220 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

txgoldrush wrote...

That is the entire point of the game, Hawke's involvement in the events of the story make things worse despite his or her good intentions if she has them. Its a common theme of the game.

It's also a common theme of the game to provide the player with the option to refuse a quest, and have that refusal ignored entirely ("Sheparding Wolves" is merely one example) and for the protagonist to do nothing even if it goes against what we - as the player - would prefer our protagonist to do, such as when Hawke does absolutely nothing to help his sister at the end of Act I, when he shows no concern for Bethany in Act II, when he doesn't investigate the hand-written note he finds in Act II in Quentin's lair, or when he does nothing for three entire years between Acts II and III despite Kirkwall falling deeper and deeper into turmoil. As a player, this doesn't engage me in the storyline, it inhibits me from immersing myself in the tale that Varric is telling.

txgoldrush wrote...

Its not that the protagonist is stupid and really Hawke is far from stupid for the most part, its that the elements of darkness are far more complex to be easily defeated. This is why DAII is the darkest Bioware game they have ever created. 

I don't feel the same way. Many antagonists simply act overly ridiculous with nonsensical motivations and attitudes - Decimus, Quentin, Grace, Huon, and especially the two antagonists at the end of Act III who are over the top. I don't feel Dragon Age 2 is dark, but cartoony.

txgoldrush wrote...

This is the opposite of the pukingly cliched hero defeats evil and everything is good for goodie goodie characters that is Origins. Even The Witcher 2 is similiar in that Geralts involvement makes thing worse no matter what he does.

So fighting two ridiculous antagonists is any better than fighting the traditional "ancient evil"? Wouldn't it have been better if the two antagonists were sane, instead of ridiculously insane, and we had to fight one or the other because of a clash of ideologies that couldn't be reconciled?

txgoldrush wrote...

And not everything has to follow WRPG dogma, the hero doesn't have to make everything right if he is good, he doesn't have to be the most powerful character that is the only one to make decisions, he doesn't have to be an empty player character, he doesn't have to shift worlds...

I've said I want a proactive protagonist, not that I want a protagonist who solves world hunger and every dilemma known to man. If Hawke was doing something with what he obtains at the end of Act I besides waiting to be sent on an errand, if he did something for his sister instead of standing there like a wooden log at the end of Act I, if he was trying to locate the person who wrote the note he finds in Quentin's lair instead of ignoring it entirely, if he was acting and gathering allies for his cause instead of doing nothing between Acts II and III, then I'd be more inclined to like Hawke. As it is, I feel like he's possessed by a demon of sloth.

txgoldrush wrote...

Truly WRPG fans have become just as bad if not worse than JRPG fans when it comes to resisting change. That is one reason why JRPGs have declined on consoles, they rehash their elements and their plots.

If I thought the changes were well done, I'll applaud Bioware, but I honestly don't feel that way, especially when it comes to the problems with the story and the overly reactive protagonist.

[Barry Bathernak]

dude dont bother to try and reason with txgoldrush since he has attacked origins in everyway and on other sites too,and praises d.a.2 as the greatest thing ever made.he even made a 2nd account here to make it seem like someone agreed with him.

[txgoldrush]

Wozearly wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

That is the entire point of the game, Hawke's involvement in the events of the story make things worse despite his or her good intentions if she has them. Its a common theme of the game. Its not that the protagonist is stupid and really Hawke is far from stupid for the most part, its that the elements of darkness are far more complex to be easily defeated. This is why DAII is the darkest Bioware game they have ever created.

Interestingly, although I suppose KOTOR2 wasn't technically a Bioware game, this had exactly the same effect if you went light side. You tried to do the right thing for the galaxy and ended up being castigted for consistently making things worse and bringing down the violent retribution the jedi were specifically trying to avoid.

What goes around comes around, it seems. :innocent:

And yet the Jedi Exile triumphs at the end and the person who berates her is dead and so are the other two sith lords. DAII ends way differently.

Also not a Bioware game although they did assist in the development.

[txgoldrush]

Barry Bathernak wrote...

dude dont bother to try and reason with txgoldrush since he has attacked origins in everyway and on other sites too,and praises d.a.2 as the greatest thing ever made.he even made a 2nd account here to make it seem like someone agreed with him.

Did you hear they part that I called the game a 8.0-8.5 RPG and a rushed job...no you didn't...I even made a thread on Gamespot comparing DAII to the TW2, with TW2 winning in almost every aspect but characters and side quests.

Hell, Bastion is my RPG of the Year so far.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 13 août 2011 - 09:08 .

[txgoldrush]

LobselVith8 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

That is the entire point of the game, Hawke's involvement in the events of the story make things worse despite his or her good intentions if she has them. Its a common theme of the game.

a) It's also a common theme of the game to provide the player with the option to refuse a quest, and have that refusal ignored entirely ("Sheparding Wolves" is merely one example) and for the protagonist to do nothing even if it goes against what we - as the player - would prefer our protagonist to do, such as when Hawke does absolutely nothing to help his sister at the end of Act I, when he shows no concern for Bethany in Act II, when he doesn't investigate the hand-written note he finds in Act II in Quentin's lair, or when he does nothing for three entire years between Acts II and III despite Kirkwall falling deeper and deeper into turmoil. As a player, this doesn't engage me in the storyline, it inhibits me from immersing myself in the tale that Varric is telling.

txgoldrush wrote...

Its not that the protagonist is stupid and really Hawke is far from stupid for the most part, its that the elements of darkness are far more complex to be easily defeated. This is why DAII is the darkest Bioware game they have ever created. 

I don't feel the same way. Many antagonists simply act overly ridiculous with nonsensical motivations and attitudes - Decimus, Quentin, Grace, Huon, and especially the two antagonists at the end of Act III who are over the top. I don't feel Dragon Age 2 is dark, but cartoony.

txgoldrush wrote...

This is the opposite of the pukingly cliched hero defeats evil and everything is good for goodie goodie characters that is Origins. Even The Witcher 2 is similiar in that Geralts involvement makes thing worse no matter what he does.

c) So fighting two ridiculous antagonists is any better than fighting the traditional "ancient evil"? Wouldn't it have been better if the two antagonists were sane, instead of ridiculously insane, and we had to fight one or the other because of a clash of ideologies that couldn't be reconciled?

txgoldrush wrote...

And not everything has to follow WRPG dogma, the hero doesn't have to make everything right if he is good, he doesn't have to be the most powerful character that is the only one to make decisions, he doesn't have to be an empty player character, he doesn't have to shift worlds...

d) I've said I want a proactive protagonist, not that I want a protagonist who solves world hunger and every dilemma known to man. If Hawke was doing something with what he obtains at the end of Act I besides waiting to be sent on an errand, if he did something for his sister instead of standing there like a wooden log at the end of Act I, if he was trying to locate the person who wrote the note he finds in Quentin's lair instead of ignoring it entirely, if he was acting and gathering allies for his cause instead of doing nothing between Acts II and III, then I'd be more inclined to like Hawke. As it is, I feel like he's possessed by a demon of sloth.

txgoldrush wrote...

Truly WRPG fans have become just as bad if not worse than JRPG fans when it comes to resisting change. That is one reason why JRPGs have declined on consoles, they rehash their elements and their plots.

If I thought the changes were well done, I'll applaud Bioware, but I honestly don't feel that way, especially when it comes to the problems with the story and the overly reactive protagonist.

a) There is a reason why "Sheparding Wolves" is essential and it is to introduce characters that play a major role in the story later. And really, it was a flub by Bioware to make The First Sacrifce and the Unbriddled Rescue optional. Can you refuse main quests in most RPGs? No. And how would Hawke help his sister after Act I? He can't without having the entire Templar army on him. When does he show no concern for Bethany in Act II? Yeah, lets investigate a dead end which is what the note was. There is not enough evidence to even launch a real investigation. And how would Hawke try to ease tensions between Act II and III? He realistically can't because Meredith is in charge.

So Meredith lacked motives, as the apostates you mentioned...ummm no. Quentin had a heartbreaking motivation that drove him mad and the other characters went too far. Elvina and Houn are overpowered by their dark magic. Meredith certainly had motivation and so does Grace if Hawke turns her in.

c) And what rule is that where both sides leaders can't both die. They both die because they go too far and the game shows you this. Orsino going mad I do agree that it was botched (on the mage side) but there is nothing wrong really with Meredith. She ends up like Bartrand due to Hawke's involvement in the story. It goes to show if Hawke never went to the Deep Roads and helped the expedition, Meredith wouldn't have gotten the artifact.

d) Not every WRPG protagonist has to be proactive....look at TW2...Geralt is highly reactive as well, and even the choices he makes to change the fate of the Northern Kingdoms is borne out of reaction than being proactive.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

txgoldrush wrote...



Did you hear they part that I called the game a 8.0-8.5 RPG and a rushed job...no you didn't...I even made a thread on Gamespot comparing DAII to the TW2, with TW2 winning in almost every aspect but characters and side quests.

Hell, Bastion is my RPG of the Year so far.

I wouldn't even give it an 8. I gave it about 6.5. Even the sidequests and most companions couldn't really bring it up past that point.

It was no where on the level of Origins, that's for damned sure, even with some of the improvements.

[cdtrk65]

LobselVith8 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

That is the entire point of the game, Hawke's involvement in the events of the story make things worse despite his or her good intentions if she has them. Its a common theme of the game.

It's also a common theme of the game to provide the player with the option to refuse a quest, and have that refusal ignored entirely ("Sheparding Wolves" is merely one example) and for the protagonist to do nothing even if it goes against what we - as the player - would prefer our protagonist to do, such as when Hawke does absolutely nothing to help his sister at the end of Act I, when he shows no concern for Bethany in Act II, when he doesn't investigate the hand-written note he finds in Act II in Quentin's lair, or when he does nothing for three entire years between Acts II and III despite Kirkwall falling deeper and deeper into turmoil. As a player, this doesn't engage me in the storyline, it inhibits me from immersing myself in the tale that Varric is telling.

txgoldrush wrote...

Its not that the protagonist is stupid and really Hawke is far from stupid for the most part, its that the elements of darkness are far more complex to be easily defeated. This is why DAII is the darkest Bioware game they have ever created. 

I don't feel the same way. Many antagonists simply act overly ridiculous with nonsensical motivations and attitudes - Decimus, Quentin, Grace, Huon, and especially the two antagonists at the end of Act III who are over the top. I don't feel Dragon Age 2 is dark, but cartoony.

txgoldrush wrote...

This is the opposite of the pukingly cliched hero defeats evil and everything is good for goodie goodie characters that is Origins. Even The Witcher 2 is similiar in that Geralts involvement makes thing worse no matter what he does.

So fighting two ridiculous antagonists is any better than fighting the traditional "ancient evil"? Wouldn't it have been better if the two antagonists were sane, instead of ridiculously insane, and we had to fight one or the other because of a clash of ideologies that couldn't be reconciled?

txgoldrush wrote...

And not everything has to follow WRPG dogma, the hero doesn't have to make everything right if he is good, he doesn't have to be the most powerful character that is the only one to make decisions, he doesn't have to be an empty player character, he doesn't have to shift worlds...

I've said I want a proactive protagonist, not that I want a protagonist who solves world hunger and every dilemma known to man. If Hawke was doing something with what he obtains at the end of Act I besides waiting to be sent on an errand, if he did something for his sister instead of standing there like a wooden log at the end of Act I, if he was trying to locate the person who wrote the note he finds in Quentin's lair instead of ignoring it entirely, if he was acting and gathering allies for his cause instead of doing nothing between Acts II and III, then I'd be more inclined to like Hawke. As it is, I feel like he's possessed by a demon of sloth.

txgoldrush wrote...

Truly WRPG fans have become just as bad if not worse than JRPG fans when it comes to resisting change. That is one reason why JRPGs have declined on consoles, they rehash their elements and their plots.

If I thought the changes were well done, I'll applaud Bioware, but I honestly don't feel that way, especially when it comes to the problems with the story and the overly reactive protagonist.

You know I have been reading over a lot of the compliants about Hawke and I think you might have summed it up best. Hawke is a passive hero, without any real motivation. Why does Hawke stay in Kirkwall? A lot of people clung to the supporting family as a motivation for Hawke but they can all end up dead, and those people are left without. There is more motivation to stay should Hawke be a mage, as Kirkwall really seems to be at the teetering point for a rebellion. Other than that there really isn't a whole lot in regards the Hawke needing to stay in kirkwall.

I find the biggest difference between Origins and DA2 is the start point. You got a sense of your characters before they were hero's, the Cousland's,  a noble family in every sense of the word, while the dwarf noble grew up in cutthroat world, a Mage could be longing for freedom, while the dwarf castleless was doing what he could to survive, much like the alineage elf, my least favourite was the dalish elf, who was pretty much an orphan.

[cdtrk65]

txgoldrush wrote...

d) Not every WRPG protagonist has to be proactive....look at TW2...Geralt is highly reactive as well, and even the choices he makes to change the fate of the Northern Kingdoms is borne out of reaction than being proactive.

Your right, but he can choose side early in the game. The only real choice Hawke makes is Templars or Mages.

[LobselVith8]

txgoldrush wrote...

a) There is a reason why "Sheparding Wolves" is essential and it is to introduce characters that play a major role in the story later. And really, it was a flub by Bioware to make The First Sacrifce and the Unbriddled Rescue optional. Can you refuse main quests in most RPGs? No. And how would Hawke help his sister after Act I? He can't without having the entire Templar army on him. When does he show no concern for Bethany in Act II? Yeah, lets investigate a dead end which is what the note was. There is not enough evidence to even launch a real investigation. And how would Hawke try to ease tensions between Act II and III? He realistically can't because Meredith is in charge.

So Meredith lacked motives, as the apostates you mentioned...ummm no. Quentin had a heartbreaking motivation that drove him mad and the other characters went too far. Elvina and Houn are overpowered by their dark magic. Meredith certainly had motivation and so does Grace if Hawke turns her in.

c) And what rule is that where both sides leaders can't both die. They both die because they go too far and the game shows you this. Orsino going mad I do agree that it was botched (on the mage side) but there is nothing wrong really with Meredith. She ends up like Bartrand due to Hawke's involvement in the story. It goes to show if Hawke never went to the Deep Roads and helped the expedition, Meredith wouldn't have gotten the artifact.

d) Not every WRPG protagonist has to be proactive....look at TW2...Geralt is highly reactive as well, and even the choices he makes to change the fate of the Northern Kingdoms is borne out of reaction than being proactive.

A) If the quest gives you the option to say no, it's absurd to force the protagonist to go through with it anyway. And I don't agree that "Sheparding Wolves" is essential - there's no reason Hawke should be forced to go through with it, and there's honestly no valid explanation as to why Hawke would allow an antagonist to walk away - every death caused by this act is directly on Hawke's shoulders (just like the conclusion of Legacy, another quest that forces Hawke to hold the idiot ball when all is said and done).

Also, Hawke doesn't help his sister at the conclusion of Act I - it's the reason why I stopped playing as a rogue, because that scene made me hate rogue Hawke more than God hates sin. He does nothing, and there's only two templars in that scene, not an army. Hawke's inaction towards his younger sister's plight made me see the character as human garbage when that happened. And Legacy really brought me to realize that Hawke is never going to be proactive or intelligent in the way I wanted him to be.

Quentin was ridiculous, a poor man's Doctor Frankenstein, and "All That Remains" was (in my humble opinion) a terrible quest, with awful dialogue (especially given what Anders says if you bring him along), that didn't made me care about what happened because it was yet another incident that was completely out of my hands as the protagonist. Once again, my choices didn't matter. And I hated that the following dialogue forced Hawke to be Andrastian even though I would have preferred to have the option to have him be atheist, like The Warden could be.

C) What rule is there that prevents both sides from being depicted in a way that isn't ridiculously absurd and foolish? Because I didn't take the antagonist of either side seriously at the conclusion of Act III - I thought it was poorly done.

D) I never said every single RPG in human existance had to have a proactive protagonist, I wrote that I wanted Hawke to be proactive, especially in a story that's supposed to be about his "rise to power." Having Hawke be little more than a "highwayman who stumbled onto being Champion" isn't what I had in mind when I spent my money on this game.

[Mike_Neel]

cdtrk65 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

d) Not every WRPG protagonist has to be proactive....look at TW2...Geralt is highly reactive as well, and even the choices he makes to change the fate of the Northern Kingdoms is borne out of reaction than being proactive.

Your right, but he can choose side early in the game. The only real choice Hawke makes is Templars or Mages.

My complain with the Templar/Mage choice is in the end it's meaningless. I get wanting a total epic ending, but it actually lost a lot of the impact when I had to
SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

Fight both faction bosses in the end anyways. Not only does DA2 have very little replayability, but now I still have to do the same end fight after spending the whole game supporting one faction. It's not like Origins where it's clear cut you vs the blight/archdemon but when you spend the whole games narrative of this faction vs that faction, where do you stand? I don't really want to end up facing down both sides. I get that there was some deus ex in machina in the form of the idol if you side with the Templars, but it just felt cheap in execution.

[Bryy_Miller]

Mike_Neel wrote...

cdtrk65 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

d) Not every WRPG protagonist has to be proactive....look at TW2...Geralt is highly reactive as well, and even the choices he makes to change the fate of the Northern Kingdoms is borne out of reaction than being proactive.

Your right, but he can choose side early in the game. The only real choice Hawke makes is Templars or Mages.

My complain with the Templar/Mage choice is in the end it's meaningless.

We won't actually know that until DA3. But yeah, storywise in DA2, it's kind of meaningless.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Well if the player choice consequences of DA:O to DA 2 and ME 1 to ME 2 are an example of what to expect, DA 3 will have laser rifles, chocobos and tie fighters.

[Spawny]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

We won't actually know that until DA3. But yeah, storywise in DA2, it's kind of meaningless.

Considering nothing really carried over from DA that impacted DA2  I won't hold my breath

[devSin]

HagSpawn wrote...

Considering nothing really carried over from DA that impacted DA2  I won't hold my breath

I believe Mike said he thinks imports are important, so I imagine it will have more impact in the future than it did when carrying over from Origins.

Either that or there's a ton more impact in DA2 with Origins decisions but it's all broken.

I'd say it's 50/50 of being one or the other. ;-)

[Bryy_Miller]

HagSpawn wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

We won't actually know that until DA3. But yeah, storywise in DA2, it's kind of meaningless.

Considering nothing really carried over from DA that impacted DA2  I won't hold my breath [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

Almost everything carried over. The Dwarves, the Conspiracy, the Werewolves or Elves, the state of the Warden, who is king/queen, is Alistair a drunk, did you sleep with Isabela, what kind of work Avernus is working on, Shale killin' pigeons, is the Circle free or not.

devSin wrote...

HagSpawn wrote...

Considering nothing really carried over from DA that impacted DA2  I won't hold my breath

I believe Mike said he thinks imports are important, so I imagine it will have more impact in the future than it did when carrying over from Origins.

Exactly.

Impact =/= the entire game changes.

[Spawny]

Yes Bryy, I did catch the little comments and cameos through the game but I'm sure I'm not the only one that thought there would be a bigger ripple from the decisions made into the next game not a series of tiny nods to it.

Devsin: I hope so

[Bryy_Miller]

As did I. Again, I think it's a matter of personal preference over Branching Story or Branching Plot. CDP seems to be the company to go for if you want Plot, while BioWare has always really stuck to Story.

[Savber100]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

As did I. Again, I think it's a matter of personal preference over Branching Story or Branching Plot. CDP seems to be the company to go for if you want Plot, while BioWare has always really stuck to storytelling.

 

Fix'd

Bioware's stories generally are cliches with different environments. They tried something new in DA2 (which was awesome) but failed big time (which wasn't so awesome). 

However, Bioware is great at storytelling. They can make easily make a crap narrative look decent by the way they tell it. 

Modifié par Savber100, 14 août 2011 - 07:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Almost everything carried over. The Dwarves, the Conspiracy, the Werewolves or Elves, the state of the Warden, who is king/queen, is Alistair a drunk, did you sleep with Isabela, what kind of work Avernus is working on, Shale killin' pigeons, is the Circle free or not.

Technically, the Circle of Ferelden isn't free, since the Chantry said no to the ruler of Ferelden's request to emancipate the local Circle of Magi.

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Exactly.

Impact =/= the entire game changes.

Considering that the ending of Dragon Age 2 is pretty much the same regardless of who Hawke sides with, I don't think the creators will need to carry over much into the next game, besides who Hawke sided with and who he romanced.

[Barry Bathernak]

txgoldrush wrote...

Barry Bathernak wrote...

dude dont bother to try and reason with txgoldrush since he has attacked origins in everyway and on other sites too,and praises d.a.2 as the greatest thing ever made.he even made a 2nd account here to make it seem like someone agreed with him.

Did you hear they part that I called the game a 8.0-8.5 RPG and a rushed job...no you didn't...I even made a thread on Gamespot comparing DAII to the TW2, with TW2 winning in almost every aspect but characters and side quests.

Hell, Bastion is my RPG of the Year so far.

remember that tread you started last month?

[Bryy_Miller]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Almost everything carried over. The Dwarves, the Conspiracy, the Werewolves or Elves, the state of the Warden, who is king/queen, is Alistair a drunk, did you sleep with Isabela, what kind of work Avernus is working on, Shale killin' pigeons, is the Circle free or not.

Technically, the Circle of Ferelden isn't free, since the Chantry said no to the ruler of Ferelden's request to emancipate the local Circle of Magi.

It's not free, but your choice to have it freed did carry over.