272 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

As with everything since it's release, the way motivation for the quests was handled in DA2 led to very polar takes.

The tl;dr version is this:

Bioware games all equally fail at creating a satisfying internal motivation for the PC, because they believe that the players should be free to create that motivation. If the narrative is not interrelated, then there's nothing unifying any of the reasons for the quests.

So in DA:O, where quests were ostensibly related to stopping the Blight (even though we find out that that's actually a red herring), inventing one reason for the PC generally fit most quests. In DA2, without a purpose in the narrative, you have to invent multiple reasons for the PC to finish quests. But it's bad design, because the unifying purpose of the plot is not neccesarily something that you ever use to create your PC's personality.

The long version is below:  

Hawke did not have a particular motivation set out, beyond escaping from Lothering in the prologue and actually going on the Expedition in Act I. The years in-between the Acts were unfilled gaps, and its looking like they'll be left that way. Moreover, the kinds of things Hawke can do (and has to do!) are inconsistent (especially in Act I) and almost certainly arbitrary. It's not hard to walk away with the impression that there's no internally satisfying reason to finish the portions of the game labelled "main quest" other than they're the things you need to do to complete the game.

But consider this: ignoring how you've designed your character's personality in DA:O, there's nothing that happens at Ostagar that really requires you ever actually want to stop the Blight. In fact, to go one step further, unless you were the Dalish Warden there is nothing that requires you to even agree to become a Warden at all. When I say requires, I'm using it in the sense of how it was required for the Dalish Warden to become a Warden. Whereas every other PC, when saved by Duncan, could technically walk off into the sunset, the Dalish PC would die/become a ghoul doing so. 

But let's say that you RP your character to only care about the issues in the origin, and have no opinion on the blight at all. Then there's absolutely no in-character reason to go with Duncan, to perform the Joining (other than Duncan threatening to kill you in both cases) or to go after the treaties. While DA:O is about ending the blight, you don't have to have to create a PC for the Origin that cares about this at all. If you don't, then DA:O fails in the same way DA2 fails to provide motivation. 

It comes down to this: it seems that Bioware expects players to invent the motivation to do things. This is, from what I've seen in their games, a core design philosophy of freedom. Remember, DA2 was supposed to be more 'free' than DA:O in that it lacked a primary antagonist. Well, that lack of unification just brought out this design element in detail: Bioware does not create in-character motivations. 

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if you could turn down quests (main quests, that is). But they're mandatory. They were mandatory in DA:O (had to get the elves, even if you thought they were useless/too much of a pain!), with the difference being that players just bought into the plot on the box better. But this is bad design.

To put all of my cards on the table, I've said before I was of the opinion that many of DA2's flaws were the result of excessive praise for DA:O. 

Edit:

In replying to a poster, I realized that DA2 did have a unifying theme, of sorts: How did Hawke become Champion, and what was the role of Hawke in whatever Cassandra wanted?

If "I have to do this because the game tells me it will stop the Blight!" is good enough, then "I have to do to this because the game tells me it's how Hawke became Champion!" has to be equally good. 

Modifié par In Exile, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:47 .

[Bigdoser]

Very interesting post I never thought about it this way before.

[TEWR]

I agree that there wasn't much of a reason to care about the Blight if you didn't already care about it, but I don't think many people really felt that way.

DAII however is much worse imo. Why should I do Petrice's quest when I say no? Because the plot demanded it? No, that doesn't fly with me.

[Nerdage]

The difference is in the kind of things you're forced to do. Origins is the story of defeating the blight, it follows that you can't decide not to fight the blight, because that's a whole other game. But DA2 isn't the story of being ordered around by half the schmoes in Kirkwall, I expected to be forced into rising to power, I didn't expect to be forced into doing this guy's leg-work purely because he's related to a plot twist three years down the road.

The closest comparisons are some of the moments within the actual DAO origins, how you have to follow Tamlen into the cave or fight your way to Vaughan, but those motivations are simple enough; duty, family, friends, etc. But why would I risk my life on behalf of a complete stranger when I already have more gold than I need?

Modifié par nerdage, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:25 .

[In Exile]

nerdage wrote...

The difference is in the kind of things you're forced to do. Origins is the story of defeating the blight, it follows that you can't decide not to fight the blight, because that's a whole other game.

That's my point, though. You get a motivation if you buy into that.

But DA2 isn't the story of being ordered around by half the schmoes in Kirkwall, I expected to be forced into rising to power, I didn't expect to be forced into doing this guy's leg-work purely because he's related to a plot twist three years down the road.

DA2 was a game about how Hawke became Champion and did whatever Cassandra is all worked-up about. If "doing it because it's the point of the game" is a sufficient motivation, then DA2 is basically this as well. 

The closest comparisons are some of the moments within the actual DAO origins, how you have to follow Tamlen into the cave or fight your way to Vaughan, but those motivations are simple enough; duty, family, friends, etc. But why would I risk my life on behalf of a complete stranger when I already have more gold than I need?

Why should you risk your life on behalf of a whiny Grey Warden and an clealry insane woods witch and her daughter? 

[Barhador]

I rarely post on this forum, and when I do, it's because I've read something exceptionally insightful.

Modifié par Barhador, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:47 .

[lobi]

HOKEY SMOKE I PUT SPOILERS HERE DONT READ IF NOT WANT SORRY!!
First of all the Grey wardens right to demand traps the PC pre Ostegar. Ostegar itself traps the warden at Ostegar. Post Ostegar to get out of the wilds warden must travel with Alistair and Morriho. The first night at camp underlines the fact that a Warden cannot outrun the blight (got to stop those nightmares somehow). There is nowhere to run to. The Warden is involved if the Warden likes it or not.
Then there is the whole avenge family get payback thing op has forgotton, need an army and a position of power for that. Also being warden is great way to amass coin.

OP says post Deep Roads Hawk makes little sense.
Hawk's deep roads wealth brings influence, Avaline spells this out for the peanut gallery. I doubt bone pitt is the only Hawk investment in Kirkwall given the large amount of money and the repercussions Avaline alludes to.

Hawk is part of the elite in Kirkwall and as such has social and economic ties which puts the family in the sphere of power.
Granted a mission at a ball or Salon where leandra is re-establishing her social connections and business offers are made to Hawk would have been good for spelling things out to the socially ignorant.

Hawk is an active adventurer and admits as much to Varrick 'great we're adventurers!' motivation beyond that for quests is not needed but supplied anyway via mr Gaiders generousity. The companions are all adventurous types, readiness to follow Hawk into excitement. Hawk is also good at getting folks indebted to Hawk. 

The game is called Rise to Power.

Hawk may not care about the political stuff but likes the action or,
Hawk cares about the political but hates getting injured or,
Hawk loves it all or,
Hawk hates it all but because of social standing must act.
No running off to the Chantry for Hawk. No one person can control a city.
Hawk is involved whether Hawk likes it or not.

Motivation is everywhere if it is needed.
Hawk was a forced lawful alignment and we could choose between Good, Chaotic or Neutral.

The only thing that really interfered with my establishing a personality for Hawk was the forced lawful alignment when I prefer Chaotic evil.
ie dialogue, "It's Poison it kills people" that, and the fact it was voiced.
I was the Warden, Hawk was Commander Shepard thats where the disconnect was.
Don't like Elves take werewolves. Don't like Mages or Templars don't do their optional quests. simple.
Make a choice play a role or chase xp. One cannot have it all, thats life.

Modifié par lobi, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:07 .

[lobi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I agree that there wasn't much of a reason to care about the Blight if you didn't already care about it, but I don't think many people really felt that way.

DAII however is much worse imo. Why should I do Petrice's quest when I say no? Because the plot demanded it? No, that doesn't fly with me.

But thou must. Look at this mage, can you really turn your back on such injustice? Isn't Bethany a mage? don't you want to help a Quanari? don't you want to stick it to the Arishok? don't you want some monies? c'mon it will be fun! will Patrice be a potential LI? motivation abounds. In my game Patrice lives and despite it all is a friend. I chose a side very early.

Modifié par lobi, 23 octobre 2011 - 12:31 .

[Nerdage]

SPOILERS
kind of hard to talk about motivation without them.. 

In Exile wrote...

That's my point, though. You get a motivation if you buy into that.

But the motivation of stopping the blight (the major theme of the game) carries you through almost all the necessary quests the exception being the Origin, the rest are at your own discretion. The motivation of rising to power (the major theme of DA2) doesn't give me any reason to do quite a lot of the stuff presented to me. 

DA2 was a game about how Hawke became Champion and did whatever Cassandra is all worked-up about. If "doing it because it's the point of the game" is a sufficient motivation, then DA2 is basically this as well.

I can accept one imposed motivation at a time, I know there are certain things that have to happen in any story, but for a lot of act one I don't even think they are necessary; you get background from them for later events, an introduction to some of the characters, but little to nothing integral to the plot actually hapens, nothing that couldn't be relatively easily worked around.

For all it's flaws I think act three is the best structured. The main quest line is completely self-contained, and I'm not being forced into seemingly unrelated plots because "they'll be important later, trust me", which means there's a bare minimum of imposing choices on me. So I can unrelentingly follow the main quest path and never even hear about any other plots, or - more likely - pick and choose which other plots I persue and how according to my character. So the single imposed motivation can carry me throught the whole act, similar to how purely wanting to gather these allies to defeat the blight can carry you through all of Origins from Ostagar onwards.

But there isn't just one imposed motivation in act one, it also assumes I have motivation to (by virtue of forcing me to) keep my promise to Flemeth, help Petrice, deal with Keran, Arianni, Thrask, etc.. all of which are irrelevant to both the deep roads expedition plot and the greater "rise to power" plot. These side-plots could've easily progressed without my intervention without breaking the rise to power, that all stems from Dumar after the expedition is a success anyway, so why impose on me more than is necessary?

Why should you risk your life on behalf of a whiny Grey Warden and an clealry insane woods witch and her daughter? 

It's not on their behalf, they're helping you.


But I need sleep..

Modifié par nerdage, 23 octobre 2011 - 12:56 .

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

As with everything since it's release, the way motivation for the quests was handled in DA2 led to very polar takes.

The tl;dr version is this:

Bioware games all equally fail at creating a satisfying internal motivation for the PC, because they believe that the players should be free to create that motivation. If the narrative is not interrelated, then there's nothing unifying any of the reasons for the quests.

So in DA:O, where quests were ostensibly related to stopping the Blight (even though we find out that that's actually a red herring), inventing one reason for the PC generally fit most quests. In DA2, without a purpose in the narrative, you have to invent multiple reasons for the PC to finish quests. But it's bad design, because the unifying purpose of the plot is not neccesarily something that you ever use to create your PC's personality.

The long version is below:  

Hawke did not have a particular motivation set out, beyond escaping from Lothering in the prologue and actually going on the Expedition in Act I. The years in-between the Acts were unfilled gaps, and its looking like they'll be left that way. Moreover, the kinds of things Hawke can do (and has to do!) are inconsistent (especially in Act I) and almost certainly arbitrary. It's not hard to walk away with the impression that there's no internally satisfying reason to finish the portions of the game labelled "main quest" other than they're the things you need to do to complete the game.

But consider this: ignoring how you've designed your character's personality in DA:O, there's nothing that happens at Ostagar that really requires you ever actually want to stop the Blight. In fact, to go one step further, unless you were the Dalish Warden there is nothing that requires you to even agree to become a Warden at all. When I say requires, I'm using it in the sense of how it was required for the Dalish Warden to become a Warden. Whereas every other PC, when saved by Duncan, could technically walk off into the sunset, the Dalish PC would die/become a ghoul doing so. 

But let's say that you RP your character to only care about the issues in the origin, and have no opinion on the blight at all. Then there's absolutely no in-character reason to go with Duncan, to perform the Joining (other than Duncan threatening to kill you in both cases) or to go after the treaties. While DA:O is about ending the blight, you don't have to have to create a PC for the Origin that cares about this at all. If you don't, then DA:O fails in the same way DA2 fails to provide motivation. 

It comes down to this: it seems that Bioware expects players to invent the motivation to do things. This is, from what I've seen in their games, a core design philosophy of freedom. Remember, DA2 was supposed to be more 'free' than DA:O in that it lacked a primary antagonist. Well, that lack of unification just brought out this design element in detail: Bioware does not create in-character motivations. 

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if you could turn down quests (main quests, that is). But they're mandatory. They were mandatory in DA:O (had to get the elves, even if you thought they were useless/too much of a pain!), with the difference being that players just bought into the plot on the box better. But this is bad design.

To put all of my cards on the table, I've said before I was of the opinion that many of DA2's flaws were the result of excessive praise for DA:O. 

Edit:

In replying to a poster, I realized that DA2 did have a unifying theme, of sorts: How did Hawke become Champion, and what was the role of Hawke in whatever Cassandra wanted?

If "I have to do this because the game tells me it will stop the Blight!" is good enough, then "I have to do to this because the game tells me it's how Hawke became Champion!" has to be equally good. 

Translation:  Neither DA2 nor DA:O had any real choice.  And:  look at me, I'm one of those unique ones who can't  be classified as a fanboy of either game  (see how I criticise both games?  I is clever).


Yeah.  We've been through this.

Where to begin.  First off,  *of course* you have no choice in DA:O but to become a Warden and  stop the blight.  This painfully obvious fact is written on the game box.  Why in the world would you even buy the game in the first place  if you intend to choose a different profession and  not not follow the  story?

But that  said, At least DA:O allows for choice and consequence within the game's various sub plots.  (and in fact, the main plot on occasion)  Off the top of my head:

 -in DA:O you can choose to DIE to end the blight, or choose to undertake a ritual to live through it. 

-In DA:O you have  a choice of 6 prologues, and yes they DO matter later on.  Anyone who's done the Orzammar plot line as a Dwarf noble can tell you that.


-in DA:O you can choose to not save Redcliff. And if that's your choice, the entire town gets obliterated. No more Owen, No more Redcliffe Chanter's board. No more Redcliffe Irregular's Board. No more Redcliffe Mage collective Board. An entire branch of the game becomes closed off to you. If that doesn't constitute consequences, then pray tell us, InExile, what does?

- In DA:O you can choose to side with the mages and, amazingly enough,  their leader won't suddenly  go batsh*t, turn into a Harvester and attack you, thus rendering your choice moot.

- In DA:O, you can choose who becomes a  king.  Twice.     By contrast,  Can you, in any way,  successfully depose/install  Kirkwall's leadership in  DA2?  Nope.   Hell, you can't even  kill the seneshal.



-DA:O features 2 mercenary/rogue groups of significance  (Blackstone irregulars and  K vs. D)  at the end of their quest lines, you're given a  chance to choose *their* leadership as well.  And your choice is completely dependent on your personal motivations, which the game gives you a chance to form via  several in-game examples of each leader's behavior.

-  Real, companion based  choices/consequences exist in DA:O.  And unlike DA2, they exist early on and are  based completely on your ingame choices.  For example,  If you choose to defile the sacred ashes,  You will lose Wynne and maybe even Lelianna.   Then there's Alistair vs. Logain.  You must choose between them.  You can leave Sten to die in Lothering.  You can leave Lelianna to die in Lothering.  You can choose to Kill Zevran before he becomes a party member. 

And really, this is just a  miniscule  part of the entire list.  But it's still reams more than  the lazy attempt at an  illusion of freedom that exists in  the entirety of DA2.  To  start a thread claiming  that both games are on some equal footing with regards to player choices is beyond silly.  It's dishonest.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:11 .

[TEWR]

-In DA:O you have a choice of 6 prologues, and yes they DO matter later on. Anyone who's done the Orzammar plot line as a Dwarf noble can tell you that.

A few dialogue tweaks, a Dwarf recognizing how I saved his teacher's life or something, and an epilogue that might be considered hearsay and rumor.

Not in the capacity I would've preferred, but a little bit better than the rest of the Origin stories. I would've preferred to regain my place in the Memories and become king myself.

[Quething]

nerdage wrote...
But the motivation of stopping the blight (the major theme of the game) carries you through almost all the necessary quests the exception being the Origin, the rest are at your own discretion. The motivation of rising to power (the major theme of DA2) doesn't give me any reason to do quite a lot of the stuff presented to me.

Core of the problem, right here, I agree.

In DA:O, you only need to accept one thing. Your character wants to stop the Blight. Once you accept that, and work that into your character concept, you will never have another "why am I doing this" moment again.

(Except going after the Urn. Major fail, making that mandatory. Teagan could have called the Landsmeet just as well. Or my damn Cousland!)

In DA:2, there's no one thing to work into your character concept. It's bizarre. You have to accept that you care about the mage/templar issue. Okay. You have to accept that you support the templars. Ooo...kay. You have to accept that you don't like templars and want yourself/your sister free from them. Wait, what? You have to accept that you're willing to help Petrice. Then you have to accept that you want to stop her! And yet, none of this is at all consistent with your tendency to slip into three-year comas during which you don't care about anything at all.

[FedericoV]

I agree Yrkoon. There is simply no comparison between games in terms of choices and consequences. But In Exile was talking of motivations and that seems a different argument to me.

Having said that: even in term of motivations, DA:O is stronger. It's not perfect and for certain it's not new. But saving the world (and every form of human life in the process) from the blight is what I call a strong motivation. Yes, it's the old hero's journey but know what? It works. And yes, the joining is not played smartly: you are forced to join the wardens for no reasons. The game simply assumes that you metagame the issue knowing that you are "the chosen one" and that you are the main charachter of an epic fantasy. It's not a brillaint design but it can work since it uses a known trope. Mind, I was really sick of the forced joining but after I finished the game, at least I could understand the premise since there was a payoff.

DA2 does not have any sort of motivation for the main charachter and his involvement in Kirkwall's politics. The game wanted to tell a personal and tragic story but it falls flat in that crucial area and most conflicts you face feels forced on you for no apparent reasons. The tragedies are not of your own doing and the interaction with the tragic figures of your life it's minimal so it's hard to resonate with them. Simply put, they weren't able to use Hawke's family as the proper tool to motivate his rise to power. So, looking at it from the outside, it looks just like a convoluted series of unfortunate and pointless events.

And there is no payoff. Like... never! At the end I feel completely disconnected from the main story. I mean, was it for me, after I killed Anders I would have leaved Kirkwall for good with Isabella and started a new life trying to forget the couple of sociopaths who were running the city.

And finally, there is even a problem of style. In DA2 most quest are given you in an unnatural way by the "quest pusher" (I mean, by the letters in your house or by the messages in your quest journal). The system is so gamey that it breaks any form of suspension of disbilief and narrative flow. Because of that system, you feel railroaded directly from the game and not from the internal workings of the narrative. So, you stop to care and just do things since they are essential to finish the story, make experiences point and gain frienship/rivalry with NPCs. And that's a huuuuge step back in term of storytelling wich should be Bioware's strong point.

Modifié par FedericoV, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:38 .

[In Exile]

lobi wrote...
First of all the Grey wardens right to demand traps the PC pre Ostegar. Ostegar itself traps the warden at Ostegar. Post Ostegar to get out of the wilds warden must travel with Alistair and Morriho. The first night at camp underlines the fact that a Warden cannot outrun the blight (got to stop those nightmares somehow). There is nowhere to run to. The Warden is involved if the Warden likes it or not.

Duncan wouldn't be the first person to get a sword through the throat by making a request the Warden won't honour. Beyond that, post-Ostagar, all the Wardens are dead. There's no one to track you. Even if Morrigain refuses to guide you, you can just lie, and make your way after Ostagar. Even if you have nightmares, that has nothing to do with justifying the suicidal + insane plot (if you happen to see it that way, in-character).

Then there is the whole avenge family get payback thing op has forgotton, need an army and a position of power for that. Also being warden is great way to amass coin.

"I can make money" applies to every possible quest in DA:O/DA2. 

Hawk is an active adventurer and admits as much to Varrick 'great we're adventurers!' motivation beyond that for quests is not needed but supplied anyway via mr Gaiders generousity. The companions are all adventurous types, readiness to follow Hawk into excitement. Hawk is also good at getting folks indebted to Hawk. 

The game is called Rise to Power.

Hawk may not care about the political stuff but likes the action or,
Hawk cares about the political but hates getting injured or,
Hawk loves it all or,
Hawk hates it all but because of social standing must act.
No running off to the Chantry for Hawk. No one person can control a city.
Hawk is involved whether Hawk likes it or not.

Motivation is everywhere if it is needed.
Hawk was a forced lawful alignment and we could choose between Good, Chaotic or Neutral.

I agree with you. But none of that comes from Hawke's personal story as shown to you in-game. That's just something you, as the player, invent to justify what you're doing. 

nerdage wrote...
But the motivation of stopping the blight (the major theme of the game) carries you through almost all the necessary quests the exception being the Origin, the rest are at your own discretion. The motivation of rising to power (the major theme of DA2) doesn't give me any reason to do quite a lot of the stuff presented to me.

The DA:O motivation most certainly does not. Even if we take the motivation as a given, your character could easily see the plan as stupid. 

You could as easily say that abandoning Ferelden to burn, because it is in the midsts of a civil war, lots the majority of its military might (as far as you know) and all you have to go on are 500 year old tries that you hope anyone is going to give a damn about.

And that's just one example, with the idea of the main quests. You could as easily refuse Ozammar (takes too much time!) and say that it would be easier to just push forward through the mountains to Orlais given the amount of time it will take you to help the dwarves pick a King.

But there isn't just one imposed motivation in act one, it also assumes I have motivation to (by virtue of forcing me to) keep my promise to Flemeth, help Petrice, deal with Keran, Arianni, Thrask, etc.. all of which are irrelevant to both the deep roads expedition plot and the greater "rise to power" plot. These side-plots could've easily progressed without my intervention without breaking the rise to power, that all stems from Dumar after the expedition is a success anyway, so why impose on me more than is necessary?

None of this is different in DA:O. Like the Urn of Sacred Ashes Quest. Or Orzammar. Or the Brecilian Forest. Or the Circle Tower (what if I just want to go to Denerim to bring word of this disaster to the Grand Cleric?). And so on, and on. 

Yrkoon wrote...
Translation:  Neither DA2 nor DA:O had any real choice.  And:  look at me, I'm one of those unique ones who can't  be classified as a fanboy of either game  (see how I criticise both games?  I is clever).

3/10 for the trolling. I don't care that you don't like me, but be respectful. 

More importantly, you're completely and comically wrong. Motivation is completely irrelevant to choice as a design principle. You could have no choice in the plot at all at any branch and still have quite compelling in-game motivation (say Metal Gear Solid) and tremendous choice and no motivation at all. 

Making thigs up for the sake of proving your point is the thing you do all the time though, so it would have been really surprising if you actually avoided doing that for once. 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:38 .

[Yrkoon]

simfamSP wrote...

Why in Act 1 do we look for a *deep roads* expedition and not a simple body guard job in order to gain coin?

 I'm going to expand on this point.  No wait, I'll let Hawke expand on it, since an actual Dialogue he has with Varric illustrates the absurdity of the whole thing.

When you first meet Varric, he informs you that you need to raise 50 gold to go on the expedition.  To which Hawke  can Reply with:    "If I had that much gold I wouldn't Need to go on the expedition."

^lol, well?  he's right!  But of course, thou must go on the expedition, even though  thou can make plenty gold without going on it.    Of course, the question arises, is going on the expedition the only way you  can make enough gold to repurchase the Amell estate?  We're not told,  obviously, because if we were, there'd be tons MORE players complaining that we should have the choice to raise that money some other way.

Or in fact, not have to raise that money at all.  Fenris manages to get his own  (bigger) estate down the street from Hawke without paying a single penny.   Don't understand why Hawke can't do the same.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:42 .

[In Exile]

Quething wrote...
Core of the problem, right here, I agree.

In DA:O, you only need to accept one thing. Your character wants to stop the Blight. Once you accept that, and work that into your character concept, you will never have another "why am I doing this" moment again.

That's not the case at all.

Let's say I agree the blight has to end, no matter the cost.

How does it follow from that I should use the treaties?

Even if I agree that the treaties are binding, why should I believe any of the armies I might gather are worth it?

Why should I care at all about Ferelden? Maybe I think Ferelden can slow down the Blight enough - with different enclaves of soldiers in different places - while bring word to Orlais.

(Except going after the Urn. Major fail, making that mandatory. Teagan could have called the Landsmeet just as well. Or my damn Cousland!)

All of DA:O is like this, unless you happen to think the plot's ideas are good. This is the issue of motivation in-game.

In DA:2, there's no one thing to work into your character concept. It's bizarre. You have to accept that you care about the mage/templar issue. Okay. You have to accept that you support the templars. Ooo...kay. You have to accept that you don't like templars and want yourself/your sister free from them. Wait, what? You have to accept that you're willing to help Petrice. Then you have to accept that you want to stop her! And yet, none of this is at all consistent with your tendency to slip into three-year comas during which you don't care about anything at all.

This is just you not buying the plot. You can easily play the game with DA:O, like I illustrated above.

The design failure is not the subjective appreciation of the idea, but the fact that the game does not hedge you in at all. 

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Why in Act 1 do we look for a *deep roads* expedition and not a simple body guard job in order to gain coin?

 I'm going to expand on this point.  No wait, I'll let Hawke expand on it, since an actual Dialogue he has with Varric illustrates the absurdity of the whole thing.

When you first meet Varric, he informs you that you need to raise 50 gold to go on the expedition.  To which Hawke  can Reply with:    "If I had that much gold I wouldn't Need to go on the expedition."

^lol, well?  he's right!  But of course, thou must go on the expedition, even though  thou can make plenty gold without going on it.    Of course, the question arises, is going on the expedition the only way you  can make enough gold to repurchase the Amell estate?  We're not told,  obviously, because if we were, there'd be tons MORE players complaining that we should have the choice to raise that money some other way.

Or in fact, not have to raise that money at all.  Fenris manages to get his own  (bigger) estate down the street from Hawke without paying a single penny.   Don't understand why Hawke can't do the same.

Actually, Hawke doesn't say that. He says "I hope there's more to this. Like where I'm supposed to get that kind of coin.". Nowhere is it stated to my knowledge that 50 sovereigns would be enough for him to not go on an expedition.

But I imagine that going on the expedition would lead to a huge amount of profits for the Hawke/Amell family to have again (though the game only gives you a 20 sovereign profit at best which is horrendous imo) since they came to Kirkwall with nothing. Plus, Leandra was going to petition the rights back to the estate.

You need a lot of coin to live as a noble. 50 sovereigns isn't a whole lot. It was what Bartrand needed to finish financing the expedition, but from the look of things he was bringing the bare minimum amount of people. A merchant convoy, a few hirelings, and his brother.

[Yrkoon]

Why should I care at all about Ferelden?

You don't have to care about fereldan. at all. Morrigan Doesn't. Sten Doesn't. Yet both are committed to stopping the blight. And that's because Stopping the blight is a seperate motivation.

And before you respond with the argument of: "but what if I don't want to stop the blight???}

Well, man, this is a video game. In ALL video games, there are some motivations that are assumed (you don't buy a Witcher game if you don't want to be a witcher. You don't buy a racing game if you don't want to race etc). In the case of DA: O, the motivation to stop the blight is posed/assumed to the player before he buys the game, on the game box, you are Told that you're going to play as a warden, and that your goal is to stop the blight. At that point, you do INDEED have a choice based on Motivation. You can literally say: F**K that. I don't wanna be a warden. I don't wanna stop the blight..... and just walk away.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

You don't have to care about fereldan. at all. Morrigan Doesn't. Sten Doesn't. Yet both are committed to stopping the blight. And that's because Stopping the blight is a seperate motivation.

And before you respond with the argument of: "but what if I don't want to stop the blight???}

If, rather than trying to pounce on a post to drive a point you had read further, you would have seen the following line:

"Maybe I think Ferelden can slow down the Blight enough - with different enclaves of soldiers in different places - while bring word to Orlais."

i.e. You can quite easily think that there is a better way to stop the blight than what you're doing. Let's quote me again, for emphasis:

" Even if we take the motivation [to stop the blight] as a given, your character could easily see the plan as stupid. 

You could as easily say that abandoning Ferelden to burn, because it is in the midsts of a civil war, lots the majority of its military might (as far as you know) and all you have to go on are 500 year old tries that you hope anyone is going to give a damn about."

Sten and Morrigain are great examples, as it turns out, because both complain about things which seem useless - saving Redcliffe and the Urn. 

Well, man, this is a video game. In ALL video games, there are some motivations that are assumed (you don't buy a Witcher game if you don't want to be a witcher. You don't buy a racing game if you don't want to race etc). In the case of DA: O, the motivation to stop the blight is posed/assumed to the player before he buys the game, on the game box, you are Told that you're going to play as a warden, and that your goal is to stop the blight. At that point, you do INDEED have a choice based on Motivation. You can literally say: F**K that. I don't wanna be a warden. I don't wanna stop the blight..... and just walk away.

You don't win debating points by ranting after not reading closely. 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 octobre 2011 - 02:05 .

[In Exile]

FedericoV wrote...
Having said that: even in term of motivations, DA:O is stronger. It's not perfect and for certain it's not new. But saving the world (and every form of human life in the process) from the blight is what I call a strong motivation. Yes, it's the old hero's journey but know what? It works. And yes, the joining is not played smartly: you are forced to join the wardens for no reasons. The game simply assumes that you metagame the issue knowing that you are "the chosen one" and that you are the main charachter of an epic fantasy. It's not a brillaint design but it can work since it uses a known trope. Mind, I was really sick of the forced joining but after I finished the game, at least I could understand the premise since there was a payoff.

But the meta-game issue, as I've said, is not just saying that you have to save to stop the blight.

Firstly, DA:O has a major design flaw in not just linking up each Origin with the Blight. It almost did that with the Dalish Warden. That wouldn't have been hard to do as a prologue. A

Secondly, even bite on the unifying theme, that doesn't mean you have to bite on the plot hooks.

Why should I want to get dwarves and elves and not Orlesians? Why should I want mages and not more Wardens? Why should I want to save Ferelden instead of fortifying Kirkwall? 
 

DA2 does not have any sort of motivation for the main charachter and his involvement in Kirkwall's politics. The game wanted to tell a personal and tragic story but it falls flat in that crucial area and most conflicts you face feels forced on you for no apparent reasons. The tragedies are not of your own doing and the interaction with the tragic figures of your life it's minimal so it's hard to resonate with them. Simply put, they weren't able to use Hawke's family as the proper tool to motivate his rise to power. So, looking at it from the outside, it looks just like a convoluted series of unfortunate and pointless events.

And there is no payoff. Like... never! At the end I feel completely disconnected from the main story. I mean, was it for me, after I killed Anders I would have leaved Kirkwall for good with Isabella and started a new life trying to forget the couple of sociopaths who were running the city.  

But that's just your subjective experience of the plot. I thought DA2 worked great for a laid back character disinterested in the mess that is Kirkwall and just looking to enjoy the lazy life of an Aristocrat while getting dragged into everyone's business. Just like DA:O works great for Wardens who want to save Ferelden, instead of fortifying Orlais. 

And finally, there is even a problem of style. In DA2 most quest are given you in an unnatural way by the "quest pusher" (I mean, by the letters in your house or by the messages in your quest journal). The system is so gamey that it breaks any form of suspension of disbilief and narrative flow. Because of that system, you feel railroaded directly from the game and not from the internal workings of the narrative. So, you stop to care and just do things since they are essential to finish the story, make experiences point and gain frienship/rivalry with NPCs. And that's a huuuuge step back in term of storytelling wich should be Bioware's strong point.

That's a very good point, and it's part of what I'm getting at. Bioware does seem to view it as a game. 

[Yrkoon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Why in Act 1 do we look for a *deep roads* expedition and not a simple body guard job in order to gain coin?

 I'm going to expand on this point.  No wait, I'll let Hawke expand on it, since an actual Dialogue he has with Varric illustrates the absurdity of the whole thing.

When you first meet Varric, he informs you that you need to raise 50 gold to go on the expedition.  To which Hawke  can Reply with:    "If I had that much gold I wouldn't Need to go on the expedition."

^lol, well?  he's right!  But of course, thou must go on the expedition, even though  thou can make plenty gold without going on it.    Of course, the question arises, is going on the expedition the only way you  can make enough gold to repurchase the Amell estate?  We're not told,  obviously, because if we were, there'd be tons MORE players complaining that we should have the choice to raise that money some other way.

Or in fact, not have to raise that money at all.  Fenris manages to get his own  (bigger) estate down the street from Hawke without paying a single penny.   Don't understand why Hawke can't do the same.

Actually, Hawke doesn't say that.

That's precisely what he says.  I believe it's the "good" option.  And varric's response is  "you have to think big".

[Marionetten]

I found that Awakening did a better job at motivating me than both Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II. Probably because I cared more about my little keep than I did about a largely faceless Ferelden and whatever I was supposed to care about in Dragon Age II.