It would seem that yet again the discussion has turned to the unavoidable subjects of choice, marketing, old vs. new fans. I read the interview that led to all this, it said suprisingly little and nothing that hasn't being said before, this leads me to believe that "recently" wasn't actually that recent, but I'll let it slide. I'm starting to believe that articles like this come up from time to time to remind us just how controversial DA2 was. Guys, we remember, we have a good memory for controversy. If an article doesn't add anything new to the debate, it's pretty much pointless all around, but that's just my opinion.
On the matter of choice. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is choice in both games. Whether they're meaningful or not is a matter of opinion because they're meaningful or not
to you. Period. I've seen, however, many people putting forward the issue of "illusion of choice" and how it may have worked better in DAO than in DA2. Again, it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I agree. I found that DA2 seemed to "beat me over the head" with the fact that my choices seemed to matter very little in the grand scheme of things. I found it thoroughly unconvincing that every single member of my family had to die to generate drama and a sense of attachment (txgoldrush, don't even bother arguing that not all family members
have to die, I've played enough times to know this is also true). I actually found it comedic. Don't even get me started on mages vs. templars. But, ultimately, whether the illusion works or not depends on whether you buy the story or not. If you do, problem solved.
Both RM and posters here have argued that Bioware took a risk by trying something new and that it was the right direction. That the "hero's journey" storyline is getting old fast. On that last point, I'd argue that it's not a problem with the hero's journey per se but of how it's delivered. The tale of a man that's overwhelmed by circumstance could prove to be an interesting storyline for a game, indeed some books/films deliver on this premise, but since a game is more interactive a medium (something that was argued by another poster here), what results in the character being driven by the player, it stands to lose credibility awfully fast. DA2 does not fully deliver on this premise, leaving the player feeling that it was actually the game's limitations rather than circumstance what led to the series of events that transpired. Other games impose time restrictions to take away some of the character's freedom in an attempt to explain away its linearity (e.g.: The Witcher 2). By developing its story over the course of ten years, DA2 took yet another risk that, to my mind, exposed this problem.
Having said that, DA2 tried many new things that were actually better than in its predecessor, there's no question about it. The issue is whether or not it
had to change
everything. Personally, I think that decision may have done more harm than good. The other issue here is whether the harm's short-term or long-term, and only time will tell.
Some other time I'll address marketing and old vs. new fans. This will do for now. On a parting note, however, I'd like to point out that CAPS are
never a good way to get your point across...
ever...
for real. When you resort to CAPS, your arguments lose their strength, and any further arguments are "tainted" by this reality. Furthermore, saying things like, "ummm, no" seems a bit contemptuous (yes, txgoldrush, I'm addressing you, but this goes for everyone). Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you feel perhaps that opinion is somehow flawed, you can argue that case in a respectful manner, but ultimately recognising that the other party may not agree with you in the end. These types of discussions tend to be the most productive and we are all the better for them.
Modifié par OdanUrr, 12 août 2011 - 02:21 .
Retour en haut
Yet Vanard vanishes into thin air despite being a powerful political figure, and no one else in the Alienage seems to care about what happened to Kelder.
