703 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Shamajotsi wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Shamajotsi wrote...
So every game should boil down to "change the world" as opposed to the broader and giving way more possibilities "expirience this interactive story and make the decisions of this character your own"?

If you attempt to imply that Dragon Age 2 fitted the second template, I must disagree. The game, theoretically, intended to do that. The way those choices were presented via paraphrases gave so little information on the choice making process as to be effectively random.

Whenever there was an important choice to be made - who's side you'll be on at the end, whether you will turn Isabela in to the Qunari, etc., even the not so important ones - it was perfectly clear what the choice was.

The amount of reload I had to do just to know what line implied each paraphrase proves otherwise.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...

The amount of reload I had to do just to know what line implied each paraphrase proves otherwise.

This is not a paraphrase thread, Wakka.  This is about the substance of Hawke's actions, which would remain unchanged had DA2 utilized DAO's dialogue system and unvoiced protagonist. 

[Shamajotsi]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shamajotsi wrote...

So every game should boil down to "change the world" as opposed to the broader and giving way more possibilities "expirience this interactive story and make the decisions of this character your own"?

I was shocked by this too, there are a lot of people on the BSN who literally equate the quality of a game's story with the number of big plot flags they can set that at most change an epilogue card, and at worst are ignored entirely.

It's a reasonable expectation for a WRPG.  If I wanted to watch an interactive movie with dubious aesthetics, I'd play a JRPG.  If I wanted to do meaningless small circular quests with waves of identical enemies, I'd play an MMO.

I'll admit, I have never played JRPG's, but as far as I have understood, the difference that people make between them and WRPG's is not in the scope of the choices, but rather at their quantity and their ability to fork the story. DA2's choices aren't big in scope (they concern how things go between the characters, not so much how they change the world around them), but they fork the story in quite a lot of places - though not in a manner that would make sequels impossible to make. After all, at the end of DA2 we could have a rebellion-leading Hawke who is on the run and who is always accompanied by his lover, Anders. Or we could have the one who brought order in Kirkwall, who is aided by the prince of Starkhaven. Aaaand there are so many other possibilities, I just tried to come up with the two most extreme, though I don't know if I succeeded.

By the way, I don't know any "technical" definition of the difference between JRPG's and WRPG's, except for "those RPG's made in Japain", and "those that are not".

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It is a personal story, for reasons Dave of Canada and I have both just explained.  

You get to choose who Hawke is, not so much what he does or doesn't succeed in accomplishing. 

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

[AtreiyaN7]

ThePasserby wrote...

leggywillow wrote...

ThePasserby wrote...
You're assuming I'm here to "win". Is this how you approach forum postings? Trying to "win" arguments? I think I can place your posts in a better perspective now - your feeble attempts at insults are but mere grasping at straws to gain some semblence that you're "winning the internets".

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do otherwise.  When people raise valid points about your argument, you twist their words or race on to a new point, which most forum-goers recognize as red flags for someone desperately trying to "win".

You are doing the verbal equivalent of setting up a boxing ring, allowing no one else to enter it, and then mocking them for not being able to go toe-to-toe with you.

Care to show examples of me doing that? We're all trying to be convincing, right?

Really? I guess Hawke's goal was to have his mother murdered and made a walking doll. (ThePasserby)

How about that part up above where you tried to twist events in order to fit your point about Hawke's failure/ineptitude?

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

Then I'd argue you are playing the game from the wrong perspective, and it's no wonder you don't enjoy it.

Hawke's personality and choices and how they shape who he is is the story.  Cassandra couldn't have possibly made that more clear.  What he did and what happened in Kirkwall is already a matter of history as far as Thedas is concerned.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:22 .

[HAM Hawke]

ipgd wrote...

I have been informed that I need to contribute a post about Metal Gear Solid and gay sex to this thread so here it is.

Wait...What?

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Shamajotsi wrote...

So every game should boil down to "change the world" as opposed to the broader and giving way more possibilities "expirience this interactive story and make the decisions of this character your own"?

I was shocked by this too, there are a lot of people on the BSN who literally equate the quality of a game's story with the number of big plot flags they can set that at most change an epilogue card, and at worst are ignored entirely.

I didn't want a "change the world" story myself. Hawke's story didn't have to be that world changing all the time. Only a few scenarios would really have a world-changing effect. What it did have to be though was story changing. And it had to be that a lot. But it barely was, if at all. And so the game failed.

No matter what, Grace and Decimus go berserk because the plot demanded it. The plot demanded that they be insane. I don't want characters that are all insane. A few -- like Quentin who obviously had mental problems prior to his wife's death -- is fine. But I want characters that I can identify with for why they're doing what they do. 

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The amount of reload I had to do just to know what line implied each paraphrase proves otherwise.

This is not a paraphrase thread, Wakka.  This is about the substance of Hawke's actions, which would remain unchanged had DA2 utilized DAO's dialogue system and unvoiced protagonist.

Unchanged to you, maybe. But I could actually get to see the substance of said actions due to my own choosing, rather than randomly mashing to see what happens with each.
About Hawke's effectiveness (or lack thereof), it has been pointed earlier (by Dave and you) that the scope of the story the game tells and the scope of the story sold are not the same, and there are people whose expectations were (understandably) let down. The expectation mismanagement is more to blame than the story itself, which was a refreshing change of pace for the usual world-saving heroics.
It is not dissimilar from the narration of Moby Dick, if we replace Ishmael with Hawke.

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:24 .

[ThePasserby]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

Then I'd argue you are playing the game from the wrong perspective, and it's no wonder you don't enjoy it.

All hail Upsettingshorts! All hail the One who Decides how Games are Played!

[ipgd]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

Whether a story is or is not personal is not determined by the full scope of the plot, but the specific focus the narrative itself takes in exploring the scenario and its characters.

There are many stories that deal with much more large-scale events than DA2 that are decidedly character focused.

Modifié par ipgd, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

ThePasserby wrote...

All hail Upsettingshorts! All hail the One who Decides how Games are Played!

I said I'd argue it, not decree it.  But then, I'd have to use words like a fencer to actually have been choosing my words carefully. 

He's just as much in the right to argue otherwise as I am to make the case. 

Also if you've been around here long enough, you'd know that I'm practically the BSN's poster boy for the "we all approach these games pretty differently" position. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:27 .

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

Then I'd argue you are playing the game from the wrong perspective, and it's no wonder you don't enjoy it.

Hawke's personality and choices and how they shape who he is is the story.  Cassandra couldn't have possibly made that more clear.  What he did and what happened in Kirkwall is already a matter of history as far as Thedas is concerned.

The framed narrative should've allowed for various ways to shape the story that all could've been resolved within the game itself. Did Hawke crush the Mage Underground? It's resolved in there. Did he become its leader and Champion prior to the Battle for Kirkwall between the mages and Templars? It would be resolved there.

The framed narrative should've been used to create a few different histories depending on how one plays their Hawke. It does this just barely since you can turn over Grace or let her go, but it isn't recognized by Cassandra or Varric. And in the end, they all lead to the same conclusion in Act III.

A personal story needs a lot of things going for it, and for me DAII didn't. Killing off family members you don't really know isn't personal. And forcing the player to metagame to even care about them is horrid writing in my opinion. But I realize that the personal story isn't just about Hawke's family.

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'd actually specifically exclude avatars like the Courier from the discussion because games like New Vegas and Oblivion are more simulation based than story based.  In the sense that there isn't much of a narrative to undermine by a dramatic increase in player agency.

I'd agree with Oblivion maybe, but not really New Vegas. Its not that there isn't a narrative in NV to undermine by increasing player agency, its that NV does an exceptional job of having the narrative change in significant ways based on the actions of the protagonist.  Same could be said of Alpha Protocol too, really. Alpha Protocol nailed how to effectively use the framed narrative to increase the sense of player agency even with a much more fixed PC like Thorton. The framed narrative in DA2 is entirely pointless- especially since it never catches up with the player playing as Hawke in the present.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Take a look at it from this perspective:  "Hawke is thought of as the most important person in Thedas, but who was he/she?"  And then the game reveals - and it is meant to be a reveal, based on the interrogation bookends and the frame narrative - you that he/she was just a relatively normal person who was caught up in the course of events.  That's not going to be a story everyone prefers to the hero who saves the world, but it's a perfectly valid one to tell.   It's about deconstructing that hero as someone who was flawed and sometimes impotent in the face of forces well beyond his ability to control.

But thats a huge part of the problem with DA2 as it was presented in marketing and all the pre-release stuff. It gave the impression that while being a fixed PC, Hawke could "Rise to Power" different ways and that they'd be able to influence the world around them on their road to Champion. Nothing of the sort happens.

The only thing you discover about Hawke is whether they were diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive. They fail or are swept up in events the exact same way no matter what. They don't even allow Hawke the option of trying but fail- he fails every time no matter what.

Its fine if BioWare wants to have a story about a flawed hero who's impotent in the face of forces well beyond their control, but at least provide the option of varying outcomes and success/failure then.  Otherwise, that kind of fixed story should be left to a book or movie, not an RPG which is supposed to leverage player choice and consequences and player agency.

Its just very frustrating that while you've got other competing games in the genre like Alpha Protocol or TW2 offering genuine choice and consequences, BioWare has done jack **** to address this even in any of the DLCs. Especially when this issue was one of the bigger complaints in DA2. MotA is especially terrible in this regard, not just in terms of plot moments like the ending but via gameplay choice like the mandated stealth element.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:28 .

[Anyroad2]

ThePasserby wrote...

Anyroad2 wrote...

Yeah. I knew it came to that once he told me that my viewpoint on things were worthless because I didn't play a decade old expansion to Boulders Gate 2 that he did. That apparently made me a "new fan", even though I've been playing Bioware games since KotOR. >_>

You don't think that what Bioware has done in Balder's Gate has any bearing on a game touted as Balder's Gate's spiritual successor. Okaayyy ...

*gently backs away*

I'm not going to argue with you anymore,  because its pointless.

Have fun trolling.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Then I'd argue you are playing the game from the wrong perspective, and it's no wonder you don't enjoy it.

Hawke's personality and choices and how they shape who he is is the story.  Cassandra couldn't have possibly made that more clear.  What he did and what happened in Kirkwall is already a matter of history as far as Thedas is concerned.

The story spends only a few lines on Hawke's personality and feelings, while we spend ages on the fights between Templar and Mage, and the conflict with the Qunari

Cassandra makes it clear that she's interested in Hawke because he's an important person.  Who he falls in love with, how he feels about his brother.  This is all irrelevant to her.  In the end, her reaction to him is purely based on which side he chose, and his supposed usefulness to her.

edit: BTW, I did enjoy the game.  In spite of the flaws.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:29 .

[AtreiyaN7]

ThePasserby wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's not a personal story, because the focus is on the huge epic events on which Hawke's personality and choices have absolutely no effect.

Then I'd argue you are playing the game from the wrong perspective, and it's no wonder you don't enjoy it.

All hail Upsettingshorts! All hail the One who Decides how Games are Played!

All hail the guy who makes specious arguments/attacks and can't back anything up: ThePasserby!

Yeah, being snarky is a LOT more fun at this point. I think I'm going with that approach for the rest of this thread.

[TheCreeper]

Grace went berserk because she had a pride demon in her head and  she was probably still pissed  her lover was killed by hawke. Decimus was a evil blood (So was Grace, why do so many people side with her in the first act when they are obiviously evil and wants you to murder one of the few decent templars) mage who assumed that hawke was sent there by the templars, which s/he was.

The only person who I think got railroaded was Orsino and that's not the writers fault because that fight (I assume in the mage ending, fighting him on the templar side made sense) was demanded by other parts of bioware working on the game.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:34 .

[ThePasserby]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...



Really? I guess Hawke's goal was to have his mother murdered and made a walking doll. (ThePasserby)

How about that part up above where you tried to twist events in order to fit your point about Hawke's failure/ineptitude?

Wasn't that in reply to "Hawke achieves his/her goals"?

We can assume that one of Hawke's goals is to keep his mother safe.

But she died. So, we can only draw two conclusions:

1) Hawke failed (so he doesn't achieves his/her goals)

2) it was his goal to have his mother killed all long (so he does achieves his goals)

Take your pick.

And no, there can't be any middle paths like "he can't be expected to win all the time!", because the statement "Hawke achieves his/her goals" precludes that.

So you have to choose, 1 or 2?

If you choose 1, then the statement "Hawke achieves his/her goals" is false.

If you choose 2, then that statement's veracity is maintained.

So pick.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

The story spends only a few lines on Hawke's personality and feelings, while we spend ages on the fights between Templar and Mage, and the conflict with the Qunari

This is what I mean by the difference in perspective.

From where I sit literally every quest in the game was an opportunity for me to refine who Hawke was as a person.  Okay, maybe not the hilariously poor fetch quests.

Where does my Hawke begin to draw the line between mage freedom and the safety of mundanes from dangerous apostates?  Is it the same place as your Hawke?  What are his reasons?  Does he think about short term gain, or long term consequences?  How does he act towards his companions and why?  Who does he respect?  Who does he make fun of to their face?  That's what roleplaying is to me.

That's why I say DA2 was good at micro-reactivity but - as Brock and The Ethereal Writer Redux are getting at - fails at macro-reactivity.   A lot of people, especially the ones who are really critical of Hawke as a protagonist or the idea that DA2 is a personal story, don't seem to agree with my premise that 1) micro-reactivity as I describe it exists, 2) the focus of the narrative "Who is the champion of Kirkwall?" or 3) Small scale decisions that refine Hawke as a character can be as important and rewarding to the player as large scale decisionmaking.

That doesn't make my point of view invalid, it does make it relatively unpopular, though.

Wulfram wrote...

Cassandra makes it clear that she's interested in Hawke because he's an important person.  Who he falls in love with, how he feels about his brother.  This is all irrelevant to her.  In the end, her reaction to him is purely based on which side he chose, and his supposed usefulness to her.

She wants to know what kind of person he is so she can predict his movements and more effectively track him down.  What use to her he'll have is something revealed through the endgame decisions.  If Hawke romances Isabela and disappears with her, thats relevant information for her purposes.

But the focus of the narrative - as revealed through Cassandra's incredulity at the truth - is to deconstruct the legend of Hawke.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:38 .

[ThePasserby]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...


All hail the guy who makes specious arguments/attacks and can't back anything up: ThePasserby!

You haven't proved that, but yeah, you're joining me in the dark side in playing diry.

Yeah, being snarky is a LOT more fun at this point. I think I'm going with that approach for the rest of this thread.

Glad that you've seen the light.

Modifié par ThePasserby, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:39 .

[ipgd]

Wulfram wrote...

The story spends only a few lines on Hawke's personality and feelings, while we spend ages on the fights between Templar and Mage, and the conflict with the Qunari

The narrative is constantly prompting the player about Hawke's personality and feelings. It's a stark contrast to DAO and the ME series where the protagonists' personal elements are barely explored within the dialogue itself.

Cassandra makes it clear that she's interested in Hawke because he's an important person.  Who he falls in love with, how he feels about his brother.  This is all irrelevant to her.  In the end, her reaction to him is purely based on which side he chose, and his supposed usefulness to her.

Cassandra is not a 1:1 representative of the narrative focus. Her goals and the narrative's goals, or even the metanarrative's goals, are not the same.

[b09boy]

I find it amusing the number of things the DA2 storyline was about.

"The game is about how you can't always change how things are going to turn out."
"The game is about how the mage/templar war began."
"The game is about Hawke's rise to power."
"The game is about family."
"The game is about being in the center of events as they're happening."
"The game has a very personal story."
"The game has a very epic story."

All of this is correct. The game tries to be about all of this. Problem being these sort of themes conflict without very exacting attention. If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice? Or, why doesn't Hawke try to change them only to fail? There's no follow-through so the theme falls flat. If it's about the mage/templar war, what's the point of any of the story aside from the third act? If it's about Hawke's rise to power, where is s/he at the end and why do we skip so many important story points in which Hawke is raised to power? if the game is about family, why are they all gone by the mid point of the game? If it's about being a bystander, why isn't Hawke being the one interviewed? Or why not make Varric the protagonist - he was along for the ride just as much. Why would an onlooker tell the story about an onlooker? If it's a personal story why don't we get the opportunity to develop the motivations of Hawke and the other central characters in the story? If it's an epic story, why is Hawke so ineffectual?

[upsettingshorts]

b09boy wrote...

If the game is about how you can't change things, why give the choice?

Because it's a roleplaying game?  My Hawke doesn't have the same motivations as yours, nor does he draw the same conclusions.  But DA2 presents a hell of a lot of instances where we can flesh out those differences and have a unique experience during the course of a game in which not much of what actually happens is significantly different.

[TEWR]

TheCreeper wrote...

Grace went berserk because she had a pride demon in her head and Decimus was a evil blood (So was Grace, why do so many people side with her in the first act when they are obiviously evil and wants you to murder one of the few decent templars) mage who assumed that hawke was sent there by the templars, which s/he was.

The only person who I think got railroaded was Orsino and that's not the writers fault because that fight (I assume in the mage ending, fighting him on the templar side made sense) was demanded by other parts of bioware working on the game.

I'm sorry but insane characters like Decimus and Grace aren't fine, especially when most of the mages we meet do in fact go insane or turn into an Abomination. Or get killed.

• Grace -- goes insane. turns into an abomination during the fight. gets killed because the plot demands she be stupid
• Decimus -- attacks Hawke because he doesn't care who they are and doesn't bother to ascertain what side they're on before attacking
• Tarohne -- insane, and her insanity is only explained through codex in a side quest. Not that I'd side with her mind you. I wouldn't. She looks like a clown.
• Orsino -- plot stupidity kills him for pro-mage people
• People who go "We know you're spying for Orsino!". Um, what? Orsino's the one who wants Meredith ousted and almost got the nobility to rise up against her.
• Ella -- killed to anyone who isn't a diplomatic Hawke.
• Olivia -- turns into an Abomination
• random mage chick -- turns into an abomination. Both Olivia and this girl are apparently things that conflict with the lore, or so people claim. I'm not really sure.

The only one that's justified for being insane is Quentin, but they didn't even explain that he had to have been mentally unstable prior to his wife's death in the game, which would've been fine.

Even David Gaider admitted he would've liked to add more sane mages, and Bioware are the ones who gave us the Orsino fight because they wanted another boss!

Bioware didn't do insanity justice in DAII for their characters. Alice: Madness Returns did insanity justice.