was a truely facepalm moment and decision.  I'll tell everyone how I see it.  Bioware knew that many DAO fans would dislike DA2 (at best) and suckered them anyway with a misleading title and marketing anyway hoping to sucker as many preorders before the word got out.  It was bait-and-switch, nothing less, and it worked.....and then BW has the cheek to blame the fans......

Old saying:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Polaris

[HTTP 404]

my dad can beat up your dad! wait...what's the argument on the Da2 threads today? Bioware are tricking people into playing Da2?

Polaris, you are bitter person. are you on BSN for mass effect? it looks like you dislike DA2 enough that when Da3 comes out, you won't buy it as it would be a "shame on you"

[Monica21]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes I know.  That was a truely facepalm moment and decision.  I'll tell everyone how I see it.  Bioware knew that many DAO fans would dislike DA2 (at best) and suckered them anyway with a misleading title and marketing anyway hoping to sucker as many preorders before the word got out.  It was bait-and-switch, nothing less, and it worked.....and then BW has the cheek to blame the fans......

Old saying:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Polaris

Ian, I get your frustration and I largely agree with you about the direction the franchise has taken, but I've only been reading for your posts for a day now and I'm you're just repeating yourself. Not to mention that I think it's unfair to assume the personal motivation of the devs. I doubt they were dreaming of rolling around in piles of money and laughing maniacally at suckering their jilted fans. 

Conversations like this are only constructive if you talk about what could be better instead of everything that was wrong. And also leaving out the personal attacks. It's getting old.

[alex90c]

HTTP 404 wrote...

my dad can beat up your dad! wait...what's the argument on the Da2 threads today? Bioware are tricking people into playing Da2?

Polaris, you are bitter person. are you on BSN for mass effect? it looks like you dislike DA2 enough that when Da3 comes out, you won't buy it as it would be a "shame on you"

To be fair, the advertising for DA2 was fairly deceptive. We were, for example, promised a rise to power and just got a rise to mediocrity. We were promised a game that would shape itself around our every decision and Bioware simply removed decision-making full stop and just railroading the player constantly. Take a look at the Sheperding Wolves quest for example, the sheer look of disbelief I had when I refused Petrice, looked in my journal and realised it was a main plot quest.

[macrocarl]

alex90c wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

my dad can beat up your dad! wait...what's the argument on the Da2 threads today? Bioware are tricking people into playing Da2?

Polaris, you are bitter person. are you on BSN for mass effect? it looks like you dislike DA2 enough that when Da3 comes out, you won't buy it as it would be a "shame on you"

To be fair, the advertising for DA2 was fairly deceptive. We were, for example, promised a rise to power and just got a rise to mediocrity. We were promised a game that would shape itself around our every decision and Bioware simply removed decision-making full stop and just railroading the player constantly. Take a look at the Sheperding Wolves quest for example, the sheer look of disbelief I had when I refused Petrice, looked in my journal and realised it was a main plot quest.

Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

Also, didn't y'all catch how hairy the follow up DLC was getting narrative-wise in DAO and DAA etc? Instead of shout outs for major major stuff in DAO it was either referred to in text or basically not mentioned (Warden's LI's for example) Of course DA2 needed to start over in a lot of ways, the foundation set by DAO was kind of a mess strategically for BW to continue that way and have all the different Origins covered.
Anyway, about the article. "We have some more DLC plans." <---Woot! 

[IRMcGhee]

You've got to accept some degree of railroading when they're telling a story. Obviously some things must happen at certain points for it to progress. No different from DA or pretty much every Bioware game ever, there's always decisions to make but major plot points are pretty much fixed.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 11 août 2011 - 05:14 .

[Monica21]

macrocarl wrote...
Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

[Jamie_edmo]

Monica21 wrote...

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

^This, although defeating the archdemon is inevitable, the journey leading up to that had a great illusion of choice, you felt as though your choices were massive, even if they weren't, whereas in DA2 the illusion wasn't as great and apart from the odd letter here and there I didn't feel as though Hawke made an impact, at least not one big enough for a Seeker to blame him for starting the mage war

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 11 août 2011 - 05:27 .

[IanPolaris]

Monica21 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...
Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

However, that presentation is critically important.  The goal (at least as I see it) in an RPG is to get the player to willfully immerse himself into the world (and story) that the author(s) are trying to tell usually in an interactive way.  That means that the appearence of player agency (the illusion of choice) is critically important.  It's true that you had to fight the blight (or not play) and ultimately you had to defeat the Archdemon, but that was fairly well laid out as the price of being a warden in the first place.  However WITHIN that basic framework, the world could look very different by the time the Archdemon was a steaming corpse, and you (the warden) had a huge say in that.  Such as:

Who was the next dwarven king.
Have the secrets to Golem making been rediscovered.
How was the curse of the Werewolves solved....was it solved (and who is the next Keeper of the Becilian Dalish)
Who rules Fereldan and under what circumstance.

And much more.

By allowing great flexibility within the world, you make it seems as though the Warden (you) are an active agent whose decisions really matter....even if in the broadest scope they don't.

That is emphatically not true in DA2.  Honestly DA2 is not Hawke's story.  It's Ander's story.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

^This, although defeating the archdemon is inevitable, the journey leading up to that had a great illusion of choice, you felt as though your choices were massive, even if they weren't, whereas in DA2 the illusion wasn't as great and apart from the odd letter here and there I didn't feel as though Hawke made an impact, at least not one big enough for a Seeker to blame him for starting the mage war

Indeed, though I'd much rather have choices with actual consequences.

A common argument is that DA2's choices were more personal. As in you didn't make massive changes, but rather affected the lives of a few people like Kerran, Feynriel, companions...etc. That is if I understand the argument correctly. 

What makes that argument unconvincing to me, is that DA2 did nothing new in that regard either. DA:O and ME1 also had personal choices like this.  In DA:O, you affected the lives of Bella, Kaitlyn and her brother, the mother and her castless child, brother Genitivi...etc. In ME1, you could persuade the mother whose name I forgot to take her baby for treatment and reconcile her with her dead husband's brother, there was also Bahtia, Conrad Verner (ignoring ME2)....etc.

The one difference I can see with Feynriel and companions is that there is a story arc for them, which while nice, doesn't end up compensating for the rest for me at all. One reason is the constant massacring of waves that is unnecessary, one can affect the lives of others without killing. DA:O had a charming simplicity to them in that personal choices like that didn't need story arcs artificially extended by throwing waves at you.

And at the end of the day, none of these choices end up having what I would consider meaningful consequences in the game. But one game is better presented than the other, for me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2011 - 05:45 .

[macrocarl]

OK. Presentation was not up to some people's snuff. Totally fair. But there are other folks who did like the presentation (like me). I think everyone's right. I mena, hey, I loved DAO too so more of that thrown in the mix next round sounds good to me!
The structure of how things are laid out will change given that Legacy was so good. Again, my opinion.
It'll be challenging for BW to strike that balance between gathering a greater audience and keeping people that are/ were already on board. I completely think they are up to the task.
I never think a game is perfect, but I do love playing video games. And my opinion is that DA2 had enough illusion of choice that it was a fun video game. Can they make it even better? I bet BW can. And by better I mean getting some of you guys back on the pro-DA-verse team.
I just had to post because some of the opinions were being laid out like they were facts and the notion that the BW team are a bunch of money grubbing blah blahs is plain old silly. The few interactions I've had with the BW gang have always been incredibly straight forward and at times incredibly insightful.

[alex90c]

macrocarl wrote...

alex90c wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

my dad can beat up your dad! wait...what's the argument on the Da2 threads today? Bioware are tricking people into playing Da2?

Polaris, you are bitter person. are you on BSN for mass effect? it looks like you dislike DA2 enough that when Da3 comes out, you won't buy it as it would be a "shame on you"

To be fair, the advertising for DA2 was fairly deceptive. We were, for example, promised a rise to power and just got a rise to mediocrity. We were promised a game that would shape itself around our every decision and Bioware simply removed decision-making full stop and just railroading the player constantly. Take a look at the Sheperding Wolves quest for example, the sheer look of disbelief I had when I refused Petrice, looked in my journal and realised it was a main plot quest.

Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

Also, didn't y'all catch how hairy the follow up DLC was getting narrative-wise in DAO and DAA etc? Instead of shout outs for major major stuff in DAO it was either referred to in text or basically not mentioned (Warden's LI's for example) Of course DA2 needed to start over in a lot of ways, the foundation set by DAO was kind of a mess strategically for BW to continue that way and have all the different Origins covered.
Anyway, about the article. "We have some more DLC plans." <---Woot! 

Firstly, I wasn't even making a comparison to DA:O, I simply said how the marketing of DA2 was complete BS.

I.E.not "DA:O's advertising was better" because the impression I've gotten from people on here was that it was awful too.

As people have explained below though, when discussing choices in both of the games, while both had quite limited choices you could make (let alone with actual consequence), DA:O maintains the illusion that you do x500 times better than DA2, where the "plot demands it" stick repeatedly whacks you over the head just as a big "friendly" reminder that you as a player are irrelevant to how the story turns out and you WILL do things X and Y and you WILL take option Z at the end of these two quests even if you really would rather take option A.

A good example of this would be

SPOILERS AHEAD

**

**

**

**

Anders has blown up the Chantry and you've made your way to the Gallows. At this point you HAVE to decide to side with one faction or the other. There's no "i'm outta here" option which I bet quite a few people would have taken the moment it showed up.  I mean hell, you wouldn't even have to worry about the plot changing at that point since no matter what Hawke does from then on the mages revolt, and in both cases he ends up disappearing at at a certain point (straight away or after a while ruling Kirkwall).

You could argue that wouldn't make for a very satisfying ending, but considering the absolute complete and utter sh*thole Kirkwall was, I'm sure quite a few people would have picked it.

[Jamie_edmo]

macrocarl wrote...

OK. Presentation was not up to some people's snuff. Totally fair. But there are other folks who did like the presentation (like me). I think everyone's right. I mena, hey, I loved DAO too so more of that thrown in the mix next round sounds good to me!
The structure of how things are laid out will change given that Legacy was so good. Again, my opinion.
It'll be challenging for BW to strike that balance between gathering a greater audience and keeping people that are/ were already on board. I completely think they are up to the task.
I never think a game is perfect, but I do love playing video games. And my opinion is that DA2 had enough illusion of choice that it was a fun video game. Can they make it even better? I bet BW can. And by better I mean getting some of you guys back on the pro-DA-verse team.
I just had to post because some of the opinions were being laid out like they were facts and the notion that the BW team are a bunch of money grubbing blah blahs is plain old silly. The few interactions I've had with the BW gang have always been incredibly straight forward and at times incredibly insightful.

While I agree with this post, the highlighted part is what, in fact EXACTLY what I thought of when DA2 was announced, I thought "great another DA game that will improve on Origins", I had total faith in BW, but after finishing DA2 I was dissapointed (didnt hate the game, though it was ok), and thats the problem I have thinking of DA3, I hope its a good game truely, but after DA2 and comments coming out of BW, i think that DA3 will be more DA2 with varied environments, better companion interaction and less wave combat, whereas I want a game more akin to origins. I just hope DA3 is a great game that harkens back to Origins, and i think i will look more closely at it before buying it straight away the way i did with DA2

[LobselVith8]

macrocarl wrote...

Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

Also, didn't y'all catch how hairy the follow up DLC was getting narrative-wise in DAO and DAA etc? Instead of shout outs for major major stuff in DAO it was either referred to in text or basically not mentioned (Warden's LI's for example) Of course DA2 needed to start over in a lot of ways, the foundation set by DAO was kind of a mess strategically for BW to continue that way and have all the different Origins covered.
Anyway, about the article. "We have some more DLC plans." <---Woot!

I respectfully disagree. The Warden could decide the fates of the elves and the werewolves, he could determine who would rule Orzammar and whether the Anvil would be destroyed or not, he could save or abandon Redcliffe, he could kill or rescue Connor with or without the aid of Jowan. I admit it's not as significant as it is in some games, but it did exist to an extent in Origins. Dragon Age 2 should have improved on this, not removed it.

[macrocarl]

@ LobselVith8 - In DA2 you can save a werewolf from an elf, you can choose to kill Bartran or let Varric get to get him some home care, you can kill or let the Dreamer kid live (I forget his name), etc. So you think maybe it's more of the size that makes the decision feel more important? Like instead of Redcliffe, (a place) it's Anders (a person)?

[macrocarl]

alex90c wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

alex90c wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

my dad can beat up your dad! wait...what's the argument on the Da2 threads today? Bioware are tricking people into playing Da2?

Polaris, you are bitter person. are you on BSN for mass effect? it looks like you dislike DA2 enough that when Da3 comes out, you won't buy it as it would be a "shame on you"

To be fair, the advertising for DA2 was fairly deceptive. We were, for example, promised a rise to power and just got a rise to mediocrity. We were promised a game that would shape itself around our every decision and Bioware simply removed decision-making full stop and just railroading the player constantly. Take a look at the Sheperding Wolves quest for example, the sheer look of disbelief I had when I refused Petrice, looked in my journal and realised it was a main plot quest.

Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

Also, didn't y'all catch how hairy the follow up DLC was getting narrative-wise in DAO and DAA etc? Instead of shout outs for major major stuff in DAO it was either referred to in text or basically not mentioned (Warden's LI's for example) Of course DA2 needed to start over in a lot of ways, the foundation set by DAO was kind of a mess strategically for BW to continue that way and have all the different Origins covered.
Anyway, about the article. "We have some more DLC plans." <---Woot! 

Firstly, I wasn't even making a comparison to DA:O, I simply said how the marketing of DA2 was complete BS.

I.E.not "DA:O's advertising was better" because the impression I've gotten from people on here was that it was awful too.

As people have explained below though, when discussing choices in both of the games, while both had quite limited choices you could make (let alone with actual consequence), DA:O maintains the illusion that you do x500 times better than DA2, where the "plot demands it" stick repeatedly whacks you over the head just as a big "friendly" reminder that you as a player are irrelevant to how the story turns out and you WILL do things X and Y and you WILL take option Z at the end of these two quests even if you really would rather take option A.

A good example of this would be

SPOILERS AHEAD

**

**

**

**

Anders has blown up the Chantry and you've made your way to the Gallows. At this point you HAVE to decide to side with one faction or the other. There's no "i'm outta here" option which I bet quite a few people would have taken the moment it showed up.  I mean hell, you wouldn't even have to worry about the plot changing at that point since no matter what Hawke does from then on the mages revolt, and in both cases he ends up disappearing at at a certain point (straight away or after a while ruling Kirkwall).

You could argue that wouldn't make for a very satisfying ending, but considering the absolute complete and utter sh*thole Kirkwall was, I'm sure quite a few people would have picked it.

That choice to leave though would be really weird. I mean, things would've happened the same exect way. Either wacky mage man who supports necromancy gets to be in charge or crazy lady with possessed artifact is in charge. I mean, I guess they could rock the Excalibur the movie type ending where they both stab the crap out of each other and they die anyway   My problem with DA2 is I felt I did something wrong at the end because things ended up so terribly!

Modifié par macrocarl, 11 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

alex90c wrote...

SPOILERS AHEAD

**

**

**

**

Anders has blown up the Chantry and you've made your way to the Gallows. At this point you HAVE to decide to side with one faction or the other. There's no "i'm outta here" option which I bet quite a few people would have taken the moment it showed up.  I mean hell, you wouldn't even have to worry about the plot changing at that point since no matter what Hawke does from then on the mages revolt, and in both cases he ends up disappearing at at a certain point (straight away or after a while ruling Kirkwall).

You could argue that wouldn't make for a very satisfying ending, but considering the absolute complete and utter sh*thole Kirkwall was, I'm sure quite a few people would have picked it.

Are you implying that fighting nutjob 1 and then nutjob 2, with waves in the middle, was satisfying?

Of course I would have taken that option, and it would have been 10 times more satisfying than the joke we got later.
The outcome would have been the same anyhow.

[txgoldrush]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Jamie_edmo wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

^This, although defeating the archdemon is inevitable, the journey leading up to that had a great illusion of choice, you felt as though your choices were massive, even if they weren't, whereas in DA2 the illusion wasn't as great and apart from the odd letter here and there I didn't feel as though Hawke made an impact, at least not one big enough for a Seeker to blame him for starting the mage war

Indeed, though I'd much rather have choices with actual consequences.

A common argument is that DA2's choices were more personal. As in you didn't make massive changes, but rather affected the lives of a few people like Kerran, Feynriel, companions...etc. That is if I understand the argument correctly. 

What makes that argument unconvincing to me, is that DA2 did nothing new in that regard either. DA:O and ME1 also had personal choices like this.  In DA:O, you affected the lives of Bella, Kaitlyn and her brother, the mother and her castless child, brother Genitivi...etc. In ME1, you could persuade the mother whose name I forgot to take her baby for treatment and reconcile her with her dead husband's brother, there was also Bahtia, Conrad Verner (ignoring ME2)....etc.

The one difference I can see with Feynriel and companions is that there is a story arc for them, which while nice, doesn't end up compensating for the rest for me at all. One reason is the constant massacring of waves that is unnecessary, one can affect the lives of others without killing. DA:O had a charming simplicity to them in that personal choices like that didn't need story arcs artificially extended by throwing waves at you.

And at the end of the day, none of these choices end up having what I would consider meaningful consequences in the game. But one game is better presented than the other, for me.

Yes, other Bioware games have personal choices, but there is much more focus on personal choices in DAII. Really Bethany or Carver blows DAO away themselves when it comes to personal choices. There are far more devlopment options for companions and many characters have story arcs.

Also you are shown the consquences of your personal decisions much more in DAII, in DAO they are either glossed over or put on an ending card.

DAO is almost just as railroaded, and without ending cards, has the same amount of impact choices have on the plot. DAO was also very black and white, unlike most of DAII.

[LobselVith8]

macrocarl wrote...

@ LobselVith8 - In DA2 you can save a werewolf from an elf, you can choose to kill Bartran or let Varric get to get him some home care, you can kill or let the Dreamer kid live (I forget his name), etc. So you think maybe it's more of the size that makes the decision feel more important? Like instead of Redcliffe, (a place) it's Anders (a person)?

The Dreamer's name is Feynriel. I never really see any repercussions from the choice to persuade or dissuade Dagna's daughter from her revenge, or even if Bartrand is spared or killed. While I can hear casteless dwarves discussing how King Bhelen will permit the casteless to fight for Orzammar, or see how the village is prosperous or decimated due to The Warden's choice, I don't really see Hawke's choice shaping Kirkwall in the way the creators promised. For instance, you'd think you'd see a particular reaction down the line with Magistrate Vanard if you chose to do his quest a certain way, but you never do. You'd think letting Varric hold on to a shard would have repercussions, but it actually doesn't. In doing something about Redcliffe and the political crisis in Orzammar, I feel like the choice matters - but more often than not, I don't feel like the decisions made in Dragon Age 2 matter. I'd say Exile has made a good point in past threads about buying into the plot of Origins in a way that some people aren't able to with Dragon Age 2.

I think it's how times that Hawke is railroaded by the plot - Hawke doesn't do anything about the nemesis in either "Legacy" and "Sheparding Wolves" and it makes Hawke look like he's mentally deficient, he seems incapable of finding a certain wooden hatch in Act I that causes someone to lose their life in Act II, he does nothing despite the change that transpires between Acts I and II when he could be proactive and try to accomplish a great deal more than simply being an errand boy, he doesn't do any invesitgation on a note he finds in Quentin's lair, and he spends three years doing absolutely nothing between Acts II and III when he could have solved a lot of problems by being proactive. I find Hawke to be a repellant protagonist because I don't find him to be an intelligent or worthwhile character. Anders and Merrill are able to accomplish more because they bother to be proactive, while Hawke is infuriatingly reactive.

[txgoldrush]

IanPolaris wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...
Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

However, that presentation is critically important.  The goal (at least as I see it) in an RPG is to get the player to willfully immerse himself into the world (and story) that the author(s) are trying to tell usually in an interactive way.  That means that the appearence of player agency (the illusion of choice) is critically important.  It's true that you had to fight the blight (or not play) and ultimately you had to defeat the Archdemon, but that was fairly well laid out as the price of being a warden in the first place.  However WITHIN that basic framework, the world could look very different by the time the Archdemon was a steaming corpse, and you (the warden) had a huge say in that.  Such as:

Who was the next dwarven king.
Have the secrets to Golem making been rediscovered.
How was the curse of the Werewolves solved....was it solved (and who is the next Keeper of the Becilian Dalish)
Who rules Fereldan and under what circumstance.

And much more.

By allowing great flexibility within the world, you make it seems as though the Warden (you) are an active agent whose decisions really matter....even if in the broadest scope they don't.

That is emphatically not true in DA2.  Honestly DA2 is not Hawke's story.  It's Ander's story.

-Polaris

Your decisions don't matter except for ending cards and pets in the final battle and really it is the same as DAII, except DAII has a more personal focus, is sibling alive and where, who does Hawke side with, is Fenriyal in Tevinter, a Transquil, or a Dreamwalker, etc. In fact, whether to take you sibling into the Deep Roads HAS MORE PLOT AND PERSONAL IMPACT THAN ANY CHOICE IN DAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Especially if you have the Legacy DLC.

And when does a WRPG protagonist have to be the sole mover of the events of the story? DAII breaks that cliche by letting other characters play significant roles and make choices too. Its far more realistic that way. in fact Hawke is FAR MORE HUMAN if things are out of his or her control and he or she has decide how to make do. Why does an RPG world have to bow to his or her whem. That is the problem with WRPGs, the protagonist is way too powerful and seems less of a character and more like a god because of it.

Ander's story....does the plot revolve around him? No...then its not Anders story. Just because they make a significant impact doesn't mean its their story.

[esper]

txgoldrush wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...
Actually to be fair, they didn't remove decision making. It was never really there. The only way you do not stop the Blight in DAO is if you quit playing. TYes, there were some big decisions along the way but that only changed the index cards at the end. King X or King Y. So and so lived, so and so died. Maybe what you're reacting to is more of how it was presented?
To be honest, I get confused when people say decision making was removed in DA2.

That's the difference between the illusion of choice and removing the illusion altogether. There really was very little you could change. No matter what happened you always ended up defeating the Archdemon. Who, what and how changed a little, but didn't really affect the overall shape of the game.

So yes, it is entirely in presentation.

However, that presentation is critically important.  The goal (at least as I see it) in an RPG is to get the player to willfully immerse himself into the world (and story) that the author(s) are trying to tell usually in an interactive way.  That means that the appearence of player agency (the illusion of choice) is critically important.  It's true that you had to fight the blight (or not play) and ultimately you had to defeat the Archdemon, but that was fairly well laid out as the price of being a warden in the first place.  However WITHIN that basic framework, the world could look very different by the time the Archdemon was a steaming corpse, and you (the warden) had a huge say in that.  Such as:

Who was the next dwarven king.
Have the secrets to Golem making been rediscovered.
How was the curse of the Werewolves solved....was it solved (and who is the next Keeper of the Becilian Dalish)
Who rules Fereldan and under what circumstance.

And much more.

By allowing great flexibility within the world, you make it seems as though the Warden (you) are an active agent whose decisions really matter....even if in the broadest scope they don't.

That is emphatically not true in DA2.  Honestly DA2 is not Hawke's story.  It's Ander's story.

-Polaris

Your decisions don't matter except for ending cards and pets in the final battle and really it is the same as DAII, except DAII has a more personal focus, is sibling alive and where, who does Hawke side with, is Fenriyal in Tevinter, a Transquil, or a Dreamwalker, etc. In fact, whether to take you sibling into the Deep Roads HAS MORE PLOT AND PERSONAL IMPACT THAN ANY CHOICE IN DAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Especially if you have the Legacy DLC.

And when does a WRPG protagonist have to be the sole mover of the events of the story? DAII breaks that cliche by letting other characters play significant roles and make choices too. Its far more realistic that way. in fact Hawke is FAR MORE HUMAN if things are out of his or her control and he or she has decide how to make do. Why does an RPG world have to bow to his or her whem. That is the problem with WRPGs, the protagonist is way too powerful and seems less of a character and more like a god because of it.

Ander's story....does the plot revolve around him? No...then its not Anders story. Just because they make a significant impact doesn't mean its their story.

Bolded the important part. I agree that is a tendency I don't understand. I often felt like my warden was way too powerfull, espically with persaude. Hawke is very human and that allows me to roleplay her with both flaws and strengths, whereas my warden was... going in, solving problem, use persaude for the best solution, going out again - the world is now a better place.

[LobselVith8]

txgoldrush wrote...

Your decisions don't matter except for ending cards and pets in the final battle and really it is the same as DAII, except DAII has a more personal focus, is sibling alive and where, who does Hawke side with, is Fenriyal in Tevinter, a Transquil, or a Dreamwalker, etc. In fact, whether to take you sibling into the Deep Roads HAS MORE PLOT AND PERSONAL IMPACT THAN ANY CHOICE IN DAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Especially if you have the Legacy DLC.

First off, you can hear the casteless discuss the change that their people are experiencing with King Bhelen at the helm of Orzammar as soon as The Warden chooses him as the next King, you can visually see Redcliffe either devastated or the village intact, and the Brecillian Forest will be populated by either elves or werewolves. It's not like choices don't matter in Origins.

Also, I don't agree that the Deep Roads quest was more personal and had more impact than any choice in Origins. I felt more at the Landsmeet when The Warden spared Loghain at the cost of his friendship with the newly crowned King Alistair than I did with the plight of [spoiler]. You may feel differently, but it's certainly an issue of opinion, not fact.

txgoldrush wrote...

And when does a WRPG protagonist have to be the sole mover of the events of the story? DAII breaks that cliche by letting other characters play significant roles and make choices too.

By making it's protagonist seem lazy and incompetent.

txgoldrush wrote...

Its far more realistic that way. in fact Hawke is FAR MORE HUMAN if things are out of his or her control and he or she has decide how to make do. Why does an RPG world have to bow to his or her whem. That is the problem with WRPGs, the protagonist is way too powerful and seems less of a character and more like a god because of it.

How is he more human when Hawke does nothing? I think he would be far more human if he actually seemed to care about what was going on around him, rather than acting like he's been in a coma all this time.

txgoldrush wrote...

Ander's story....does the plot revolve around him? No...then its not Anders story. Just because they make a significant impact doesn't mean its their story.

Hawke is pretty much an errand boy throughout all three Acts, and I felt like Anders had more of a connection to the story than Hawke did.

[txgoldrush]

LobselVith8 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

@ LobselVith8 - In DA2 you can save a werewolf from an elf, you can choose to kill Bartran or let Varric get to get him some home care, you can kill or let the Dreamer kid live (I forget his name), etc. So you think maybe it's more of the size that makes the decision feel more important? Like instead of Redcliffe, (a place) it's Anders (a person)?

The Dreamer's name is Feynriel. I never really see any repercussions from the choice to persuade or dissuade Dagna's daughter from her revenge, or even if Bartrand is spared or killed. While I can hear casteless dwarves discussing how King Bhelen will permit the casteless to fight for Orzammar, or see how the village is prosperous or decimated due to The Warden's choice, I don't really see Hawke's choice shaping Kirkwall in the way the creators promised. For instance, you'd think you'd see a particular reaction down the line with Magistrate Vanard if you chose to do his quest a certain way, but you never do. You'd think letting Varric hold on to a shard would have repercussions, but it actually doesn't. In doing something about Redcliffe and the political crisis in Orzammar, I feel like the choice matters - but more often than not, I don't feel like the decisions made in Dragon Age 2 matter. I'd say Exile has made a good point in past threads about buying into the plot of Origins in a way that some people aren't able to with Dragon Age 2.

I think it's how times that Hawke is railroaded by the plot - Hawke doesn't do anything about the nemesis in either "Legacy" and "Sheparding Wolves" and it makes Hawke look like he's mentally deficient, he seems incapable of finding a certain wooden hatch in Act I that causes someone to lose their life in Act II, he does nothing despite the change that transpires between Acts I and II when he could be proactive and try to accomplish a great deal more than simply being an errand boy, he doesn't do any invesitgation on a note he finds in Quentin's lair, and he spends three years doing absolutely nothing between Acts II and III when he could have solved a lot of problems by being proactive. I find Hawke to be a repellant protagonist because I don't find him to be an intelligent or worthwhile character. Anders and Merrill are able to accomplish more because they bother to be proactive, while Hawke is infuriatingly reactive.

I do....

If Bartrand is spared, Varric has extra incentive to keeping the piece of the idol in Act III. If Keldar is killed in Magister's Orders, Lia shows up later. And Bethany or Carver's fate once again has more impact on the plot than any DAO choice.

All WRPG plots are railroaded. And when is being reactive bad? Its not. How would he or she investigate Quentin's note? There is nothing really to investigate that would lead somewhere. He or she finds the hatch in Act II because the killer leaves it exposed. Hawke was also not focused on the hatch at that time, just Ninette's remains. Hawke doesn't need to be proactive when there is nothing to be proactive about. Hawke goal was to live in the city and provide for his or her family, nothing more. its events that prevent him or her from doing it.

[LobselVith8]

esper wrote...

Bolded the important part. I agree that is a tendency I don't understand. I often felt like my warden was way too powerfull, espically with persaude. Hawke is very human and that allows me to roleplay her with both flaws and strengths, whereas my warden was... going in, solving problem, use persaude for the best solution, going out again - the world is now a better place.

The Warden was able to resolve certain situations diplomatically, while Hawke mostly resolved situations by killing waves of enemies and killing the antagonist, who was often a ridiculous caricature that belonged on a Saturday Morning Cartoon show. I respect the Fallout 1, 2, and NV aspect of being able to deal with an antagonist verbally (as well as the opposing side not being overly ridiculous) rather than having a killing machine who seems incapable of using his brain most of the time.