267 réponses à ce sujet

[MingWolf]

txgoldrush wrote...

Whine all you want about DAII's storytelling but DAO's has SIGNIFICANT flaws that I DO NOT want to see back in DAIII.

A) The entire storyline is very generic and cliched. Truly, there is nothing remotely original about the story, it is basically a typical story in too many uninspired RPGs. While Biowares other games do have their cliches, at least the plot as a whole or the world has some originality. DAO lacks this. It is a by the nubers story and extremely predictable, not to mention the typical human bad guy being a huge idiot and why we even have the story in the first place.

As said, wrong forum, but I see where this is going and what your trying to do.  So I shall naturally feel inclined to argue.  Don't take this personally.  While I strongly argue against some of your points, I do agree with some of the others as well. 

I agree that DA:O had a generic and cliched plot.  At least the main one.  However, the stories that made up each chapter, such as the political dwarves, the sacred ashes, the werewolves and the elves,venturing in the fade, and heck, even the characters, made the game interesting.  If you think DA2 improved on this, I will disagree.  DA2 brought together a disjointed plot that had little to no connection between each subplot.  There was little to learn in DA2, little to discover, little to explore.  In fact, some of th e mini subplots conflicted with each other so much that it actually ruined what is left of the story.  Sorry, but I'd rather take generic and cliched over inconsistent, incoherent, and broken.

Recycled plot and characters. DAO fans must admit that the games plot and the party characters are recycled from past games. There is no doubt about this. Lets see Jedi, Spirit Monks, Specters, and Grey Wardens....tell me DAO is no different...lol. Same four midgame major quest format where you collect plot coupons for the finale. DAO easily follows the formula of every other Bioware game. This extends to their characters which strongly are recycled from past Bioware characters. Its entirely to obvious, every character is the same "Bioware archtype" revisited. There is less of this in DAII, in which only Sebastian (which is done intentionally even featuring the specific character he "copies" in his quest) and Merill (who is a Tali and ME1 Liara mix) feel like typical Bioware characters. Characters like Bethany, Varric, and new Anders break Bioware mold. Not to mention the plot of DAII is very unique for a WRPG. Before DAII, Bioware was becoming like the final Fantasy teams, who recycle their plots and characters over and over.

Hmm.  First off, breaking the mold doesn't necessarily constitute an improvement, and you hardly explained how the characters in DA:O were achetypical from past games.  I can possibly see characters like Ogren being your typical fighter dwarf, but the rest of the fare didn't seem so archetypical to me. 

In DA2, you have characters who's motivations are grounded primarily by their obsession with something.  For example: Fenris and his hatred in mages.  Merill and her obsession with blood magic.  Isabela, and her roguish demeanor and obsession with sex.  Anders and his obsession with the mage vs. templar conflict.  Sabastian and his obsession with revenge. 

Bethany and Varric were unique in their own ways.  Sadly, the former had almost little involvement in the plot and dies either from the very beginning or suddenly dies an act there after.  So, only Varric is left.  Unfortunately, his character beyond being the narrator doesn't really strike me as influential through the rest of the game. 

C) Charcters are divorced from the plot (excluding Alistair and partially Morrigan, as well as Loghain). This makes the characters more window dressing than plot participants. The characters simply do not matter in the plot, either mechanically or even thematically. In my RPG experience, RPGs both Western and Japanese, either A) have them all or nearly all play a role in the story or a significant number do while other don't (and most of these games have large casts). Leliena, my fave DAO character, does not have to be even recruited and DAO's plot doesn't change, thats how insignificant she is. Oghren and Wynne are subplot players nothing more. Zervan is introduced by plot event and then he doesn't matter. And Morrigan can easily be written out of the story with very little alteration. Only Alistair plays a role in the plot. DAII is a HUGE step forward, its too bad fanboys are too blinded to see this. Most of DAII cast plays significant roles in the plot (Varric, sibling, Aveline, Isabela, and Anders as well as in the end Sebastian) while the others like Fenris and Merrill are strongly connected to the plots conflicts and themes.

Hmm, well if the blight didn't affect just about everyone, I might just agree.  But maybe there is something you just didn't see in DA:O whereas most others did.  Or maybe you've never actually played the game?  Personally I'd like to see registered DA:O icons beneath your avatar to take such bold statements seriously.  How is Wynne just a subplot character?  She was there at Ostagar, and the blight affects the mages just as much as she, who was dying from "borrowed time" anyways.  While it's true that the omission of some characters, like Leliana, had no bearing on the plot, you had to look at the perspective of how the plot affects everyone, from the politics to the motivations of each individual to see how neatly some of the characters fit in the story.  The companions are supporting characters who add to the story.  You are the central foci, as it was meant to be. 

DA2 a step forward?  Again, I disagree.  Certainly, a lot of the NPC characters triggered something that triggered something else in the plot or subplots (i.e., Anders conducting terrorism, Isabela stealing something, sibling uh... dying), but that seemed to be as far as it went.  Please explain the role of Fenris and Merrill for me, if you please?  I certainly had trouble seeing how they are that strongly connected to the plot conflicts and themes.  Certainly, Merrill was a mage (a rather bloody one at that), and Fenris was an anti-mage (an enraged anti-mage), but that doesn't make them necessarily connected, nor do they really affect the outcome of the story either.  Even Hawke has a tough time playing a significant role in the story.  He (she) seems like the middle ground guy (girl) who just slays monsters, mages, and templars.  Whatever you do, the outcome remains exactly the same and neither the Templars nor the Mages are moved by whatever else this champion says.  It's kind of hard to see what motivation backs up his or her role as a champion either.  Events seem to just happen around the PC like the local newspaper, which doesn't offer a lot of support when games are meant to engage the player.

D) Sidequests are divorced from the plot. This goes for the main four midgame quests (which is DAO's saving grace) and the terrible side quests that seem out of place. Lets take a look at Biowares past games and their midgames. KOTOR, while looking for Star Maps, you have to deal with the main plot elements such as the Sith and their allies such as that slaver corp on the Wookie world. Malak sends you not one but two men after you and between the third and fourth planet there is a huge main plot mission. Mass Effect...Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire all deal with Saren, the Geth, and his allies. While each place has their own stories, they are intergrated well with the main plot. Now DAO....the only connection the midgame has to the main plot is some plot coupons given for an alliance, a few darkspawn and  abroodmother more connected to the side plot than th emain one, and one assasin hire from Loghain. The side plots simply overpower the main plot, causing DAO to lose all focus. In DAII's sideplots, while they seem disconnected from the main story at first, eventually connect themselves to the main plot. And for side quests, a great RPG will have sidequests either A) deal with the main plot or deal with the narrative themes of the game. Look at Jade Empire, the quests were not random, almost all deal with a break in the natural or social order, just like the main story itself. The Witcher does this well, DX; HR does this well, but DAO does not. They are just random quests and boring ones to boot. DAII however, most of its sidequests deal in both the main plot OR the main narrative themes and conflicts of the game. They are not random. This is a huge aspect that seperates the well written RPGs (Fallout New Vegas) from the poor or mediocre written ones (like Fallout 3).

Some quests in DA:O are, yes, and I won't argue the point that a lot of the sub-plots are tied together based on alliances and such.  Kind of like the whole "build the team and save the world" in Mass Effect concept.  DA:O did not have the perfect plot, and I can agree with you on that.  I too found the side plots overpowering the main plot.

What I don't agree with is how DA2's sideplots connect to the main story.  I can maybe see faint traces of connection, but they don't tie in very well.  And oh, can those quests be random.  I don't consider saving a mining company from monsters, slaughtering bandits repeatedly around the ally, a high dragon appearing out of no where, and returning x item to y individual who you don't even know to exactly be in any way coherent to the main story.  Building upon principle characters like Meredith at so late in the game, making the Kunari disappear, or having the family just die off suddenly isn't  that helpful either.

There are plenty more, but these are the main four problems with DAO....many which are addressed in DAII. Going back to Origins is taking a step back. What Bioware really needs to do is tell an entirely different story, different from DAO, different from DAII, and hell, different from any other Bioware game. Heavily cliched and recycled stories and characters shows flaws in wirting talent, simply put. Instead of making your work look good, it just makes the works you ripped of from look better.

Cliches can be worn, but when one tells a story, it has to make sense and flow either way.  I value creativity, but there is plenty of ways to botch a story if one is not careful.  The framed narrative in DA2, for instance, really didn't accomplish anything in my opinion.  They could have told the story from point A to B without Varric's intervention and I would still get the same impression out of it than with his storytelling.  I enjoyed DA:O a lot more, and even though the story was cliched, the game felt much more coherent to me.  

The new DLC is a very bad sign.....it looks like Bioware is back to recycling their plots and characters. Look its Kasumi: Stolen Memory II....or Tallis: Recycled Memory.

Indeed. 

[txgoldrush]

MingWolf wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Whine all you want about DAII's storytelling but DAO's has SIGNIFICANT flaws that I DO NOT want to see back in DAIII.

A) The entire storyline is very generic and cliched. Truly, there is nothing remotely original about the story, it is basically a typical story in too many uninspired RPGs. While Biowares other games do have their cliches, at least the plot as a whole or the world has some originality. DAO lacks this. It is a by the nubers story and extremely predictable, not to mention the typical human bad guy being a huge idiot and why we even have the story in the first place.

A) As said, wrong forum, but I see where this is going and what your trying to do.  So I shall naturally feel inclined to argue.  Don't take this personally.  While I strongly argue against some of your points, I do agree with some of the others as well. 

I agree that DA:O had a generic and cliched plot.  At least the main one.  However, the stories that made up each chapter, such as the political dwarves, the sacred ashes, the werewolves and the elves,venturing in the fade, and heck, even the characters, made the game interesting.  If you think DA2 improved on this, I will disagree.  DA2 brought together a disjointed plot that had little to no connection between each subplot.  There was little to learn in DA2, little to discover, little to explore.  In fact, some of th e mini subplots conflicted with each other so much that it actually ruined what is left of the story.  Sorry, but I'd rather take generic and cliched over inconsistent, incoherent, and broken.

Recycled plot and characters. DAO fans must admit that the games plot and the party characters are recycled from past games. There is no doubt about this. Lets see Jedi, Spirit Monks, Specters, and Grey Wardens....tell me DAO is no different...lol. Same four midgame major quest format where you collect plot coupons for the finale. DAO easily follows the formula of every other Bioware game. This extends to their characters which strongly are recycled from past Bioware characters. Its entirely to obvious, every character is the same "Bioware archtype" revisited. There is less of this in DAII, in which only Sebastian (which is done intentionally even featuring the specific character he "copies" in his quest) and Merill (who is a Tali and ME1 Liara mix) feel like typical Bioware characters. Characters like Bethany, Varric, and new Anders break Bioware mold. Not to mention the plot of DAII is very unique for a WRPG. Before DAII, Bioware was becoming like the final Fantasy teams, who recycle their plots and characters over and over.

Hmm.  First off, breaking the mold doesn't necessarily constitute an improvement, and you hardly explained how the characters in DA:O were achetypical from past games.  I can possibly see characters like Ogren being your typical fighter dwarf, but the rest of the fare didn't seem so archetypical to me. 

In DA2, you have characters who's motivations are grounded primarily by their obsession with something.  For example: Fenris and his hatred in mages.  Merill and her obsession with blood magic.  Isabela, and her roguish demeanor and obsession with sex.  Anders and his obsession with the mage vs. templar conflict.  Sabastian and his obsession with revenge. 

Bethany and Varric were unique in their own ways.  Sadly, the former had almost little involvement in the plot and dies either from the very beginning or suddenly dies an act there after.  So, only Varric is left.  Unfortunately, his character beyond being the narrator doesn't really strike me as influential through the rest of the game. 

C) Charcters are divorced from the plot (excluding Alistair and partially Morrigan, as well as Loghain). This makes the characters more window dressing than plot participants. The characters simply do not matter in the plot, either mechanically or even thematically. In my RPG experience, RPGs both Western and Japanese, either A) have them all or nearly all play a role in the story or a significant number do while other don't (and most of these games have large casts). Leliena, my fave DAO character, does not have to be even recruited and DAO's plot doesn't change, thats how insignificant she is. Oghren and Wynne are subplot players nothing more. Zervan is introduced by plot event and then he doesn't matter. And Morrigan can easily be written out of the story with very little alteration. Only Alistair plays a role in the plot. DAII is a HUGE step forward, its too bad fanboys are too blinded to see this. Most of DAII cast plays significant roles in the plot (Varric, sibling, Aveline, Isabela, and Anders as well as in the end Sebastian) while the others like Fenris and Merrill are strongly connected to the plots conflicts and themes.

C) Hmm, well if the blight didn't affect just about everyone, I might just agree.  But maybe there is something you just didn't see in DA:O whereas most others did.  Or maybe you've never actually played the game?  Personally I'd like to see registered DA:O icons beneath your avatar to take such bold statements seriously.  How is Wynne just a subplot character?  She was there at Ostagar, and the blight affects the mages just as much as she, who was dying from "borrowed time" anyways.  While it's true that the omission of some characters, like Leliana, had no bearing on the plot, you had to look at the perspective of how the plot affects everyone, from the politics to the motivations of each individual to see how neatly some of the characters fit in the story.  The companions are supporting characters who add to the story.  You are the central foci, as it was meant to be. 

DA2 a step forward?  Again, I disagree.  Certainly, a lot of the NPC characters triggered something that triggered something else in the plot or subplots (i.e., Anders conducting terrorism, Isabela stealing something, sibling uh... dying), but that seemed to be as far as it went.  Please explain the role of Fenris and Merrill for me, if you please?  I certainly had trouble seeing how they are that strongly connected to the plot conflicts and themes.  Certainly, Merrill was a mage (a rather bloody one at that), and Fenris was an anti-mage (an enraged anti-mage), but that doesn't make them necessarily connected, nor do they really affect the outcome of the story either.  Even Hawke has a tough time playing a significant role in the story.  He (she) seems like the middle ground guy (girl) who just slays monsters, mages, and templars.  Whatever you do, the outcome remains exactly the same and neither the Templars nor the Mages are moved by whatever else this champion says.  It's kind of hard to see what motivation backs up his or her role as a champion either.  Events seem to just happen around the PC like the local newspaper, which doesn't offer a lot of support when games are meant to engage the player.

D) Sidequests are divorced from the plot. This goes for the main four midgame quests (which is DAO's saving grace) and the terrible side quests that seem out of place. Lets take a look at Biowares past games and their midgames. KOTOR, while looking for Star Maps, you have to deal with the main plot elements such as the Sith and their allies such as that slaver corp on the Wookie world. Malak sends you not one but two men after you and between the third and fourth planet there is a huge main plot mission. Mass Effect...Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire all deal with Saren, the Geth, and his allies. While each place has their own stories, they are intergrated well with the main plot. Now DAO....the only connection the midgame has to the main plot is some plot coupons given for an alliance, a few darkspawn and  abroodmother more connected to the side plot than th emain one, and one assasin hire from Loghain. The side plots simply overpower the main plot, causing DAO to lose all focus. In DAII's sideplots, while they seem disconnected from the main story at first, eventually connect themselves to the main plot. And for side quests, a great RPG will have sidequests either A) deal with the main plot or deal with the narrative themes of the game. Look at Jade Empire, the quests were not random, almost all deal with a break in the natural or social order, just like the main story itself. The Witcher does this well, DX; HR does this well, but DAO does not. They are just random quests and boring ones to boot. DAII however, most of its sidequests deal in both the main plot OR the main narrative themes and conflicts of the game. They are not random. This is a huge aspect that seperates the well written RPGs (Fallout New Vegas) from the poor or mediocre written ones (like Fallout 3).

D) Some quests in DA:O are, yes, and I won't argue the point that a lot of the sub-plots are tied together based on alliances and such.  Kind of like the whole "build the team and save the world" in Mass Effect concept.  DA:O did not have the perfect plot, and I can agree with you on that.  I too found the side plots overpowering the main plot.

What I don't agree with is how DA2's sideplots connect to the main story.  I can maybe see faint traces of connection, but they don't tie in very well.  And oh, can those quests be random.  I don't consider saving a mining company from monsters, slaughtering bandits repeatedly around the ally, a high dragon appearing out of no where, and returning x item to y individual who you don't even know to exactly be in any way coherent to the main story.  Building upon principle characters like Meredith at so late in the game, making the Kunari disappear, or having the family just die off suddenly isn't  that helpful either.

There are plenty more, but these are the main four problems with DAO....many which are addressed in DAII. Going back to Origins is taking a step back. What Bioware really needs to do is tell an entirely different story, different from DAO, different from DAII, and hell, different from any other Bioware game. Heavily cliched and recycled stories and characters shows flaws in wirting talent, simply put. Instead of making your work look good, it just makes the works you ripped of from look better.

E) Cliches can be worn, but when one tells a story, it has to make sense and flow either way.  I value creativity, but there is plenty of ways to botch a story if one is not careful.  The framed narrative in DA2, for instance, really didn't accomplish anything in my opinion.  They could have told the story from point A to B without Varric's intervention and I would still get the same impression out of it than with his storytelling.  I enjoyed DA:O a lot more, and even though the story was cliched, the game felt much more coherent to me.  

The new DLC is a very bad sign.....it looks like Bioware is back to recycling their plots and characters. Look its Kasumi: Stolen Memory II....or Tallis: Recycled Memory.

Indeed. 

A) Absolutely wrong

The DAII subplots DO connect. Yes, in Act I, they are kind of disjointed, however, as soon as you get to Act's II and III, you find that these subplots are converging and interacting with eachother. Lets take Sheparding Wolves, where Patrice is trying to provoke the Qunari and The Unbridled Rescue, where the viscounts son is trying to learn the Qun from the Qunari. Now take Demands of the Qun in Act II...these plots intersect in the Chantry. The same can be said of "Best Seved Cold" in Act III which has "Act of Mercy", "Enemies Among Us" and "Wayward Son" characters. Nevermind the fact that Isabela's and Varric's companion quests in Act II deal with the plot. The plotlines start scattershot in Act I, but then they mostly converge and ones that don't are concluded properly.

Look at Alistair...he is the same typical male lead archtype that Carth and Kaiden were (and maybe Sky), A good aligned character and a top love interest for a female. Lets look at Leliana, a spiritually good aligned character, just like Bastila and Dawn Star...the only real difference is Leliana has a dark past. Oghren is the typical comic relief warrior, kind of like Black Whirlwind, but not as crazy. He is also way too much of a cliched dwarf. Zervan is HK47 as an elf, an assassin who loves his work. Wynne while a tad different (one of the more original members) can be compared to Jolee. Sten, he is you sterotypical Bioware silent warrior.

I am not knocking DAO characters for taking traditional archtypes, I am knocking them for recycling archtypes used by past Bioware characters. They are way too similiar to their past games.

Want to know why Wild Flower is one of my favorite Bioware characters? Well, she is very unique and sticks out, as is her story. Bioware needs more of these types of characters (not clones of Wild Flower obviously, but Biowrae needs to write characters from archtypes they haven't done).

DAII has a darker cast and a more grey one. While DAO can consist of good characters, nuetral ones, and the more evil ones, DAII's characters outside of Bethany and Sebastian are pretty neutral aligned (even Aveline can be). They all have their struggles and their weaknesses. They are a more compelling cast and the friendship and rivalry system opens up new ways for them to develop.

C) And Wynne other than backstory, doesn't matter in the plot after she is recruited. Its really upsetting to see my fave character in the entire Dragon Age universe, Leliana, not matter in the plot and can be left and forgotten. Most RPGs have their characters participate in the plot. Yes, the Blight affects everyone, but it should be shown, not just infered.

Fenris and Merrill have thematic roles, while they have little to do with the plot they make up for it in theme. Fenris is an example on how unrestriced magic and a society made up of it can affect someones life, and Merill highlights the dangers of blood magic, a point of conflict between mages and templars. Hawke is an observer protagonist which is okay....its different and unique in the WRPG genre. Far too many WRPG protagonists are too powerful, which there choices are the only ones that affect the plot or the environment. Look at New Vegas's Courier, he or she decides everything. WRPGs need more down to earth and less powerful protagonists, while making their choices more impacting on a personal level.

Look at games like Jade Empire and KOTOR II...in KOTOR II, the characters play a huge role in the plot, especially the restored version, even though the Exile is the central figure, almost every character in that game is part of the plot. Look at Nar'Shadda. Hell, they are even playable without the protagonist, even Bao-Dur's droid. Sometimes this can lead to problems, like Atton Rand having to fight those two assassin Twelik's, but from a plot perspective, this makes it better. Hell, in the restored version, HK47's decision means just as much as the Exile's, which is realistic (and the restored content is made offical Star Wars canon).

D) The DAII quests are not really random, they are thematically connected if they aren't mechanically connected. Except for the idiotic return items to owner quests which aren't really quests, almost all the quests deal in human weaknesses making situations worse. The mine quest is one of them, the owners obsession over profit gets his workers killed and him left with nothing. If the side quests do not connect mechanically with the plot, they should do so thematically. The returning item quests are noteworthy because they are not only stupid, they are out of place. But almost all quests, main, side, secondary, and companion, are about weaknesses of humanity making things worse. This fits the entire theme of the game that one person is not responsible for a social faliure, such as an outbreak of war. It takes many people.

E) If you lose the frame story, DAII then does become unfocused. You see, the outside frame, with Cassandra and Varric, defines the main narrative theme of the game. Notice how at first Cassandra is blaming the war solely on Hawke, but once she hears Varrics tale she begins to realize that Hawke is not solely responsible, but he or she could stop the war. Cassandra then looks for him/her with new eyes and a new goal. The frame story also makes the time gaps way more justifiable. Without the frame, then the time jumps do become far more jarring.

The only part of DAII that was unfocused was Act I, the game takes far too long in exposition mode.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:30 .

[txgoldrush]

Lentie wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DAO, is just like almost every video game in the past where you are the hero and you have to stop the ancient evil. DAO is in common with thousands of RPGs that have the same plot, DAII isn't.

The originality of DAO is its origins, multiple starting.
I don't know many games that did this.

And i like to be a hero and save the world.

Sieken Densetsu 3 (sequel to Secret of Mana) did this and did it far better.

[Zanallen]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sieken Densetsu 3 (sequel to Secret of Mana) did this and did it far better.

So did SaGa Frontier. Also all of the Wild Arms games follow a similar idea where you play origins for each of the principle protagonists until they eventually meet up and the real game begins.

[txgoldrush]

Chewin3 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
A) The entire storyline is very generic and cliched. Truly, there is nothing remotely original about the story, it is basically a typical story in too many uninspired RPGs. While Biowares other games do have their cliches, at least the plot as a whole or the world has some originality. DAO lacks this. It is a by the nubers story and extremely predictable, not to mention the typical human bad guy being a huge idiot and why we even have the story in the first place.

Loghain is not a 'typical human bad guy' nor is he a huge idiot.

You've clearly missed a lot when it comes to Loghain and his role in DA:O.

No I didn't.....Loghain is poorly written.

Why would anyone who is trying to seek power pursue an action that would clearly weaken him as well. The whole Ostagar thing is bad writing. If he feared Orlesian take over, it would have made far better sense for him to hire Crows to kill Cailin. But, no, lets betray him to a powerful force that will destroy everything they touch....yeah, weakening his army to fight said threat. Its very illogical and forced. At least force a situation where Cailin is killed but not the army. This is when a games need to be epic overpowers the games need to be logical. Hell, Meredith is more logical than Loghian was.

Loghain is laughable compared to advesaries such as Jon Irenicus, Darth Malak, Master Li, and Saren. Saren had a "good reason" for what he is doing plus the indoctrination makes him believable.

[Joy Divison]

^^^ You have no clue about Loghain, do you?

[TEWR]

True. But my Dwarf Noble's son might follow Bhelen... you know if Bhelen doesn't kill him first. I wish there was a way to enforce a nice "Don't kill my son!" When he adopts him.

Yea I can see Bhelen being a douche like that.

I hate how if I want to even have a chance at the throne, I have to not only put Harrowmont on the throne but destroy the Anvil. That does not fit into Xanthos Aeducan's plans. The Anvil must survive!

Bioware really should've let the Dwarf Nobles become king/queen of Orzammar, because that would've been something that the Origin story affected after the origin story was over.

[DarkDragon777]

txgoldrush wrote...



No I didn't.....Loghain is poorly written.

Really? He's hardly poorly written. As a matter of fact, he's one of the most complex characters in the game.

[Chewin]

@txgoldrush

Er, no he is still not poorly written.

And as for Ostagar (which is not poorly written either), there's a reason to why Loghain did what he did. You might remember that Loghain was always fighting Orlais, and never considered the darkspawn attacks more then a very large raid. No way that would he risk the strength of his army, in a battle against an opponent that proved stronger then expected, when the real threat was an army of chevaliers at his doorstep. He was certain that inviting the forces of Orlais would result in another war, as fighting the darkspawn would weaken Fereldens forces, and by then the enemy would already be in the country – and he’d be back fighting for freedom again – thanks to the foolish king.

I’m not saying that the outcome was the best when Loghain chose to withdraw from Ostagar, but I do understand why he did so. It was, at best, a battle that would weaken him enough that he’d never be able to fend of the real threat: Orlais. And what use would defeating the darkspawn raid (as he never believed it to be a Blight) have if they would be conquered by the Orlesians again? So he retreated, and went on to expel the Orlesians before they crossed the border – securing his country from the real threat, at least in his mind. And as he must have expected that he might have to withdrawn, he had made preparations to ensure that the possible civil war would be as brief as possible – that way he could get back to the task of dealing with the darkspawn raid before they did too much damage.

And as Loghain said himself about Cailan's death, it was his own doing. Cailan was a naive king that wanted to play war and save the world just like in the old tales he had read of. This lead to him trusting too much on the Wardens which lead to his own death. Loghain even insisted that Cailan shouldn't be on the front lines with them, though he wouldn't listen. And the minute Cailan made his strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day, Loghain knew how it would end for Cailan. Though IMO, Loghain still wasn't certain that he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Whether his belief that this couldn't happen was the truth or just his twisted perception of it is something you can decide for yourself.

Oh, and I might also add that Loghain once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom during Ostagar.

"So Loghain was prepared to ditch Cailan but didn't necessarily want to? What as he then hoping to accomplish?" you might ask me. I think Loghain was hoping that Cailan would see reason. He didn't expect him to, but was hoping he would.

Modifié par Chewin3, 01 octobre 2011 - 09:59 .

[tmp7704]

txgoldrush wrote...

C) Charcters are divorced from the plot (..) Leliena, my fave DAO character, does not have to be even recruited and DAO's plot doesn't change, thats how insignificant she is.

I haven't recruited Fenris in my DA2 playthrough, to similar effect.

I think it's actually more of a strength than a drawback -- as the individual characters become significant as result of player-controlled emergent narrative instead of being just forced onto you by the script whether you like it or not. I.e. for example Leliana may have a part in defeating the archdemon because you chose to take her with you and make her the part of final team.

[txgoldrush]

Chewin3 wrote...

@txgoldrush

Er, no he is still not poorly written.

And as for Ostagar (which is not poorly written either), there's a reason to why Loghain did what he did. You might remember that Loghain was always fighting Orlais, and never considered the darkspawn attacks more then a very large raid. No way that would he risk the strength of his army, in a battle against an opponent that proved stronger then expected, when the real threat was an army of chevaliers at his doorstep. He was certain that inviting the forces of Orlais would result in another war, as fighting the darkspawn would weaken Fereldens forces, and by then the enemy would already be in the country – and he’d be back fighting for freedom again – thanks to the foolish king.

I’m not saying that the outcome was the best when Loghain chose to withdraw from Ostagar, but I do understand why he did so. It was, at best, a battle that would weaken him enough that he’d never be able to fend of the real threat: Orlais. And what use would defeating the darkspawn raid (as he never believed it to be a Blight) have if they would be conquered by the Orlesians again? So he retreated, and went on to expel the Orlesians before they crossed the border – securing his country from the real threat, at least in his mind. And as he must have expected that he might have to withdrawn, he had made preparations to ensure that the possible civil war would be as brief as possible – that way he could get back to the task of dealing with the darkspawn raid before they did too much damage.

And as Loghain said himself about Cailan's death, it was his own doing. Cailan was a naive king that wanted to play war and save the world just like in the old tales he had read of. This lead to him trusting too much on the Wardens which lead to his own death. Loghain even insisted that Cailan shouldn't be on the front lines with them, though he wouldn't listen. And the minute Cailan made his strategy clear: rely on the Grey Wardens to win the day, Loghain knew how it would end for Cailan. Though IMO, Loghain still wasn't certain that he would walk away -- and if he thought that riding into the valley could have won the battle, he probably would have done so. Whether his belief that this couldn't happen was the truth or just his twisted perception of it is something you can decide for yourself.

Oh, and I might also add that Loghain once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom during Ostagar.

"So Loghain was prepared to ditch Cailan but didn't necessarily want to? What as he then hoping to accomplish?" you might ask me. I think Loghain was hoping that Cailan would see reason. He didn't expect him to, but was hoping he would.

And yet, he sacrifices a good portion of his army to do this, weakening not only his position against the Darkspawn, but his position against Orlais as well. Not all "complex" characters are well written. One illogical flaw can throw off a character completely. See Orsino.

Now if Calin WASN'T betrayed and Fereldan wins a delaying battle, but Cailin was killed for his naivity, but Loghain ignores a larger more pressing horde as a man in power before its too late, than Loghain would have worked.

[txgoldrush]

tmp7704 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

C) Charcters are divorced from the plot (..) Leliena, my fave DAO character, does not have to be even recruited and DAO's plot doesn't change, thats how insignificant she is.

I haven't recruited Fenris in my DA2 playthrough, to similar effect.

I think it's actually more of a strength than a drawback -- as the individual characters become significant as result of player-controlled emergent narrative instead of being just forced onto you by the script whether you like it or not. I.e. for example Leliana may have a part in defeating the archdemon because you chose to take her with you and make her the part of final team.

And Fenris is the only character to not play a role in the main plot at all.

And once again, role playing is not defined, a character does not need you to be significant. In fact, a character can have their own agenda despite you and I love how Anders played his role in the story of DAII. Also, in DAII, better than any other Bioware game, characters develop relationships with eachother that doesn't include you....see Aveline and Isabela. Characters becoming a slave to the protagonist is also bad, where the only way they develop through the PC's interaction.

Here is what KOTOR II, especially when restored did well. The character interactions with the PC helped developed the character some (despite the busted influence system), however, characters also developed on their own (and at many times, they become the PC...see Mira's final due with Hanharr, or HK47 at the Drod Factory which helps influence the ending).

Characters can and should develop independant of the protagonist as well.

[Kaiser Shepard]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

my Dwarf Noble couldn't become king of Orzammar. That's my primary gripe with DAO's story. That's the biggest flaw for me.

This, but for my Human Noble without a certain other character. Looking at DAO with all its DLC, it's a certain Origins ending being made non-canon.

Also, what is it with people in the Dragon Age sections always creating story complaint topics in the no-spoiler sections?

[Chewin]

txgoldrush wrote...
And yet, he sacrifices a good portion of his army to do this, weakening not only his position against the Darkspawn, but his position against Orlais as well.

For sacrifing the people at Ostagar, you do remember that most of them were Grey Wardens? And I hope you do know that he did not trust them, especially when most of the men were from Orlais. yeah, I don't really judge his decision b/c of his experiences with them in 'The Calling'. The book is about what led up to King Maric allowing the Wardens back in to Ferelden. So long story short, Maric goes off with some Wardens on a rescue mission without telling Loghain. In the meantime there is an attempt by Orlesians, in cooperation with the Architect to take over Ferelden's Circle Tower and eventually Ferelden I guess (I should explain, this wasn't the Orlesian government, it was the Orlesian First Enchanter of Ferelden's tower, some Orlesian troops, and a couple Wardens- the Architect had a plan to taint all humanity in order to stop the cycle of Blights). Loghain shows up with troops to repel this plot and rescue Maric. So he does have more reason than most to mistrust Wardens.

And as for sacrifing the "none wardens" during Ostagar, this (and little of why he didn't rescue Cailan) can mostly be explained in the party banter between him and Wynne:

Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.

Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!

Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.

Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!

Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried, regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes of the Circle.

Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.

Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.

Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

Modifié par Chewin3, 01 octobre 2011 - 10:37 .

[TEWR]

For sacrifing the people at Ostagar, you do remember that most of them were Grey Wardens? And I hope you do know that he did not trust them, especially when most of the men were from Orlais. yeah, I don't really judge his decision b/c of his experiences with them in 'The Calling'. The book is about what led up to King Maric allowing the Wardens back in to Ferelden. So long story short, Maric goes off with some Wardens on a rescue mission without telling Loghain. In the meantime there is an attempt by Orlesians, in cooperation with the Architect to take over Ferelden's Circle Tower and eventually Ferelden I guess (I should explain, this wasn't the Orlesian government, it was the Orlesian First Enchanter of Ferelden's tower, some Orlesian troops, and a couple Wardens- the Architect had a plan to taint all humanity in order to stop the cycle of Blights). Loghain shows up with troops to repel this plot and rescue Maric. So he does have more reason than most to mistrust Wardens.

And as for sacrifing the "none wardens" during Ostagar, this (and little of why he didn't rescue Cailan) can mostly be explained in the party banter between him and Wynne:

There actually weren't many Wardens in the army at Ostagar. There were only a handful of Grey Wardens in the army, as Duncan said. I'd hazard a guess that the actual number was between 24-40. That's hardly enough to say that the Wardens were most of the army.

[TEWR]

This, but for my Human Noble without a certain other character. Looking at DAO with all its DLC, it's a certain Origins ending being made non-canon.

Also, what is it with people in the Dragon Age sections always creating story complaint topics in the no-spoiler sections?

I guess because it doesn't get enough notice in the spoilers section. The spoilers section is generally devoted to speculations that occasionally devolves into a discussion on mages and Templars.

[Chewin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
There actually weren't many Wardens in the army at Ostagar. There were only a handful of Grey Wardens in the army, as Duncan said. I'd hazard a guess that the actual number was between 24-40. That's hardly enough to say that the Wardens were most of the army.

More than enough threat to Loghain, considering their proficiency on the battlefield and their political privileges during the events of a blight.

Modifié par Chewin3, 01 octobre 2011 - 11:00 .

[txgoldrush]

Chewin3 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And yet, he sacrifices a good portion of his army to do this, weakening not only his position against the Darkspawn, but his position against Orlais as well.

For sacrifing the people at Ostagar, you do remember that most of them were Grey Wardens? And I hope you do know that he did not trust them, especially when most of the men were from Orlais. yeah, I don't really judge his decision b/c of his experiences with them in 'The Calling'. The book is about what led up to King Maric allowing the Wardens back in to Ferelden. So long story short, Maric goes off with some Wardens on a rescue mission without telling Loghain. In the meantime there is an attempt by Orlesians, in cooperation with the Architect to take over Ferelden's Circle Tower and eventually Ferelden I guess (I should explain, this wasn't the Orlesian government, it was the Orlesian First Enchanter of Ferelden's tower, some Orlesian troops, and a couple Wardens- the Architect had a plan to taint all humanity in order to stop the cycle of Blights). Loghain shows up with troops to repel this plot and rescue Maric. So he does have more reason than most to mistrust Wardens.

And as for sacrifing the "none wardens" during Ostagar, this (and little of why he didn't rescue Cailan) can mostly be explained in the party banter between him and Wynne:

Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.

Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!

Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.

Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!

Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried, regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes of the Circle.

Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.

Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.

Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

And the Callings backstory should be in DAO, it wasn't. In DAO, the Orlesian "threat" isn't developed enough. You should not need side stories and prequel novels to improve on main game plots.

Plus it doesn't take away the fact that by sacrificing many of his soliders, that he weakened his position. Every schemer needs to keep his tools to get the job done. And even a moron knows that a force that kills everything in sight is a bigger threat than a kingdom who wants to dominate everything.

Take the Deus Ex universe....the novel Icarus Effect shouldn't excuse both Human Revolution and the original game (for Grunther Hermann) for having shallow characters in the Tyrants. In DXHR, the Tyrants were very shallow advesaries whose only real depth was that they were emplyed to stop you. In Icarus Effect, they are fleshed out. Despite the novel fleshing them out, their appareances in HR are hurt by the game not presenting the depth they had. So I didn't care if they lived or died, they were just another boss fight.

[Zubie]

GodWood wrote...

Call me weird but I'll pick a well executed 'unoriginal' story over a crappy, poorly executed 'original' story any day.

[Chewin]

txgoldrush wrote...
And the Callings backstory should be in DAO, it wasn't. In DAO, the Orlesian "threat" isn't developed enough. You should not need side stories and prequel novels to improve on main game plots.

No need to read the novels. There are lots of codex entries to fill the gaps if you bothered to read them.

Plus it doesn't take away the fact that by sacrificing many of his soliders, that he weakened his position. Every schemer needs to keep his tools to get the job done.

Would have wanted Loghian to attack the darkspawn instead? That would have lead to everyone dying. There was no way to defeat the battle at Ostagar.

And even a moron knows that a force that kills everything in sight is a bigger threat than a kingdom who wants to dominate everything.

And you seem to forget that Loghain never believed a blight was going on in the first place. And that's not of stupidness, but of stubbornness.

Modifié par Chewin3, 01 octobre 2011 - 11:10 .

[MingWolf]

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...

A) Absolutely wrong

The DAII subplots DO connect. Yes, in Act I, they are kind of disjointed, however, as soon as you get to Act's II and III, you find that these subplots are converging and interacting with eachother. Lets take Sheparding Wolves, where Patrice is trying to provoke the Qunari and The Unbridled Rescue, where the viscounts son is trying to learn the Qun from the Qunari. Now take Demands of the Qun in Act II...these plots intersect in the Chantry. The same can be said of "Best Seved Cold" in Act III which has "Act of Mercy", "Enemies Among Us" and "Wayward Son" characters. Nevermind the fact that Isabela's and Varric's companion quests in Act II deal with the plot. The plotlines start scattershot in Act I, but then they mostly converge and ones that don't are concluded properly.

[/quote]

An apple may be related to an orange because they are both fruit, but just because they are both fruit doesn't mean that they are necessarily related.  This is the problem with DA2: It talks about one story, and then it talks about something else, and the only thing linking the two is some mildly related thing that references the chantry, the mages, or the templars (though I'm not necessarily sure how a high dragon invading your mining company has to do with anything).  I don't care if they intersect or not.  I just care whether or not they make sense or if the motives of the characters are all that justifiable.  The Qunari presence was a pretty strong landmark in Act II.  Too bad they all but disappeared by Act III.  There is a bit of disjointment right there. 

Hawke's family is another thing off the top of my head that had almost nothing to do with the overall direction in the game. 
[/quote]

[quote]
Look at Alistair...he is the same typical male lead archtype that Carth and Kaiden were (and maybe Sky), A good aligned character and a top love interest for a female. Lets look at Leliana, a spiritually good aligned character, just like Bastila and Dawn Star...the only real difference is Leliana has a dark past. Oghren is the typical comic relief warrior, kind of like Black Whirlwind, but not as crazy. He is also way too much of a cliched dwarf. Zervan is HK47 as an elf, an assassin who loves his work. Wynne while a tad different (one of the more original members) can be compared to Jolee. Sten, he is you sterotypical Bioware silent warrior.

I am not knocking DAO characters for taking traditional archtypes, I am knocking them for recycling archtypes used by past Bioware characters. They are way too similiar to their past games.

Want to know why Wild Flower is one of my favorite Bioware characters? Well, she is very unique and sticks out, as is her story. Bioware needs more of these types of characters (not clones of Wild Flower obviously, but Biowrae needs to write characters from archtypes they haven't done).

DAII has a darker cast and a more grey one. While DAO can consist of good characters, nuetral ones, and the more evil ones, DAII's characters outside of Bethany and Sebastian are pretty neutral aligned (even Aveline can be). They all have their struggles and their weaknesses. They are a more compelling cast and the friendship and rivalry system opens up new ways for them to develop.
[/quote]

While I do carry a copy of KOTOR and Jade Empire, I haven't bothered to finish either game to comment.  Even if they are recycled archetypes though, what makes them so bad?  Because your tired of them?  Their roles, their history, their personalities were all fleshed out in DA:O.  I could hardly say the same about DA2, where your companions are motivated only by strong feelings for one thing or another.  They represent dichotomies.  Have a mage hating elf.  You have an elf who is obsessed with blood magic.  You have a fighter who is just that... a fighter.  You have an antagonizing grey warden who hates templars, and you have a couple rogues on the parade who are of course as rebellious as ever.  They may be unique, but that doesn't make them strong characters.

[quote]

C) And Wynne other than backstory, doesn't matter in the plot after she is recruited. Its really upsetting to see my fave character in the entire Dragon Age universe, Leliana, not matter in the plot and can be left and forgotten. Most RPGs have their characters participate in the plot. Yes, the Blight affects everyone, but it should be shown, not just infered.

Fenris and Merrill have thematic roles, while they have little to do with the plot they make up for it in theme. Fenris is an example on how unrestriced magic and a society made up of it can affect someones life, and Merill highlights the dangers of blood magic, a point of conflict between mages and templars. Hawke is an observer protagonist which is okay....its different and unique in the WRPG genre. Far too many WRPG protagonists are too powerful, which there choices are the only ones that affect the plot or the environment. Look at New Vegas's Courier, he or she decides everything. WRPGs need more down to earth and less powerful protagonists, while making their choices more impacting on a personal level.

Look at games like Jade Empire and KOTOR II...in KOTOR II, the characters play a huge role in the plot, especially the restored version, even though the Exile is the central figure, almost every character in that game is part of the plot. Look at Nar'Shadda. Hell, they are even playable without the protagonist, even Bao-Dur's droid. Sometimes this can lead to problems, like Atton Rand having to fight those two assassin Twelik's, but from a plot perspective, this makes it better. Hell, in the restored version, HK47's decision means just as much as the Exile's, which is realistic (and the restored content is made offical Star Wars canon).
[/quote]

First, DA:O characters do participate in the plot.  They don't directly influence the outcome (at least some of them), but they are there for good reason.  They have a purpose because the protagonist, the Grey Warden, has a purpose.  They are out to stop the blight, and each having a different motivation to do so. 

Second, thematic roles alone don't exactly make strong characters.  It's how they tie into the context of the story that matters.  Except for Anders, who more or less forced the plot, they don't really fit otherwise except bearing different colors for each deliniated team. 

Third, different doesn't mean better.  And really, how much influence do those characters you mentioned in DA2 really have on the plot?  I can think of one even for Isabella (stealing from our horned friends), one event for Anders (terrorism), and that is pretty much it.  They don't exactly make a strong case.  Them participating in the affairs of Hawke really doesn't matter, being the "observer" as he is. 


[quote]
D) The DAII quests are not really random, they are thematically connected if they aren't mechanically connected. Except for the idiotic return items to owner quests which aren't really quests, almost all the quests deal in human weaknesses making situations worse. The mine quest is one of them, the owners obsession over profit gets his workers killed and him left with nothing. If the side quests do not connect mechanically with the plot, they should do so thematically. The returning item quests are noteworthy because they are not only stupid, they are out of place. But almost all quests, main, side, secondary, and companion, are about weaknesses of humanity making things worse. This fits the entire theme of the game that one person is not responsible for a social faliure, such as an outbreak of war. It takes many people.
[/quote]

Hmm.  Well sure if we can connect things together by going so deep into philosophical discussions about human weakness, we might as well say the quests are connected together because every character in the game has two legs, two arms, and a head.  You the gamer can interpret it anyway you want, and if your interpretation floats your boat, then good on you.  Personally, I find mere thematical connections to be weak.  It's like associating myself with hockey by simply wearing a jersey, even though I might not necessarily care that much for the sport. 


[quote]
E) If you lose the frame story, DAII then does become unfocused. You see, the outside frame, with Cassandra and Varric, defines the main narrative theme of the game. Notice how at first Cassandra is blaming the war solely on Hawke, but once she hears Varrics tale she begins to realize that Hawke is not solely responsible, but he or she could stop the war. Cassandra then looks for him/her with new eyes and a new goal. The frame story also makes the time gaps way more justifiable. Without the frame, then the time jumps do become far more jarring.

The only part of DAII that was unfocused was Act I, the game takes far too long in exposition mode.[/quote]

I disagree.  I think the story can be told perfectly fine without the framed narrative.  Cassandra had nothing to do with the entire narrative of the story; her entire purpose there was to know how it all happened.  You don't need a framed narrative to achieve this.  Plus, it would have made DA2 seem less like a cliff hanger, because it was evident by the end of the game that there was a plan in motion and that the chantry had a motive that remains untold.

The wide time skips were never really all that necessary either, considering how you don't see a whole lot changing from act to act.  It may have 'filled the gaps' with a few lines and sentences, but really, if the story could have been tied together more coherently, this wouldn't have been necessary.

[TEWR]

Would have wanted Loghian to attack the darkspawn instead? That would have lead to everyone dying. There was no way to defeat the battle at Ostagar.

I disagree. There was no way for Loghain's plan to work, but that doesn't mean Ostagar was unwinnable itself.

[Chewin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I disagree. There was no way for Loghain's plan to work, but that doesn't mean Ostagar was unwinnable itself.

I don't see how it would be considered winnable then.

Sure, there's no evidence proving any side, but still.

Modifié par Chewin3, 01 octobre 2011 - 11:25 .

[TEWR]

Chewin3 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I disagree. There was no way for Loghain's plan to work, but that doesn't mean Ostagar was unwinnable itself.

I don't see how it would be considered winnable then.

Sure, there's no evidence proving any side, but still.

A few things that come to mind need to happen:

• Most Harrowed Mages and the majority of Templars need to head towards Ostagar, instead of just the 7 Mages that went there. The fact that life before Uldred's coup was normal enough and after it went back to normal is enough to know that Ferelden's Circle would be fine on its own until the Blight was ended.
  
  
• The Tower of Ishal's lower floors should've been immediately sealed up and guarded instead of explored the night before the battle
  
  
• The Mages should rain down a fiery tempest apocalyptica down upon the Darkspawn from the high points of the fortress.
  
  
• more fortifications should've been built.
  
  
• The soldiers, some mages, and some Wardens should've stood guard around the Tower of Ishal and placed Ballistae at the entrance, as well as regular archers and crossbowmen so as to funnel the Darkspawn should they break through

those are just a few things that came to my mind, but they would've increased the chances of defeating the Blight. Probably not right away at that particular instance, but the Darkspawn would've been forced to retreat and more reinforcements would've come to help the battle. If you look at Loghain's army that retreated, it numbers in the tens of thousands because you can see in the far background that many, many soldiers are moving to the right of the screen.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 octobre 2011 - 11:44 .

[Chewin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
those are just a few things that came to my mind, but they would've increased the chances of defeating the Blight. Probably not right away at that particular instance, but the Darkspawn would've been forced to retreat and more reinforcements would've come to help the battle.

Maybe, maybe.

Since it's also hard to know how many darkspawn where attacking that night, it's hard to judge. But it sure did look many considering the scene you can see on top of the bridge in Ostagar.