267 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozearly]

AlexXIV wrote...

I actually felt pressure which annoyed me because the game didn't seem to feel it. I agree with you in this respect. Morrigan always states that it is a waste of time and ressources to help everyone who crosses our path instead of persueing our main objective, stopping the Blight. That's one weakness of RPGs in general, not just DA:O. Simply the main plot will always wait for you to finish all the side quests. It is basically RPG tradition. One I don't especially like much, but it seems there is no other way to do it, since you find it in every single RPG out there.

It is possible to avoid that, but its a sod.

The ME2 approach is one way to handle it. Another way is to make segments of the quest time-dependent (Fallout had a play with that). A very devious approach using the well-worn 'four places to go before the finale' Bioware angle would be to make the fourth place very different - on the basis its taken you well over a year to get there and start trying to deal with the problem - so the problem would now be a lot worse, and the situation very different.

Of course, that requires more development resource to achieve. Just like having more influence further down the line depending on whether your character is a rogue, mage, dwarven noble, etc.

[Reaverwind]

Herr Uhl wrote...

alex90c wrote...

how the f*ck does DA:O's story lack focus? It literally whacks you over the head repeatedly with STOP THE BLIGHT STOP THE BLIGHT STOP THE BLIGHT for crying out loud. We need to go the Circle Tower to recruit the mages, TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need Orzammar's assistance TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need the Dalish elves, TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need to bring Arl Eamon back to consciousness so we can use his men to help STOP THE BLIGHT. Sure, they all had their own self-contained stories in each section, but they all lead up to one main point, it being the whole "recruit allies then do final battle" thing Bioware like doing.

DA2 was just "ite lets get some gold from the Deep Roads" then "yo Qunari yo" then "oh yeah, I forgot Mages & Templars were the story, lets just slip that in now".

The threat of the blight is hidden past Ostagar. After that you're just fixing people's problems.

I don't think many felt any kind of pressure in terms of time spent or any looming threat (and blights are kind of supposed to be a big deal). That is bad writing.

Yes, Bioware has a very bad habit of ignoring the maxim of good writing, "Show, don't tell". Imo, it's much worse in DA2, where the severe gameplay story segregation utterly destroyed immersion.

[MingWolf]

txgoldrush wrote...

A) ...
DAO is more unfocused than DAII because it  goes more away from the prime movers of the story. It goes off on a tangent mid way through. DAII is really only unfocused in Act I, and instead of a lets get gold structure, could have used a more linear structure to get ready for the trip, while introducing the players that will play roles later in the plot.

I get what you are saying, I just don't get the parts that make DA2 so much more better than DA:O.  Yes, DA:O is guilty of going away from the prime mover, but it achieves an end.  I.e., the dwarves won't help you because they have a political crisis; the elves won't help you because they are having enough troubles as it is; Arl Eamon can't help you because he was poisoned by a tool of Loghain.  At least it transitions back to what was the foci of the game, which is the blight. 

And the theme is NOT my interpetation, it is clearly stated and implied in the game, its more obvious than many stories.

Show me.  Where?  I see how it can be implied, but I don't see where it is clearly stated. 

Doesn't mean you can get lazy and continue recycling the same plots over and over again. Once again, I do not have a problem using cliche in some areas, its the overuse of cliches.

Wonder why Planescape Torment is hailed to be one of if not the best written cRPG. Could originality and cliche subversions have to do with it? Yep. It uses some cliche like the amnesic protagonist, however, the entire plot and the goal of the game was really original.

DAO uses every cliche in the book, subverts nothing, and recycles past games.

So it does, I never said it didn't.  I even criticised DA:O for that myself.  But it was presented well, and the story(s) flowed, and hence why it was received so well.  The originality in DA2 didn't bring it any awards for best written cRPGs however, which is my point.  Originality can earn you points, but just because a work is original doesn't automatically make the work to be the next best thing.  PS:T was hailed for more than just it's originality I assure you.

C) And how are the "convientantly" placed. The siblings fate is huge for the player so its going to matter, Varric is obviously be the centerpiece for the story, there is foreshadowing that Anders is going to do something big, and Isabela's role with the Qunari was a well done plot twist. The only character that was really convientantly placed when it comes to the main story was Merrill in the first act, when reviving Flemeth.

Most stories are going to have characters OTHER than the protagonist and antagonist play roles in the plot. Even first person stories have this quality.

You know, if you can explain the siblings fate on how it fits into the overall context of the story, I might just give you a cookie.  Personally, I find it hard to really stretch that narrative much more than "they just died." 

And I wasn't arguing about the point about stories having other characters other than the protagonist.  That's a given, and you misunderstand me there as well.  But just because they act and do something that moves the plot doesn't mean it's appropriate, and in the case of DA2, I find the characters a little out of whack enough as it is.  Having them drive the story makes it even more whacked. 

D) And when can't stories have many plot elements that share the same theme? They can. In fact, Cormac McCarthy's book The Crossing has a similiar three act structure (with no frame story) in which it has several plot elements and different goals for the protagonist. However, the three stories, the three border crossings were all connected in the theme of the protagonist growing up and learning the harsh realities of the world, even though the protagonisthas a different goal in each act.

You are not getting it, you are not tying things together. And great stories do not always follow a conventional formula. In fact, DAII's influence, The Usual Suspects, won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

You misread me again here.  They can share the same theme, but even if they do, it doesn't imply that the story is great.  I don't care what works are inspired by or from DA2.  It's how the story is executed that matters, as I've said over and over again. 

E) If you drop the frame narrative, then you do not have someone blaming Hawke for everything, which goes WITH the theme.

No one (short of Cassandra and the chantry) really blamed Hawke for much in the story anyways.  He was the observer, remember?  He was the middle guy.  But even if they wanted to blame him for something, they didn't need a frame narrative to do so. 

Modifié par MingWolf, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:15 .

[seraphymon]

And the theme is NOT my interpetation, it is clearly stated and implied in the game, its more obvious than many stories

It is not nothing more than you interpretation on the theme. Even Biowaretold us the theme of the game or story before release. Yet even that was quite a lie. It really has no one theme, because of how disjointed the story is. Dont try and force your own opinion on us, but then again thats all your trying to do with these posts.

[Estherra Drack]

I always looked at writers doing narrative storytelling like I look at ESE teachers, it takes a special kind of teacher to teach the mentally handicapped as much as it takes a special kind of writer to get you into the narrative story. Now lets try to hold off on using narrative storytelling till Dragon Age 2 is forgotten.

[txgoldrush]

Reaverwind wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

alex90c wrote...

how the f*ck does DA:O's story lack focus? It literally whacks you over the head repeatedly with STOP THE BLIGHT STOP THE BLIGHT STOP THE BLIGHT for crying out loud. We need to go the Circle Tower to recruit the mages, TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need Orzammar's assistance TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need the Dalish elves, TO STOP THE BLIGHT. We need to bring Arl Eamon back to consciousness so we can use his men to help STOP THE BLIGHT. Sure, they all had their own self-contained stories in each section, but they all lead up to one main point, it being the whole "recruit allies then do final battle" thing Bioware like doing.

DA2 was just "ite lets get some gold from the Deep Roads" then "yo Qunari yo" then "oh yeah, I forgot Mages & Templars were the story, lets just slip that in now".

The threat of the blight is hidden past Ostagar. After that you're just fixing people's problems.

I don't think many felt any kind of pressure in terms of time spent or any looming threat (and blights are kind of supposed to be a big deal). That is bad writing.

Yes, Bioware has a very bad habit of ignoring the maxim of good writing, "Show, don't tell". Imo, it's much worse in DA2, where the severe gameplay story segregation utterly destroyed immersion.

Both games had bad gameplay story segeration (as MOST RPGs!!!!)...in fact DAO is worse in the "show, don't tell" especially when it comes to companions, where while DAO companions talk about their character development, DAII shows it through companion quests. They used ME2's strongest point for DAII, even giving each companion three quests instead of one or two.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
Both games had bad gameplay story segeration (as MOST RPGs!!!!)...in fact DAO is worse in the "show, don't tell" especially when it comes to companions, where while DAO companions talk about their character development, DAII shows it through companion quests. They used ME2's strongest point for DAII, even giving each companion three quests instead of one or two.

LOL. Sorry but I can't help it but feel amused. 

DA 2 tells companion A become a terrorist even your Hawke don't know anything about his plans.
DA 2 tells companion I does X and provokes the Qunari to attack the city despite you don't even recruit her.
Worst of all, DA 2 tells that your Hawke secretly open a swiss account and a prince from far far away want to deposit some funds into your account without you even aware of it since you are black out during the monkey plot jump.

So please please do not act as if your interpretation is a fact. Everything you wrote is your own interpretation with nothing to back up.

I ask you one simple question, why are you playing a ROLE playing games when what you want is NO ROLE to play in an RPG? I ask because you seem to like your Hawke having no role in the story which is supposed to be his story. You know the differences between playing an active role and becoming passive audience to novels or movies, do you?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 octobre 2011 - 03:49 .

[Auroras]

furryrage59 wrote...

Your delusional hatred of the better game does make me chuckle though. You try so very hard.

This goes for most DA2 bashers as well. 

I actually agree with many of the OP's points. I believe that DA:O and DA2 were both very well written games. While DA:O was better executed due to the lack of time constraints, DA2, in my opinion, was a very unique game will great potential-- it broke the traditional Bioware model, and for that I applaud it.

The beauty of DA2's story, I think, is that the overall themes come in slowly, through the sidequests, as the OP stated. Whereas many games' sidequests seem disjointed (some of DA:O's, though not all, Oblivion's, Fallout 3's, etc.), DA2's were very well implemented and tied in to the story, making it seem more like an actual story than many other games out there. I think that many developers could learn from this, and I hope that such plot-driven sidequests continue to make an appearance in the DA franchise.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Auroras wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Your delusional hatred of the better game does make me chuckle though. You try so very hard.

The beauty of DA2's story, I think, is that the overall themes come in slowly, through the sidequests, as the OP stated.

As the result, this overall themes become unfocus considering how little time they have to developed properly as oppose to just one theme with 100+ hours gameplay. 

Auroras wrote...
Whereas many games' sidequests seem disjointed (some of DA:O's, though not all, Oblivion's, Fallout 3's, etc.), DA2's were very well implemented and tied in to the story, making it seem more like an actual story than many other games out there. I think that many developers could learn from this, and I hope that such plot-driven sidequests continue to make an appearance in the DA franchise.

That because they are sidequests. You can ignore them entirely whereas, main quest is necessary for the story to progress, And since sidequests are just sidequests, whether they are disjointed or not is irrelevant. Sidequests should not interfere how the story developed. Otherwise, turn it into main quest. Period.

[Melca36]

Auroras wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Your delusional hatred of the better game does make me chuckle though. You try so very hard.

This goes for most DA2 bashers as well. 

I actually agree with many of the OP's points. I believe that DA:O and DA2 were both very well written games. While DA:O was better executed due to the lack of time constraints, DA2, in my opinion, was a very unique game will great potential-- it broke the traditional Bioware model, and for that I applaud it.

The beauty of DA2's story, I think, is that the overall themes come in slowly, through the sidequests, as the OP stated. Whereas many games' sidequests seem disjointed (some of DA:O's, though not all, Oblivion's, Fallout 3's, etc.), DA2's were very well implemented and tied in to the story, making it seem more like an actual story than many other games out there. I think that many developers could learn from this, and I hope that such plot-driven sidequests continue to make an appearance in the DA franchise.

Please explain the theme of the Fedex quests because some of us would really like to know.

If you're referring to the other quests then I understand what you're saying. 

But that said, the developers have already stated they are NOT doing a 3 act narrative so I would expect something different for the next game.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Both games had bad gameplay story segeration (as MOST RPGs!!!!)...in fact DAO is worse in the "show, don't tell" especially when it comes to companions, where while DAO companions talk about their character development, DAII shows it through companion quests. They used ME2's strongest point for DAII, even giving each companion three quests instead of one or two.

LOL. Sorry but I can't help it but feel amused. 

DA 2 tells companion A become a terrorist even your Hawke don't know anything about his plans.
DA 2 tells companion I does X and provokes the Qunari to attack the city despite you don't even recruit her.
Worst of all, DA 2 tells that your Hawke secretly open a swiss account and a prince from far far away want to deposit some funds into your account without you even aware of it since you are black out during the monkey plot jump.

So please please do not act as if your interpretation is a fact. Everything you wrote is your own interpretation with nothing to back up.

I ask you one simple question, why are you playing a ROLE playing games when what you want is NO ROLE to play in an RPG? I ask because you seem to like your Hawke having no role in the story which is supposed to be his story. You know the differences between playing an active role and becoming passive audience to novels or movies, do you?

Yes, DAII tells alot, which is bad, but unlike Origins, they also SHOW things about companions. The only thing SHOWN really about a companion's full character development is by DLC...lol. Thats the beauty of character quests. Its sad that only Leliana really got a full fledged fleshed out on in Origins, one you have to pay extra for.

And that companion is Aveline and that companion is SHOWN provoking the Qunari. And a character like Anders hides something from you, that must be BAD STORYTELLING..lol. Hell, if Alpha Protocol characters didn't hide something from the protagonist, including love interests, there wouldn't be a story. Oh and did you miss the scene where Anders completed his action sparking the endgame. That was shown.

Hawke has a ROLE in the story, it is one of an OBSERVER. A characters ROLE doesn't always have to be a character that makes all the important decisions that affect the entire world. Sometimes it can be a character caught in the middle of the conflicts where choices are more personal than world changing.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Auroras wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Your delusional hatred of the better game does make me chuckle though. You try so very hard.

The beauty of DA2's story, I think, is that the overall themes come in slowly, through the sidequests, as the OP stated.

A) As the result, this overall themes become unfocus considering how little time they have to developed properly as oppose to just one theme with 100+ hours gameplay. 

Auroras wrote...
Whereas many games' sidequests seem disjointed (some of DA:O's, though not all, Oblivion's, Fallout 3's, etc.), DA2's were very well implemented and tied in to the story, making it seem more like an actual story than many other games out there. I think that many developers could learn from this, and I hope that such plot-driven sidequests continue to make an appearance in the DA franchise.

That because they are sidequests. You can ignore them entirely whereas, main quest is necessary for the story to progress, And since sidequests are just sidequests, whether they are disjointed or not is irrelevant. Sidequests should not interfere how the story developed. Otherwise, turn it into main quest. Period.

A) Opposite, DAII has one overall theme that is somewhat established at the beginning, which quests help take throughout, in which the viscount utters in a key scene in the second act, and its told again at the end. DAO throws themes at the wall, with the main theme only coming into focus at the very end. Its DAO that is thematically unfocused.

And what is better than random sidequests....sidequests that matter!!!! New Vegas's sidequests are not random, neither is Deus Ex HR, but they are clearly not main quests. They are just far more relevant than those chantry board quests in the first game or the expansion or the disjointed Fallout 3 quests.

[txgoldrush]

Melca36 wrote...

Auroras wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Your delusional hatred of the better game does make me chuckle though. You try so very hard.

This goes for most DA2 bashers as well. 

I actually agree with many of the OP's points. I believe that DA:O and DA2 were both very well written games. While DA:O was better executed due to the lack of time constraints, DA2, in my opinion, was a very unique game will great potential-- it broke the traditional Bioware model, and for that I applaud it.

The beauty of DA2's story, I think, is that the overall themes come in slowly, through the sidequests, as the OP stated. Whereas many games' sidequests seem disjointed (some of DA:O's, though not all, Oblivion's, Fallout 3's, etc.), DA2's were very well implemented and tied in to the story, making it seem more like an actual story than many other games out there. I think that many developers could learn from this, and I hope that such plot-driven sidequests continue to make an appearance in the DA franchise.

Please explain the theme of the Fedex quests because some of us would really like to know.

If you're referring to the other quests then I understand what you're saying. 

But that said, the developers have already stated they are NOT doing a 3 act narrative so I would expect something different for the next game.

Those stupid item quests have no bearing whatsoever and they should not have even been in th egame.

And they shouldn't....DAIII should be far different from DAII like it should be far different from DAO.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
Yes, DAII tells alot, which is bad, but unlike Origins, they also SHOW things about companions.

Show what things? I didn't see they show how Anders changed or "developed" into an abomination. He is already an abomination. I did however, see talk show between Varric and Cassandra while your Hawke is passed down into oblivion of unknown plane. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And that companion is Aveline and that companion is SHOWN provoking the Qunari.

Nope. She stays at her office all the time. Or are you dreaming she stole the Qunari artifacts. Ah well... Still your interpretation. Not fact. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And a character like Anders hides something from you, that must be BAD STORYTELLING..lol.

Nope. It simply point that your argument "show, don't tell me." is wrong. DA 2 did the worst thing an RPG could possibly done. Unconventional like you said. Unconventional like sh*t.   

txgoldrush wrote...
Hawke has a ROLE in the story, it is one of an OBSERVER. A characters ROLE doesn't always have to be a character that makes all the important decisions that affect the entire world. Sometimes it can be a character caught in the middle of the conflicts where choices are more personal than world changing.

Hahahaha. You are joking right? Hahahahaha
 Yeah right. You OBSERVE everything in any movies or stories. So are you having a role in every movies and stories? Hawke is not the only "observer" in the last scene. There thousand others who watch the explosion since it's in the middle of the city. The companions are all there. Aveline is the city guard captain. So if anyone else who is credible, it's Aveline. So why it has to be Hawke?

By your logic, a peasant who stands at the corner of the Chantry for 7 years without moving, also play the role in the story since he also observe. So why aren't you mentioning that too? 

Stop being ridiculous. It's gets funnier and funnier. LOL!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

You've actually covered your bases pretty well this time, Tx.

Whenever, you mention "show, don't tell", you always, always mention it in reference to the companions. Not like before, when you'd claim that Dragon Age 2 "shows, not tells" even in the case of non-companion story-centric areas vital to the narrative, like how it reacts to having a Mage Hawke casting Blood Magic all over the city.

Or how decisions are actually shown to have consequences later (Unfortunate Son, Bone Pit, etc). Or how they show the aspects of a Mage PC dealing with the temptations of using Blood Magic. Or how the Thin Veil is actually playing a role in all of this. Or how they show how Hawke earns a reputation. Or how his/her party actually does stuff in the interludes.

But I digress.

It's nice to know that Dragon Age 2 has such superior storytelling and doesn't just repeat the same mistakes that Origins had or even worse, shine spotlights over the now-apparent flaws of the original. Because, y'know, it's not cliche and all.

----

Of course, if one is looking for the sophistication and focus of narrative in a medium such as a video game, one should always look for it in the gameplay and in player driven interaction. That's where the strength of the medium lies.

It seems self evident to say this, but a good book will be always make for a better read than a video game and a good film will always make for a better viewing than a video game. And both mediums are better suited to telling a single, linear story.

Where games excel (even in a linear story) is when the gameplay becomes part of the story and vice versa - you don't need to separate the two. In recent times, Bioshock did this quite well with it's level design, atmosphere and it's audio diaries all combining to tell you it's story - the one of Rapture. Planescape: Torment was always one of the best games out there in this area too.

Ironically enough, that too comes down to "show, don't tell" in that showing must come in the form of something tangible to the player. Something they can interact with.

With it's liberal use of filler combat, a continuingly more disjointed and even paradoxical paradigms of story and gameplay, heavy focus on cinematics and "iconic looks", I think that for the most part, BioWare doesn't consider this an important area. So I honestly don't see how "show, don't tell" is a strength of Dragon Age 2. If anything, it's Dragon Age 2's biggest weaknesses.

Show, don't tell implies that someone fully experience a story/narrative through immersion rather than explanation. In a video game, this is done through the gameplay and what the player actually plays. Remove the aspect of interaction and it's just narration. That ranges from level design, to combat design, to the areas of choice/consequence, etc. Whether a game can "show, not tell" hinges on whether the game's various elements are cohesive enough to provide an immersive experience - how well all of the game's elements in gameplay and story support each other.

On this front, Dragon Age 2 objectively fails. It's combat presentation is not consistent with the tone of the setting, decisions are very rarely given weight and actual consequences, whether it's in the story or character creation & gameplay (no one notices magic) and I don't even need to get into recycled maps.

I'm not going to claim that Origins (or even previous BioWare works) did that area 100x better, or that either game is poorly written for a video game, because I don't feel that either is poorly written for the medium. On the contrary, there are only a handful of companies that have a record as good as BioWare's in the writing department. But please oh please stop using "show, don't tell" as a reason for Dragon Age 2 being better. Even if the idea has validity for companions.

It's like a "saavy shopper" gloating over saving $20 at the supermarket after having spent $500 on a pair of jeans.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 03 octobre 2011 - 07:46 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
A) Opposite, DAII has one overall theme that is somewhat established at the beginning, which quests help take throughout, in which the viscount utters in a key scene in the second act, and its told again at the end.

Nope. Didn't see him in ACT 1. No one overall theme there. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And what is better than random sidequests....sidequests that matter!!!! New Vegas's sidequests are not random, neither is Deus Ex HR, but they are clearly not main quests. They are just far more relevant than those chantry board quests in the first game or the expansion or the disjointed Fallout 3 quests.

There is a reason why it is called sidequest and not main quest. Go figure it out yourself. Not going to waste my time on such insignificant factor in any games.

[txgoldrush]

mrcrusty wrote...

You've actually covered your bases pretty well this time, Tx.

Whenever, you mention "show, don't tell", you always, always mention it in reference to the companions. Not like before, when you'd claim that Dragon Age 2 "shows, not tells" even in the case of non-companion story-centric areas vital to the narrative, like how it reacts to having a Mage Hawke casting Blood Magic all over the city.

Or how decisions are actually shown to have consequences later (Unfortunate Son, Bone Pit, etc). Or how they show the aspects of a Mage PC dealing with the temptations of using Blood Magic. Or how the Thin Veil is actually playing a role in all of this. Or how they show how Hawke earns a reputation. Or how his/her party actually does stuff in the interludes.

But I digress.

It's nice to know that Dragon Age 2 has such superior storytelling and doesn't just repeat the same mistakes that Origins had or even worse, shine spotlights over the now-apparent flaws of the original. Because, y'know, it's not cliche and all.

----

Of course, if one is looking for the sophistication and focus of narrative in a medium such as a video game, one should always look for it in the gameplay and in player driven interaction. That's where the strength of the medium lies.

It seems self evident to say this, but a good book will be always make for a better read than a video game and a good film will always make for a better viewing than a video game. And both mediums are better suited to telling a single, linear story.

Where games excel (even in a linear story) is when the gameplay becomes part of the story and vice versa - you don't need to separate the two. In recent times, Bioshock did this quite well with it's level design, atmosphere and it's audio diaries all combining to tell you it's story - the one of Rapture. Planescape: Torment was always one of the best games out there in this area too.

Ironically enough, that too comes down to "show, don't tell" in that showing must come in the form of something tangible to the player. Something they can interact with.

With it's liberal use of filler combat, a continuingly more disjointed and even paradoxical paradigms of story and gameplay, heavy focus on cinematics and "iconic looks", I think that for the most part, BioWare doesn't consider this an important area. So I honestly don't see how "show, don't tell" is a strength of Dragon Age 2. If anything, it's Dragon Age 2's biggest weaknesses.

Show, don't tell implies that someone fully experience a story/narrative through immersion rather than explanation. In a video game, this is done through the gameplay and what the player actually plays. Remove the aspect of interaction and it's just narration. That ranges from level design, to combat design, to the areas of choice/consequence, etc. Whether a game can "show, not tell" hinges on whether the game's various elements are cohesive enough to provide an immersive experience - how well all of the game's elements in gameplay and story support each other.

On this front, Dragon Age 2 objectively fails. It's combat presentation is not consistent with the tone of the setting, decisions are very rarely given weight and actual consequences, whether it's in the story or character creation & gameplay (no one notices magic) and I don't even need to get into recycled maps.

I'm not going to claim that Origins (or even previous BioWare works) did that area 100x better, or that either game is poorly written for a video game, because I don't feel that either is poorly written for the medium. On the contrary, there are only a handful of companies that have a record as good as BioWare's in the writing department. But please oh please stop using "show, don't tell" as a reason for Dragon Age 2 being better. Even if the idea has validity for companions.

It's like a "saavy shopper" gloating over saving $20 at the supermarket after having spent $500 on a pair of jeans.

And when did I say that DAII "shows and not tell" throughout the game? I didn't. I said for specifically the companions, that DAII shows far more than DAO does. And companions are a huge element in any Bioware game, sometimes the biggest.

Even if "lack of interactivity" is DAII's weakness, it is a weakness to almost every post KOTOR game that Bioware has done, but frankly, ME2 and DAII do it better. And ALL Bioware games after BGII struggle with choice and consquence, especially compared to games like The Witcher and TW2, Deus Ex HR, and Alpha Protocol. DAO struggles with this as well and really the only consquences are allied mobs in endgame and ending cards, no plot alterations whatsoever except for one case, but the DAII has a moment regarding the sibling which impacts the game's plot and even the DLC.

And talk about "show not tell", many JRPGs trump Bioware in this department. Look at Mother 3, therer are no choices, no customization, however, it lets you play your role in the world in a very unique fashion.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Yes, DAII tells alot, which is bad, but unlike Origins, they also SHOW things about companions.

A) Show what things? I didn't see they show how Anders changed or "developed" into an abomination. He is already an abomination. I did however, see talk show between Varric and Cassandra while your Hawke is passed down into oblivion of unknown plane. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And that companion is Aveline and that companion is SHOWN provoking the Qunari.

Nope. She stays at her office all the time. Or are you dreaming she stole the Qunari artifacts. Ah well... Still your interpretation. Not fact. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And a character like Anders hides something from you, that must be BAD STORYTELLING..lol.

C) Nope. It simply point that your argument "show, don't tell me." is wrong. DA 2 did the worst thing an RPG could possibly done. Unconventional like you said. Unconventional like sh*t.   

txgoldrush wrote...
Hawke has a ROLE in the story, it is one of an OBSERVER. A characters ROLE doesn't always have to be a character that makes all the important decisions that affect the entire world. Sometimes it can be a character caught in the middle of the conflicts where choices are more personal than world changing.

Hahahaha. You are joking right? Hahahahaha
D) Yeah right. You OBSERVE everything in any movies or stories. So are you having a role in every movies and stories? Hawke is not the only "observer" in the last scene. There thousand others who watch the explosion since it's in the middle of the city. The companions are all there. Aveline is the city guard captain. So if anyone else who is credible, it's Aveline. So why it has to be Hawke?

By your logic, a peasant who stands at the corner of the Chantry for 7 years without moving, also play the role in the story since he also observe. So why aren't you mentioning that too? 

Stop being ridiculous. It's gets funnier and funnier. LOL!

A) They shown things you obviously missed. It was not how Ander's turns into an abomination, his development is about how he struggles with it and it can go two different ways depending on friendship or rivalry. However, he gets less comedic and far more moody as the game goes along. His relationship with all other companions deteriorates as well, even with Varric.

Shows by your posts that the story is clearly over your head.

Did you even play the game? Did you see Aveline insist that the Arishok hand over the suspects that killed a city guard? Did you see how the Arishok finally had it and attacked Aveline and Hawke? Isabela's actions brang the Qunari to Kirkwall, they did not set off the conflict with them and the city.

C) What, have other characters play a role in the plot other than the protagonist. Quick, tell The Witcher developers that. Oh wait, Geralt isn't the center of everything either. Some RPG sin, that there is a huge event and the player didn't cause it.

D) And you really do no tknow what an observer protagonist is......observer does not mean irrelevant, a lot of times they are very relevant as they take in the lessons of the conflict and may act on it or develop themselves as a character. "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Great Gatsby" has these types of protagonists. And Hawke doesn't have to be passive either, he can participate an descalate conflicts in the game such as siding with Varnell and Patrice.

You really do not know a thing about storytelling. Not every RPG protagonist HAS to influence the entire world with every decision. In Fat, many WRPG protagonists, especially the Fallout and Fable games, the hero is TOO powerful and unrealistically so.

[txgoldrush]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
A) Opposite, DAII has one overall theme that is somewhat established at the beginning, which quests help take throughout, in which the viscount utters in a key scene in the second act, and its told again at the end.

Nope. Didn't see him in ACT 1. No one overall theme there. 

txgoldrush wrote...
And what is better than random sidequests....sidequests that matter!!!! New Vegas's sidequests are not random, neither is Deus Ex HR, but they are clearly not main quests. They are just far more relevant than those chantry board quests in the first game or the expansion or the disjointed Fallout 3 quests.

There is a reason why it is called sidequest and not main quest. Go figure it out yourself. Not going to waste my time on such insignificant factor in any games.

I said second act, learn to read. And he is in the first act as well if you do "Unbriddled Rescue".

And sidequests are supposed to enrich the plot, the themes, or the world. The WORST sidequests don't.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

txgoldrush wrote...

And when did I say that DAII "shows and not tell" throughout the game? I didn't. I said for specifically the companions, that DAII shows far more than DAO does. And companions are a huge element in any Bioware game, sometimes the biggest.

When you talk about storytelling, then I'm inclined to think that the story is relevant in the discussion. We actually went over this in a previous thread, a long time ago. Funnily enough, since then, you've limited your claim of "shows and not tell" to companions only and not the game at large.

Like I said, it's a valid point you make with companions, but a rather disengenious one as areas absolutely core to the game's narrative and themes fail to do it.

txgoldrush wrote...

Even if "lack of interactivity" is DAII's weakness, it is a weakness to almost every post KOTOR game that Bioware has done, but frankly, ME2 and DAII do it better. And ALL Bioware games after BGII struggle with choice and consquence, especially compared to games like The Witcher and TW2, Deus Ex HR, and Alpha Protocol. DAO struggles with this as well and really the only consquences are allied mobs in endgame and ending cards, no plot alterations whatsoever except for one case, but the DAII has a moment regarding the sibling which impacts the game's plot and even the DLC.

Choice/consequence as far as opening/closing new plot threads, maybe. Not the rest of it however. Gameplay/story segregation goes beyond choices & consequences in the story. Combat presentation and design is a big one. It draws an obvious contrast with the intended tone/setting. It tries to present a "powerless observer" Hawke who is an ordinary person/refugee stumbling into the Champion's Mantle almost by accident while trying to protect his/her loved ones, yet is able to skillfully and wilfully kill and murder hundreds of people. Not only that, it's done in a flashly way as well.

While the Warden was able to kill hundreds of people too, (s)he was always someone who was presented in the narrative as a person who had power and potential - physically, mentally or politically. Duncan wouldn't recruited him/her if this was not the case. Hawke is not. Just an "observer" who is "trying to get by". Yet he's probably got the biggest kill count out of all BioWare protagonists and before we start talking about older BioWare games, a Bhaalspawn, Revan, Shep, etc seem pretty capable folks.

Then there's how they handled Blood Magic for Hawke. Just a spec choice at level up? No gameplay mechanic (Spirit Eater) and/or interactions with demons or general reactions from characters? Kewlies mang. I guess all those other Mages in the story who become Blood Mages picked the "Blood Mage & Insane" spec.

On a side note, I'm curently replaying KotOR 2 with the Restored Content Mod and I'm really liking how much they've tried to integrate natural gameplay/story segregation into reasonable terms as far as the story goes. There was some of it in the vanilla game, but the TSLRCM adds quite a bit of conversations on this issue. Peaceful characters in personality become mass murderers because of what the Exile is in the story, not just because it wouldn't be much of a party based game if my companions didn't help me in combat.

txgoldrush wrote...
And talk about "show not tell", many JRPGs trump Bioware in this department. Look at Mother 3, therer are no choices, no customization, however, it lets you play your role in the world in a very unique fashion.

I don't have a bias against JRPGs so I'm not gonna disagree. I'd go onto say that while JRPGs seem stagnant in many areas, there is much more innovation in JRPGs than there are in WRPGs. With every RPG in the west trying to be a third person ARPG, Japan has some very refreshing and innovative takes on turn based combat and gameplay in general.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 03 octobre 2011 - 10:29 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
A) They shown things you obviously missed. It was not how Ander's turns into an abomination, his development is about how he struggles with it and it can go two different ways depending on friendship or rivalry. However, he gets less comedic and far more moody as the game goes along. His relationship with all other companions deteriorates as well, even with Varric.

As I said talk show only. A liar always talk so much no matter if there is billion paths. His action througout his existence from Awakening to DA 2 prove how static his character is. The only difference is, he was not a terrorist in Awakening.

txgoldrush wrote...
Did you even play the game? Did you see Aveline insist that the Arishok hand over the suspects that killed a city guard? Did you see how the Arishok finally had it and attacked Aveline and Hawke? Isabela's actions brang the Qunari to Kirkwall, they did not set off the conflict with them and the city.

Are you nitpicking only certain events to suit your interpretration. Had you not listening to what Arishok said? He will not leave the city without the Artifact. Should he had the artifact earlier, there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay any longer since he obviously didn't like how the city was governed. Therefore, there wouldn't be any issue with elven prisoners, the culture etc.... So who's the major problem here? Isabela or Aveline? 

txgoldrush wrote...
C) What, have other characters play a role in the plot other than the protagonist. Quick, tell The Witcher developers that. Oh wait, Geralt isn't the center of everything either. Some RPG sin, that there is a huge event and the player didn't cause it.

That's right. So why bother to tell the story? Players expect to play their role. Not watch movie or play pokemon in interactive story environment. 

txgoldrush wrote...
D) And you really do no tknow what an observer protagonist is......observer does not mean irrelevant, a lot of times they are very relevant as they take in the lessons of the conflict and may act on it or develop themselves as a character. "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Great Gatsby" has these types of protagonists. And Hawke doesn't have to be passive either, he can participate an descalate conflicts in the game such as siding with Varnell and Patrice.

So do you have any role in "To kill a Mockingbird" and The Great Gatsby" ?
Nope. I don't see your name anywhere. Unless you can prove me you play "observer" role in any stories, be it novels or movies,  your argument remain moot.

And the peasant doesn't have to stand passively outside the chantry corner for 7 years either. He too can participate an descalate conflicts in the game such as siding with Varnell and Patrice. So your point? You still haven't answer my question why it has to Hawke to be the observer.

txgoldrush wrote...
You really do not know a thing about storytelling. Not every RPG protagonist HAS to influence the entire world with every decision. In Fat, many WRPG protagonists, especially the Fallout and Fable games, the hero is TOO powerful and unrealistically so.

No. It's you who don't really know anything about storytelling and role-playing. You view any stories as if they were like novels or movies. It's not. In novels or movies, you have no role. You are the passive audience. In role-playing you can't dish out player character into void. Your story suppose to provide meaningful role for your player to play your game. Otherwise there is no reason to play it. In novels you can played out observer protagonist since you are not taking part anyway. But in role-playing games? You heard people screaming choices that matter.... They are not just passive audience like you. They are not just third party story reviewer like you. They are the actors who will be experiencing the story. If you write a sad event then you better make sure your audience feel sad as well. Otherwise go polish your writing skill. If you want to write dramatic event, make sure you are good enough to carry out those decision. Otherwise stop cheating your audience into thinking they made meaningful decisions. 

I ask you earlier and I ask you again, perhaps for the last time. Do you know the differences between playing an active ROLE in video games and becoming a passive audience in novels or movies?

And before I end my post, I would like to remind you, BioWare will not likely going to use frame narrative and will consider player choices in future. So you can say goodbye to your passive Hawke already.
Why they do this? Go figure this out yourself.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 octobre 2011 - 11:36 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

txgoldrush wrote...
I said second act, learn to read. And he is in the first act as well if you do "Unbriddled Rescue".

That's right. You said ACT 2 and overall theme. Why bother to tell  overall one theme if you ignore the first act?  Does Unbriddled Rescue has anything to do with this overall one theme of yours? Nope. I don't see such relevance.

txgoldrush wrote...
And sidequests are supposed to enrich the plot, the themes, or the world. The WORST sidequests don't.

That's right. They are SUPPOSEd to be. Not They are necessary. Since they are not necessary, can you remove them completely? Sure you can do that. Why not? Consider you have played it once there is no point to replay the same thing over and over and over again. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 octobre 2011 - 11:39 .

[Il Divo]

txgoldrush wrote...

However, these side stories are way more connected to the main plot. Korriban basically fleshes the Sith and their philosophy out, Manaan shows their manipulation, Kashykk shows their alliances....Tatooine is the weakest planet when it comes to story connection. Then the Sith atatck the player more in the midgame, sending assassins, a bounty hunter, an dMalak's apprentice. They also have the plot reveal afterthe third planet. It sfar better done than DAO.

Is Calo Nord really  your example for how the plot is "way more connected"? Should I throw out the fact that I get to kill darkspawn in the Deep Roads? Or the codex entries on brood mothers? Those demonstrate the bad guys attacking the player throughout the mid-game, but they still don't push the storyline forward. The purpose of any plotpoint is to allow the storyline to develop.

In that sense, Manaan and Kashykk are absolutely useless from a narrative perspective. We already know the Sith are evil; it doesn't add any critical information. As I said, remove any of those planets and you retain the exact same narrative. Point me to any plot-critical information contained in those sections. If I pulled them right out, you would still have the same events and the same understanding of those events, which consist of :

Taris-->Dantooine-->Leviathan-->Unknown Planet-->Starforge.

Killing Czerka officers doesn't strengthen that narrative any more than killing darkspawn. The point of those sections is (literally) to add gameplay length, without giving the player opportunity to change the main narrative. It's a very weak method of story-telling. You would have been better off citing Jade Empire or Mass Effect as your sources.

 

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 octobre 2011 - 12:57 .

[Melca36]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...



And before I end my post, I would like to remind you, BioWare will not likely going to use frame narrative and will consider player choices in future. So you can say goodbye to your passive Hawke already.
Why they do this? Go figure this out yourself.

txgoldrush isn't going to be happy when Dragon Age 3 comes out.

[txgoldrush]

Melca36 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...



And before I end my post, I would like to remind you, BioWare will not likely going to use frame narrative and will consider player choices in future. So you can say goodbye to your passive Hawke already.
Why they do this? Go figure this out yourself.

txgoldrush isn't going to be happy when Dragon Age 3 comes out.

Did you EVEN read one of my posts? I said I didn't want DAIII to be like DAII, just like I do not want it to be like DAO.

Bioware has a problem recycling their stories and characters, lets not recycle DAII's either. And why did they change things from DAO to DAII? Maybe because some guy made a chart and a Bioware employee got pissy, which exposed how they keep recycling the same plot elements over and over.

And passive characters can make key decisions, instead of world changing ones, they are more personal. Hell, Hawke was not the only mostly passive RPG protagonist this year.