472 réponses à ce sujet

[Quething]

Satyricon331 wrote...
In LOTR, there were so, so many times when mere random chance saved Frodo that I think it's fair to say his idea of not bringing Aragorn with him all the way to Mordor was probably a bad one (and perhaps Tolkein was making an implicit point about Providence).

No perhaps about it. (Well, Providence and the self-propogation of Grace. In the end it's Bilbo's choice to spare Gollum's life, and then Frodo's reaffirming of that decision, that allows the good guys victory.)

But Tolkien's actually a very interesting comparison, because LotR is a very, very tragic story. There is absolutely no such thing as a clean win in Middle-Earth. Frodo and Sam destroy the Ring, but are so wounded in doing so that they can't return to a normal life or ever find peace in this world again, and have to "die" (leaving for Valinor is nothing if not symbolic) to escape their scars. Arwen gets Aragorn but has to give up her species and everyone else she loves. The elves throw off the oppression of the One Ring but the Three stop working as a result. Even the dang Party Tree gets cut down.

DA:O is very comparable. You can save the world, but at high personal cost: you lose your lover/comrade/friend, or your own life; or, if you take the Dark Ritual, you let a creature of unknown power and incredible potential evil enter the world, and possibly lose your lover or son. There is great, great victory and a new age of celebration, but at the cost of the happiness of those who achieve it. It's very biblical, all leading Ferelden to the Promised Land and then dying on the mountain. It's a story that resonates, and a story people can really get behind. It feels honest, because we know great things don't come without cost. It increases the feeling of victory, because basic human psychology won't allow us to believe that that much cost is not appropriately rewarded. But it also feels fair, and complete; your character struggled for that better world, and you the player get to see it, get to know it's there and all the struggling wasn't in vain.

DA2 completely lacks that. It's got that same heroic personal tragedy, as Hawke struggles and watches family get ripped away and friends go nuts and home get destroyed and ends up on the run... but you don't earn anything by it. The world isn't saved in the end. The world is actually very likely worse for Hawke having been involved.

There's tragedy, sure. A hero having to pay to be a hero. That's great. Being a hero isn't easy. But that's not the same as having to pay to be a failure.

[Satyricon331]

Quething wrote...
But Tolkien's actually a very interesting comparison, because LotR is a very, very tragic story. There is absolutely no such thing as a clean win in Middle-Earth. Frodo and Sam destroy the Ring, but are so wounded in doing so that they can't return to a normal life or ever find peace in this world again, and have to "die" (leaving for Valinor is nothing if not symbolic) to escape their scars. Arwen gets Aragorn but has to give up her species and everyone else she loves. The elves throw off the oppression of the One Ring but the Three stop working as a result. Even the dang Party Tree gets cut down.

I think we agree on the rest of your post, and think this point of disagreement here is one where you're largely right, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you.  The last time I tried reading LOTR I only got as far as Frodo meeting Faramir, which was just too lucky for me to want to continue (Sam having lit the fire just as they're around).  I remember the elves leaving, of course, and I remember vaguely some drama with the Sackville-Baggins, but it's been years since I read the Two Towers.  I'm disinclined though to say these tragic elements make the story tragic, except to readers (like me and Sylvius the Mad, whom I'm channeling) who liked the magic of the non-human elements the setting had.  Although the point I'm making hereis just a silly where-you-draw-the-line "disagreement" so it's not really a disagreement anyway.

@DPSSOC - you might very well be right.  I hadn't thought about the player-character distinction for the issue of powerlessness, and the users who have been up in arms about the issue haven't seem to have either, but the point makes more sense the way you've described it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Quething wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

In LOTR, there were so, so many times when mere random chance saved Frodo that I think it's fair to say his idea of not bringing Aragorn with him all the way to Mordor was probably a bad one (and perhaps Tolkein was making an implicit point about Providence).

No perhaps about it. (Well, Providence and the self-propogation of Grace. In the end it's Bilbo's choice to spare Gollum's life, and then Frodo's reaffirming of that decision, that allows the good guys victory.)

But Tolkien's actually a very interesting comparison, because LotR is a very, very tragic story. There is absolutely no such thing as a clean win in Middle-Earth. Frodo and Sam destroy the Ring, but are so wounded in doing so that they can't return to a normal life or ever find peace in this world again, and have to "die" (leaving for Valinor is nothing if not symbolic) to escape their scars. Arwen gets Aragorn but has to give up her species and everyone else she loves. The elves throw off the oppression of the One Ring but the Three stop working as a result. Even the dang Party Tree gets cut down.

DA:O is very comparable. You can save the world, but at high personal cost: you lose your lover/comrade/friend, or your own life; or, if you take the Dark Ritual, you let a creature of unknown power and incredible potential evil enter the world, and possibly lose your lover or son. There is great, great victory and a new age of celebration, but at the cost of the happiness of those who achieve it. It's very biblical, all leading Ferelden to the Promised Land and then dying on the mountain. It's a story that resonates, and a story people can really get behind. It feels honest, because we know great things don't come without cost. It increases the feeling of victory, because basic human psychology won't allow us to believe that that much cost is not appropriately rewarded. But it also feels fair, and complete; your character struggled for that better world, and you the player get to see it, get to know it's there and all the struggling wasn't in vain.

DA2 completely lacks that. It's got that same heroic personal tragedy, as Hawke struggles and watches family get ripped away and friends go nuts and home get destroyed and ends up on the run... but you don't earn anything by it. The world isn't saved in the end. The world is actually very likely worse for Hawke having been involved.

There's tragedy, sure. A hero having to pay to be a hero. That's great. Being a hero isn't easy. But that's not the same as having to pay to be a failure.

That might be the most unsatisfying thing about DA2... Hawke can do everything right, and the world still falls apart.  Too much like real life. 

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I too prefer branching storylines, and I thought DAO did it well in that it had a mix of happy and tragic conclusions to its different subplots and plot choices.  I'm not as sure as you are that they want the tragedy to overshadow the positive outcomes all the time.  Any of the four endings in DAO have elements of tragedy or at least darkness, but does (to take the most obvious example) the personal tragedy of the Warden's death overshadow the success at stopping the Blight?  It might vary by reader, but to an extent that's the point - they seem to be open to having a mix, and not just having an lopsided balance of tragedy as they did with DA2.

Perhaps you misunderstood or maybe I should've worded it better. The thing is I was more or less trying to say the exact same thing as you did above. DA:O according to me had that balance. But her reply was post the release of DA2, in fact her post was about a month or so ago. I'm inclined to think something changed in their thinking post DA:O, that made them go this way with DA2 - maybe they realized they were off track with DA:O. Hard to say. It was almost as if they wanted DA2 to be as tragic as possible, with the conclusion, with the events leading up to the conclusion, and so on.

And I was just saying that if tragedy is what they want to bring in to their storytelling, it's good that they started it off with DA2, somewhat early in the series. It'll give them a bit of time to gauge from all the fan feedback they got to see how much they succeeded with this experiment of theirs. Then they can tweak and change as required. But I'm expecting more along the lines of DA2 for future games, but with much better storytelling and execution. And hopefully, yes, more branching story lines.

Yeah, I'm not saying LOTR was entirely predictable, but it was more predictable than it would have been if it had included more tragic elements.  Also, come to think of it, I think one of the ideas of the fairly unpredictable "A Song of Ice and Fire" is that it has no set protagonist, so tragedy can affect even its hero-characters.

Yep. If we think about it, the DA series could be exactly like that. The story being about different events from different places in the time that is the Dragon Age. There appears to be some overall plot toward which all these elements are moving, but one that doesn't seem to require all the heros from various individual stories, I'm guessing. It's very good in terms of storytelling, I think, because it leaves things open-ended, to be scripted later and to their contentment. It could go out of hand, but it's entirely up to them to decide that.

And, no. Even I don't think there is a strict definition for what makes a story a tragedy, in and of itself. Particular events can be judged this way, but it's difficult to see the story itself that way. But my impression is DA2 was meant to be a tragedy, from the very beginning. That was its theme.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
I think the issue with Hawke was that they never made Hawke powerless, just the player.  Petrice is a good example of this.  In two instances we're offered motive and opportunity to kill her (witness free none the less) and the player is even given the option to acknowledge this in at least one, but the player is denied.  There is quite literally nothing stopping Hawke from knifing the old bat in either instance and yet we're not allowed to.

A way you could get the same result without this would be that in Act 1 we confront Petrice in the Chantry rather than Lowtown and, when/if Hawke says, "I should kill you" line she could respond, "You would murder a Sister in cold-blood within the walls of the Chantry itself?  I wonder how many steps you could take before the Templars cut you down?"  This makes it so that it's Hawke who can't take action, the situation prohibits him/her from just killing Petrice, rather than the simple lack of an option.

In Act 2 simply don't have Petrice show up at the meeting, but have Varnell explain that Hawke was expected.  Again you can't confront Petrice until you get back to the Chantry where she's protected by the presence of Templars and witnesses.

Character powerlessness can be a great tool in moving the player, it can produce profound tragedy within the game.  Player powerlessness is just infuriating.  The loss of your family as a Cousland was made all the more tragic for me because try as he might my Cousland couldn't save them.  Your sister-in-law and nephew were killed while you slept, your father was wounded long before you reached him, and no matter what you say your mother refuses to leave your father's side.  It would have driven me up the flipping wall though if the character had been witness to these events and just sat back and watched while I furiously pounded the controls trying to get the dunce to step in and save the day..

Thank you.  I was having a devil of a time trying to put the difference between things like the murders of the Cousland family, and just not having the options to do things as a player in DA2 that could easily have been done, into words.

Yes, I also think it was very well put by DPSSOC. We can argue individual events (like Leandra's case, for instance), but overall it is as DPSSOC says. I'm sure BioWare will pay attention to such things in the future.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:24 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Quething wrote...

DA2 completely lacks that. It's got that same heroic personal tragedy, as Hawke struggles and watches family get ripped away and friends go nuts and home get destroyed and ends up on the run... but you don't earn anything by it. The world isn't saved in the end. The world is actually very likely worse for Hawke having been involved.

There's tragedy, sure. A hero having to pay to be a hero. That's great. Being a hero isn't easy. But that's not the same as having to pay to be a failure.

I agree with this. It's the issue of hope I feel. Keep it alive till the very last minute, and either realize it to fruition or destroy it. But it is also the issue of storytelling. Tragedy can be very moving. I'm sure there are examples of stories centered around tragedy having been accepted widely by the audience. I felt with DA2 somehow the story and tragedy didn't mesh all that well; in fact, tragedy was forced on the story for tragedy's sake, if that makes sense.

Anyway, good post overall.

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Perhaps you misunderstood or maybe I should've worded it better. The thing is I was more or less trying to say the exact same thing as you did above. DA:O according to me had that balance. But her reply was post the release of DA2, in fact her post was about a month or so ago. I'm inclined to think something changed in their thinking post DA:O, that made them go this way with DA2 - maybe they realized they were off track with DA:O. Hard to say. It was almost as if they wanted DA2 to be as tragic as possible, with the conclusion, with the events leading up to the conclusion, and so on.

And I was just saying that if tragedy is what they want to bring in to their storytelling, it's good that they started it off with DA2, somewhat early in the series. It'll give them a bit of time to gauge from all the fan feedback they got to see how much they succeeded with this experiment of theirs. Then they can tweak and change as required. But I'm expecting more along the lines of DA2 for future games, but with much better storytelling and execution. And hopefully, yes, more branching story lines.

I might just be having some sort of reading comprehension problem as I've been sleep deprived the past few days.  Though I don't think it was so much a change in their mindset after DAO/before DA2.  I just think they overreached a bit for DA2 and, judging from Jennifer's post, they know it was a bit too much for many players and are pulling back for their next installment.  She mentioned it's a hard thing to judge for them, at least.  If they have less "tragedy saturation" next time they're going to have to come closer to the DAO balance than they were in DA2 since it had less saturation (unless they overshoot even further in the other direction, of course! =P  Maybe we'll see magic rainbow ponies).

Yep. If we think about it, the DA series could be exactly like that. The story being about different events from different places in the time that is the Dragon Age. There appears to be some overall plot toward which all these elements are moving, but one that doesn't seem to require all the heros from various individual stories, I'm guessing. It's very good in terms of storytelling, I think, because it leaves things open-ended, to be scripted later and to their contentment. It could go out of hand, but it's entirely up to them to decide that.

And, no. Even I don't think there is a strict definition for what makes a story a tragedy, in and of itself. Particular events can be judged this way, but it's difficult to see the story itself that way. But my impression is DA2 was meant to be a tragedy, from the very beginning. That was its theme.

Yeah, I agree with all of this quote.  The did see DA2's main event as tragedy, at least.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I might just be having some sort of reading comprehension problem as I've been sleep deprived the past few days.

I had a massive such problem earlier, remember? 

Though I don't think it was so much a change in their mindset after DAO/before DA2.  I just think they overreached a bit for DA2 and, judging from Jennifer's post, they know it was a bit too much for many players and are pulling back for their next installment.  She mentioned it's a hard thing to judge for them, at least.  If they have less "tragedy saturation" next time they're going to have to come closer to the DAO balance than they were in DA2 since it had less saturation (unless they overshoot even further in the other direction, of course! =P

Well, I think we can look at it somewhat differently. At least, this is how I see it. We're usually presented with problems, or, more accurately, situations that need some kind of resolutions. Now, such a resolution itself will depend upon the kind of choices we're presented with, choices that influence the outcomes either positively or negatively.

I believe, broadly, situations resolve in different ways as follows:
1. Choices are presented for possible amicable outcomes, meaning that outcomes can go any way, depending purely on the choices made. The end result is fully player driven.
2. The player is denied choices that would resolve everything, meaning, "you can't win 'em all."
3. The player is denied choices that would resolve anything, meaning, no matter what the player does, the outcome is going to involve a full negative.

In my belief, DA:O fell into the category #1. Look at the way the Broken Circle quest went, for instance. The Circle could be saved, if the player so desired. And if the Circle was saved, the Connor situation could be resolved without many issues. The same with the Dalish elves and the werewolves; killing Zathrian was the fallback option. Even at the end, when only Alistair (or Loghain) and the PC could kill the Archdemon, both could survive, because of the Dark Ritual. Although the ultimate outcome of performing the DR is actually unknown and could still play a major (negative) part in a future story.

This was largely the theme of DA:O and it's my belief that the writers don't want to go this way. They've observed that the majority of the gamers (I've read this somewhere) went with choices that resolved everything positively (if I can call it that).

With DA2, I think they gravitated more toward #3. There was no way the mage-templar war could be stopped. And there was no way that the Qunari situation could be resolved amicably (at least till the very end). And many of the events leading up to these end-games in acts 2 and 3 played out in the same way. The player didn't know it up front, of course, but that's a different issue, more related to character role playing, and not to influencing outcomes or fashioning the story to one's liking.

Now, with this in mind, what I'm saying is that I think they won't go back to the way DA:O played out. You and I agree that DA:O had balance, but looking from the writer's persective (they're the story tellers and they want the players to feel something that the writers want them to feel), they're going to deny the player choices on average. DA is supposed to be a dark fantasy and about human tragedy. So I think what we're going to see more of is something along the lines of #2 (and #3). And maybe a bit of #1 sprinkled in. So, although they may move away from #3 toward #2 on average, they're not going to go back to #1 on average.

This is the message I got from their responses.

Maybe we'll see magic rainbow ponies).

And what's with these ponies (unicorn look-alikes)? Some people have it in their avatars, and they're referenced every now and then. I'm sure it means something, but I don't know what it is.

[esper]

@Michel Finnegang
The ponyies is from a my little pony cartoon - I think.

As for you descriting I agree with it, and I personally prefers 2 in a dark fantasy. I always felt that the save Conner/Redcliff quest and nature of the beast and perhaps even dealing with the Arch demon was cheapened by the fact that option 1 existed.
Why should I not safe Redcliffe when the option existed, why should I not solve the werewolf/elf problem in the diplomatic when when that option existed.
The 'third way out' option that existed in a lot of the main quest prevented me from ever having to deal with the really hard choices. As a result the most variyng choice between my wardens is who they place on the dwarven throne.

[MichaelFinnegan]

esper wrote...

@Michel Finnegang
The ponyies is from a my little pony cartoon - I think.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

As for you descriting I agree with it, and I personally prefers 2 in a dark fantasy. I always felt that the save Conner/Redcliff quest and nature of the beast and perhaps even dealing with the Arch demon was cheapened by the fact that option 1 existed.
Why should I not safe Redcliffe when the option existed, why should I not solve the werewolf/elf problem in the diplomatic when when that option existed.
The 'third way out' option that existed in a lot of the main quest prevented me from ever having to deal with the really hard choices. As a result the most variyng choice between my wardens is who they place on the dwarven throne.

Yes, this is what I meant. I understand what you said, but I personally have mixed feelings about it. In any case, I understand it's mostly the writers' story to tell, and I just participate in it, to whatever degree.

I'm actually pretty much excited about DA3. I am hoping they'll take the storytelling to new heights there.

EDIT: Typo...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 09 octobre 2011 - 12:07 .

[Cobra's_back]

esper wrote...

@Michel Finnegang
The ponyies is from a my little pony cartoon - I think.

As for you descriting I agree with it, and I personally prefers 2 in a dark fantasy. I always felt that the save Conner/Redcliff quest and nature of the beast and perhaps even dealing with the Arch demon was cheapened by the fact that option 1 existed.
Why should I not safe Redcliffe when the option existed, why should I not solve the werewolf/elf problem in the diplomatic when when that option existed.
The 'third way out' option that existed in a lot of the main quest prevented me from ever having to deal with the really hard choices. As a result the most variyng choice between my wardens is who they place on the dwarven throne.

I understand what you meant. However, people like choices. Take the choices away and it is no longer entertainment for some not all. I found this post on another site from 1zenron1 which seems to agree with your point. Here is someone who really wants a dark story very linear.
“There is a spoiler warning for this post. If you don't want to know some things, please don't read this. Dragon Age : Origins was originally written to be a dark fantasy, being compared with a lot of newer dark fantasy novels. I purchased the collector’s edition and I got this information from the behind the scenes video which is on there. What my point is, is that I don't really think this is a dark fantasy. It really doesn't have the feel which defines the dark fantasy genre. I'm going to use one of the examples they used of dark fantasy, George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. In this story, you aren't always sure who is good and bad, and people can just do horrible things, because that is what humans are truly like. People die, even main characters, and this isn't really the feeling we get from dragon age origins. There is no secrecy, no deception, and everyone generally wants to do the right thing, except the orcs... I mean... darkspawn(that's a completely different issue that the game has). The only thing which got any reaction from me whatsoever is when you choose to kill Loghain, the blood splatters across his daughter. However, there is no reaction from her, which seems strange. This game is like a child trying to act mature. It can try as hard as it wants, but in the end, it's still going to be a child.”
Hear was a post from Den Siste. “ It all depends on your own actions as well. There are choices presented to the main character that can be rather horrific. If you choose not to take those options, you can't exactly blame the game for YOUR decisions. As for not sure about good or bad... well, one should see the 5+ page discussion on the ps3 boards about Loghain. Also... is Morrigan good or evil? What about Sten? Him murdering a family isn't a big deal, right? Everyone wants to do the right thing? met Zathrian? People dying, even main characters.... again, you can sacrifice yourself, you can sacrifice one of your fellow wardens, you can kill your fellow party members.... yes, shiny happy all around.”
The reason I’m posting this is because everyone has their own views of Dark. The more linear and with less choices will make the game less entertaining for some not all. I certainly respect a person need to play a dark fantasy with no choices to save the day. I just wouldn’t play it. In DAO you could play evil or good. I played evil on DAO for one playthrough. Here are a few of the choices:

follow Connor to his room and Kill Connor
Sided with Loghain have Alistair die
Don't save Redcliff
Take the life of the elves for extra Attribute points
Defile the ashes
Give the little girl to the demon

When I purchased the game, I also purchased a guide that gave me every possible direction. The thing is that I was given a choice and that made the game fun for me.


 

[esper]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

esper wrote...

@Michel Finnegang
The ponyies is from a my little pony cartoon - I think.

As for you descriting I agree with it, and I personally prefers 2 in a dark fantasy. I always felt that the save Conner/Redcliff quest and nature of the beast and perhaps even dealing with the Arch demon was cheapened by the fact that option 1 existed.
Why should I not safe Redcliffe when the option existed, why should I not solve the werewolf/elf problem in the diplomatic when when that option existed.
The 'third way out' option that existed in a lot of the main quest prevented me from ever having to deal with the really hard choices. As a result the most variyng choice between my wardens is who they place on the dwarven throne.

I understand what you meant. However, people like choices. Take the choices away and it is no longer entertainment for some not all. I found this post on another site from 1zenron1 which seems to agree with your point. Here is someone who really wants a dark story very linear.
“There is a spoiler warning for this post. If you don't want to know some things, please don't read this. Dragon Age : Origins was originally written to be a dark fantasy, being compared with a lot of newer dark fantasy novels. I purchased the collector’s edition and I got this information from the behind the scenes video which is on there. What my point is, is that I don't really think this is a dark fantasy. It really doesn't have the feel which defines the dark fantasy genre. I'm going to use one of the examples they used of dark fantasy, George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. In this story, you aren't always sure who is good and bad, and people can just do horrible things, because that is what humans are truly like. People die, even main characters, and this isn't really the feeling we get from dragon age origins. There is no secrecy, no deception, and everyone generally wants to do the right thing, except the orcs... I mean... darkspawn(that's a completely different issue that the game has). The only thing which got any reaction from me whatsoever is when you choose to kill Loghain, the blood splatters across his daughter. However, there is no reaction from her, which seems strange. This game is like a child trying to act mature. It can try as hard as it wants, but in the end, it's still going to be a child.”
Hear was a post from Den Siste. “ It all depends on your own actions as well. There are choices presented to the main character that can be rather horrific. If you choose not to take those options, you can't exactly blame the game for YOUR decisions. As for not sure about good or bad... well, one should see the 5+ page discussion on the ps3 boards about Loghain. Also... is Morrigan good or evil? What about Sten? Him murdering a family isn't a big deal, right? Everyone wants to do the right thing? met Zathrian? People dying, even main characters.... again, you can sacrifice yourself, you can sacrifice one of your fellow wardens, you can kill your fellow party members.... yes, shiny happy all around.”
The reason I’m posting this is because everyone has their own views of Dark. The more linear and with less choices will make the game less entertaining for some not all. I certainly respect a person need to play a dark fantasy with no choices to save the day. I just wouldn’t play it. In DAO you could play evil or good. I played evil on DAO for one playthrough. Here are a few of the choices:

follow Connor to his room and Kill Connor
Sided with Loghain have Alistair die
Don't save Redcliff
Take the life of the elves for extra Attribute points
Defile the ashes
Give the little girl to the demon

When I purchased the game, I also purchased a guide that gave me every possible direction. The thing is that I was given a choice and that made the game fun for me.


 

I am sorry, but you porpusely chose 'evil' options which is fine, but I hardly ever role play 'evil' or completely rutless characters.

I would have been a hard or dark choice if the option had been between killing Conner and killing Isolde - and it would still have been a choice. As it is, it isn't.

It would have been a hard choice if I had to choose between the dalish or the werewolf, and it would still be a choice.

Defile the ashes or not delife the ashes are fine because there don't exits a 'let's not defilet he ashes and still be best friends forever with Kolgrim choice', neither does a lets defile the ashes but the Guardian forgives us choice.

I am off two mind regarding the dark ritual with Morrigan.

I am not oppossed to choices, I am oppossed to the easy way out choices.

[Cobra's_back]

Esper: Please forgive that I misunderstood you.

[Cobra's_back]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

I might just be having some sort of reading comprehension problem as I've been sleep deprived the past few days.

I had a massive such problem earlier, remember? 

Though I don't think it was so much a change in their mindset after DAO/before DA2.  I just think they overreached a bit for DA2 and, judging from Jennifer's post, they know it was a bit too much for many players and are pulling back for their next installment.  She mentioned it's a hard thing to judge for them, at least.  If they have less "tragedy saturation" next time they're going to have to come closer to the DAO balance than they were in DA2 since it had less saturation (unless they overshoot even further in the other direction, of course! =P

Well, I think we can look at it somewhat differently. At least, this is how I see it. We're usually presented with problems, or, more accurately, situations that need some kind of resolutions. Now, such a resolution itself will depend upon the kind of choices we're presented with, choices that influence the outcomes either positively or negatively.

I believe, broadly, situations resolve in different ways as follows:
1. Choices are presented for possible amicable outcomes, meaning that outcomes can go any way, depending purely on the choices made. The end result is fully player driven.
2. The player is denied choices that would resolve everything, meaning, "you can't win 'em all."
3. The player is denied choices that would resolve anything, meaning, no matter what the player does, the outcome is going to involve a full negative.

In my belief, DA:O fell into the category #1. Look at the way the Broken Circle quest went, for instance. The Circle could be saved, if the player so desired. And if the Circle was saved, the Connor situation could be resolved without many issues. The same with the Dalish elves and the werewolves; killing Zathrian was the fallback option. Even at the end, when only Alistair (or Loghain) and the PC could kill the Archdemon, both could survive, because of the Dark Ritual. Although the ultimate outcome of performing the DR is actually unknown and could still play a major (negative) part in a future story.

This was largely the theme of DA:O and it's my belief that the writers don't want to go this way. They've observed that the majority of the gamers (I've read this somewhere) went with choices that resolved everything positively (if I can call it that).

With DA2, I think they gravitated more toward #3. There was no way the mage-templar war could be stopped. And there was no way that the Qunari situation could be resolved amicably (at least till the very end). And many of the events leading up to these end-games in acts 2 and 3 played out in the same way. The player didn't know it up front, of course, but that's a different issue, more related to character role playing, and not to influencing outcomes or fashioning the story to one's liking.

Now, with this in mind, what I'm saying is that I think they won't go back to the way DA:O played out. You and I agree that DA:O had balance, but looking from the writer's persective (they're the story tellers and they want the players to feel something that the writers want them to feel), they're going to deny the player choices on average. DA is supposed to be a dark fantasy and about human tragedy. So I think what we're going to see more of is something along the lines of #2 (and #3). And maybe a bit of #1 sprinkled in. So, although they may move away from #3 toward #2 on average, they're not going to go back to #1 on average.

This is the message I got from their responses.

Maybe we'll see magic rainbow ponies).

And what's with these ponies (unicorn look-alikes)? Some people have it in their avatars, and they're referenced every now and then. I'm sure it means something, but I don't know what it is.

Having choices is what made DAO great in my mind at least. It also made me care about the characters. By the time I was done with DA2, I didn't care about Hawke at all.

[Xilizhra]

Quething wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
In LOTR, there were so, so many times when mere random chance saved Frodo that I think it's fair to say his idea of not bringing Aragorn with him all the way to Mordor was probably a bad one (and perhaps Tolkein was making an implicit point about Providence).

No perhaps about it. (Well, Providence and the self-propogation of Grace. In the end it's Bilbo's choice to spare Gollum's life, and then Frodo's reaffirming of that decision, that allows the good guys victory.)

But Tolkien's actually a very interesting comparison, because LotR is a very, very tragic story. There is absolutely no such thing as a clean win in Middle-Earth. Frodo and Sam destroy the Ring, but are so wounded in doing so that they can't return to a normal life or ever find peace in this world again, and have to "die" (leaving for Valinor is nothing if not symbolic) to escape their scars. Arwen gets Aragorn but has to give up her species and everyone else she loves. The elves throw off the oppression of the One Ring but the Three stop working as a result. Even the dang Party Tree gets cut down.

DA:O is very comparable. You can save the world, but at high personal cost: you lose your lover/comrade/friend, or your own life; or, if you take the Dark Ritual, you let a creature of unknown power and incredible potential evil enter the world, and possibly lose your lover or son. There is great, great victory and a new age of celebration, but at the cost of the happiness of those who achieve it. It's very biblical, all leading Ferelden to the Promised Land and then dying on the mountain. It's a story that resonates, and a story people can really get behind. It feels honest, because we know great things don't come without cost. It increases the feeling of victory, because basic human psychology won't allow us to believe that that much cost is not appropriately rewarded. But it also feels fair, and complete; your character struggled for that better world, and you the player get to see it, get to know it's there and all the struggling wasn't in vain.

DA2 completely lacks that. It's got that same heroic personal tragedy, as Hawke struggles and watches family get ripped away and friends go nuts and home get destroyed and ends up on the run... but you don't earn anything by it. The world isn't saved in the end. The world is actually very likely worse for Hawke having been involved.

There's tragedy, sure. A hero having to pay to be a hero. That's great. Being a hero isn't easy. But that's not the same as having to pay to be a failure.

I don't think that the world is worse off for Hawke being there. The templars are a wound in the world, one that it's trying to cover up, but it had to be shown. It's bad, certainly, the effects are outwardly disastrous, but it had to happen, and it can get better in the end.

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Well, I think we can look at it somewhat differently. At least, this is how I see it. We're usually presented with problems, or, more accurately, situations that need some kind of resolutions. Now, such a resolution itself will depend upon the kind of choices we're presented with, choices that influence the outcomes either positively or negatively.

I believe, broadly, situations resolve in different ways as follows:
1. Choices are presented for possible amicable outcomes, meaning that outcomes can go any way, depending purely on the choices made. The end result is fully player driven.
2. The player is denied choices that would resolve everything, meaning, "you can't win 'em all."
3. The player is denied choices that would resolve anything, meaning, no matter what the player does, the outcome is going to involve a full negative.

In my belief, DA:O fell into the category #1. Look at the way the Broken Circle quest went, for instance. The Circle could be saved, if the player so desired. And if the Circle was saved, the Connor situation could be resolved without many issues. The same with the Dalish elves and the werewolves; killing Zathrian was the fallback option. Even at the end, when only Alistair (or Loghain) and the PC could kill the Archdemon, both could survive, because of the Dark Ritual. Although the ultimate outcome of performing the DR is actually unknown and could still play a major (negative) part in a future story.

This was largely the theme of DA:O and it's my belief that the writers don't want to go this way. They've observed that the majority of the gamers (I've read this somewhere) went with choices that resolved everything positively (if I can call it that).

With DA2, I think they gravitated more toward #3. There was no way the mage-templar war could be stopped. And there was no way that the Qunari situation could be resolved amicably (at least till the very end). And many of the events leading up to these end-games in acts 2 and 3 played out in the same way. The player didn't know it up front, of course, but that's a different issue, more related to character role playing, and not to influencing outcomes or fashioning the story to one's liking.

Now, with this in mind, what I'm saying is that I think they won't go back to the way DA:O played out. You and I agree that DA:O had balance, but looking from the writer's persective (they're the story tellers and they want the players to feel something that the writers want them to feel), they're going to deny the player choices on average. DA is supposed to be a dark fantasy and about human tragedy. So I think what we're going to see more of is something along the lines of #2 (and #3). And maybe a bit of #1 sprinkled in. So, although they may move away from #3 toward #2 on average, they're not going to go back to #1 on average.

This is the message I got from their responses.

hmm, interesting.  My mental model of it was one of degree; saturation is an issue of degree, usually.  I definitely saw DAO as a dark fantasy and about human tragedy, and you're right the main quests were mostly resolvable (I think Orzammar is debatable since you have no way to have a "good"-guy king (not that either of them were thoroughly) and have good outcomes for Orz).  For DA3, in your model I'd expect a mix of 1 and 2; I'd expect they'd let us win some of them by giving us option that produce amicable outcomes, and for many quests they'll deny us options to resolve everything.  3 might show up, but not as often as the other two.  But it's all speculation at this point.

As for the Redcliffe discussion, I suspect you'd see more people defending the "good" option if it had better writing.  As it is, it's kind of difficult to believe (or suspend disbelief for, if you prefer).  Connor goes practically dormant for the days or week it takes to make the round trip, or at least, Jowan alone's powerful enough to contain him?  I've seen the it's-ridiculous objection on the boards fairly often; many people seem to believe it'd be more plausible if disaster struck.  The way I retell it in my head is that I just send two companions from either camp or my party in a boat to the Tower, and the rest of us all stay in the castle for the 2-3 days it takes.  That way it's more believable that we contained any disaster.

And what's with these ponies (unicorn look-alikes)? Some people have it in their avatars, and they're referenced every now and then. I'm sure it means something, but I don't know what it is.

Yeah, I think it stems from My Little Pony for whatever reason, and it's a big thing, even elsewhere.  I came across some shot glasses with ponies of the four atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ Myer, and Sam Harris), billed as the four ponies of the apocalypse. 

Modifié par Satyricon331, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:55 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Having choices is what made DAO great in my mind at least. It also made me care about the characters. By the time I was done with DA2, I didn't care about Hawke at all.

DA2 is just at the extreme end of things, in my opinion, which may not be to everyone's liking. DA3 (and the DLCs to come) is extremely unlikely to be that way, so I'm sure it'll be good times ahead.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

hmm, interesting.  My mental model of it was one of degree; saturation is an issue of degree, usually.

Yep, saturation is an issue in any case, in my opinion. Even if they went mostly with, say #2, it'll probably look contrived to some in my opinion. That's the irony they'll have to contend with. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. But, generally, I feel as long as the story flows naturally, these elements will fit in.

I definitely saw DAO as a dark fantasy and about human tragedy, and you're right the main quests were mostly resolvable (I think Orzammar is debatable since you have no way to have a "good"-guy king (not that either of them were thoroughly) and have good outcomes for Orz).  For DA3, in your model I'd expect a mix of 1 and 2; I'd expect they'd let us win some of them by giving us option that produce amicable outcomes, and for many quests they'll deny us options to resolve everything.  3 might show up, but not as often as the other two.  But it's all speculation at this point.

Jennifer did say,
"So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy andhuman tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost."

So, in all likelihood, the issue of "agency" is likely to be fixed, but "not at the cost of not pushing the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy." And "we may experience greater victories, but with costs involved." Indeed, makes me think first about #2, then #3, and then #1. And yes it's mostly my interpretation.

But I find it interesting they found the fan reaction disappointing, as if they (or at least she) weren't expecting it.

As for the Redcliffe discussion, I suspect you'd see more people defending the "good" option if it had better writing.  As it is, it's kind of difficult to believe (or suspend disbelief for, if you prefer).  Connor goes practically dormant for the days or week it takes to make the round trip, or at least, Jowan alone's powerful enough to contain him?  I've seen the it's-ridiculous objection on the boards fairly often; many people seem to believe it'd be more plausible if disaster struck.  The way I retell it in my head is that I just send two companions from either camp or my party in a boat to the Tower, and the rest of us all stay in the castle for the 2-3 days it takes.  That way it's more believable that we contained any disaster.

I'll put this down mostly as a broader issue of handling time progression within these games. I mean, the game isn't going to play itself, so, if we're to criticize this particular incident, then I guess we'll have to criticize many of the non-linear story elements in the same way. For example, I could go do some things within the Brecillian forest and then go and do something in Orzammar, and then go finish the Circle quest, and go to Denerim, and so on. And when I come back to the Brecillian forests, all the monsters I hadn't killed wouldn't have moved an inch. Everything more or less stands still when I'm not paying attention to it.

But I guess they could have made the choice of fetching the Circle mages more costly, statically, by, say, it resulting in the destruction of the Redcliffe Village or something.

Yeah, I think it stems from My Little Pony for whatever reason, and it's a big thing, even elsewhere.  I came across some shot glasses with ponies of the four atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ Myer, and Sam Harris), billed as the four ponies of the apocalypse. 

Hmm... Them being labeled heralds of doom by some I can get, but "ponies" of apocalypse? 

EDIT: Some formatting...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 10 octobre 2011 - 05:33 .

[Cobra's_back]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Having choices is what made DAO great in my mind at least. It also made me care about the characters. By the time I was done with DA2, I didn't care about Hawke at all.

DA2 is just at the extreme end of things, in my opinion, which may not be to everyone's liking. DA3 (and the DLCs to come) is extremely unlikely to be that way, so I'm sure it'll be good times ahead.

Thanks, I really hope so.

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Jennifer did say,
"So, while we have certainly been disapointed in the number of fans who didn't feel a sense of agency with Hawke because of all the emotional events surrounding her/him -- and will be taking steps to ensure a better feeling of personal impact in future stories -- Dragon Age products will likely continue to push the boundaries of dark fantasy andhuman tragedy. So, while you may experience greater victories in future products, it wouldn't be Dragon Age if they didn't come at a cost."

So, in all likelihood, the issue of "agency" is likely to be fixed, but "not at the cost of not pushing the boundaries of dark fantasy and human tragedy." And "we may experience greater victories, but with costs involved." Indeed, makes me think first about #2, then #3, and then #1. And yes it's mostly my interpretation.

But I find it interesting they found the fan reaction disappointing, as if they (or at least she) weren't expecting it.

Yeah, it depends on how you read "push the boundaries."  The last sentence in that quote to me sounds like she's saying DAO fits into their notion of paying a price.

I'll put this down mostly as a broader issue of handling time progression within these games. I mean, the game isn't going to play itself, so, if we're to criticize this particular incident, then I guess we'll have to criticize many of the non-linear story elements in the same way. For example, I could go do some things within the Brecillian forest and then go and do something in Orzammar, and then go finish the Circle quest, and go to Denerim, and so on. And when I come back to the Brecillian forests, all the monsters I hadn't killed wouldn't have moved an inch. Everything more or less stands still when I'm not paying attention to it.

But I guess they could have made the choice of fetching the Circle mages more costly, statically, by, say, it resulting in the destruction of the Redcliffe Village or something.

No, I don't think the Redcliffe issue is of the same type as the example you give - well, I mean, you're raising a game mechanic issue and I'm raising a writing issue.  The writers have no way to anticipate you'd leave the Brec Forest and I think it's reasonable of them to write it as if you didn't, given the game treats time in this static way and given the bulk of users will stay until finished.  They wrote you a return to Redcliffe though, as they knew you were leaving and returning in that scenario.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Yeah, it depends on how you read "push the boundaries."  The last sentence in that quote to me sounds like she's saying DAO fits into their notion of paying a price.

Yes, I suppose so. My further guesswork is that things are going to go wrong further in the next game(s) or so before they start getting better. Maybe we'll see variations in themes as we progress further.

No, I don't think the Redcliffe issue is of the same type as the example you give - well, I mean, you're raising a game mechanic issue and I'm raising a writing issue.  The writers have no way to anticipate you'd leave the Brec Forest and I think it's reasonable of them to write it as if you didn't, given the game treats time in this static way and given the bulk of users will stay until finished.  They wrote you a return to Redcliffe though, as they knew you were leaving and returning in that scenario.

Yes, you do have a point there. I might have mistakenly associated a game mechanic with an aspect of story. But, still, I'd say the whole reason why the option of taking the Circle's help was provided was to give a way out of the dilemma of resolving the Connor's situation. Now, whether this decision itself ought to have had a somewhat minor cost associated with it, well, it'd probably have been good to have that. And I'm sure that given a second chance the writers would put something in there.

[Satyricon331]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Yes, I suppose so. My further guesswork is that things are going to go wrong further in the next game(s) or so before they start getting better. Maybe we'll see variations in themes as we progress further.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.

Yes, you do have a point there. I might have mistakenly associated a game mechanic with an aspect of story. But, still, I'd say the whole reason why the option of taking the Circle's help was provided was to give a way out of the dilemma of resolving the Connor's situation. Now, whether this decision itself ought to have had a somewhat minor cost associated with it, well, it'd probably have been good to have that. And I'm sure that given a second chance the writers would put something in there.

I agree with the second sentence.  I'm not even sure it needed a cost, but it's just that for me as it was, it didn't seem to withstand scrutiny terribly well.  I definitely agree with your last sentence... and I think we agree it was a great game nonetheless.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I agree with the second sentence.  I'm not even sure it needed a cost, but it's just that for me as it was, it didn't seem to withstand scrutiny terribly well.  I definitely agree with your last sentence... and I think we agree it was a great game nonetheless.

Yes, DA:O was definitely a memorable game for me. I have mixed feelings about DA2 and I had a somewhat difficult time swallowing the theme, but I hope to see much more balance in the future games, of course keeping with the overall concept of the series being a dark fantasy. It should be interesting times ahead.