210 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And while I would rather lore was imparted through expository conversations rather than simple codex entries, that's more of a design problem than a writing problem.[/quote]
There is a point where it would become tedious though. An example where there is quite a lot of expository dialogue is in the conversations you can have with Fenris about the Imperium, or with the Arishok about the Qun. I find these interesting, but they are but two instances in an entire game filled with NPC dialogue. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have the option of talking to Elthina about the Chantry, or with Cullen about the templars, but there is also no reason you can't get that information from books, especially since - unlike DAO - you are settled in a single city and have the luxury of stopping to read.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Second, Hawke is voiced. If the writers want Hawke to shout a line, then he shouts it, regardless of the player's preference. This limits Hawke to just one tone per line, and just three tones per dialogue hub. Dismissiveness and condescension, among many others, are effectively forbidden Hawke, as the lines simply aren't voiced that way.

Third, the tone icons themselves are imprecisely defined. It's not at all clear, for example, at whom the aggression associated with any given instance of the Fist icon will be directed.[/quote]
True, the voiced protagonist system has flaws, but I think that for the most part the dev team is aware of what they are and is working to address some of those issues. If nothing else, the tremendous amount of (constructive) feedback on these forums has probably helped quite a bit.

Also, since you only played through the game once you might not have had the opportunity to play Hawke as a different personality. I can understand how the dialogue wheel with six different icon types is daunting at first, but it's logical if you understand how it works. There are three core icons that determine personality, and then three secondary icons that determine tone. The very first dialogue option you make in the game during the prologue (telling your brother/sister to attack or step aside) determines your initial personality. You are then able to alter it over time with your dialogue choices.

In addition, the strength of your personality type will also determine what you hear if you choose an option that deviates from your normal tone. For example, a diplomatic/nice (green/blue) Hawke who picks a direct (red) choice will typically say the line in a nicer tone than a Hawke who has a purely aggressive personality. So you see, there are variations that are allowed within each type.

I do agree however that there could have been more options. I sorely wished for it on many occasions.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fourth, the dominant tone system fails to allow for player-defined differences in context. The dominant tone changes both the tone and the wording of action-hub dialogue choices based on recent dialogue patterns, even if that recent dialogue had nothing at all to do wih the current dialogue (particularly since whether the two are meaningfully related could only ever be known to the player, as Hawke's personality isn't known to the designers).[/quote]
I'll add here that playing several times has benefited me in this regard. Since I know almost all of the dialogue the NPCs will say, as well as Hawke's variety of responses, I basically now just pick the order in which I ask questions/make statements that best suit the conversation flow and seems more natural.

I'm not suggesting of course that everyone has to go play the game a dozen times, but doing so can sometimes give a different perspective. Why, I've even heard lines or noticed things in movies after several watchings.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fifth, the paraphrases are worthless. This is arguably a component of writing, but I broke it out separately so that my praise for the actual in-game content wouldn't be lost. The paraphrases, which are effectively a UI element, give very little clue as to what Hawke's actual line will be. In fact, they sometimes suggest content that doesn't appear at all within the actual line. The paraphrases thus have a negative effectiveness. They are worse than useless.[/quote]
While I've been frustrated myself on many occasionas regarding this - it's why I quicksave before major dialogue scenes - this is a result of the personality trying to interact with the tone of your own Hawke. I think that Bioware probably thought it would be simpler to just have paraphrased dialogue options, instead of trying to code every personality/tone option and the linking that into the actual lines of text your character could say. Hell, for all we know, they could have tested it out and found that it was so riddled with bugs, or the potential for other problems that they went with the paraphrases.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What exploration? Hawke isn't pemitted to travel anywhere until the game thinks he has a quest-related reason to do so. And once there, the minimap reveals every nook and cranny of the environment.[/quote]
I'm with you 100% here.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In general, DA2's level design is poor.

...

DA2's level design is a poor idea, expertly done, and then thoughtlessly ruined.[/quote]
*Sigh* to me this is the game's greatest failing to be honest.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I will object to their tendency to leave the party, however. The player is given direct control over the companions' attributes and abilities, over their behaviour in combat, and even over much of their travel. The player is encouraged - expected, even - to select the abilities of party members to work in concert (particularly through the cross-class-combo mechanic), and then that party design is intermittently taken away. Sometimes permanently. That is a "gotcha" moment if ever I saw one.[/quote]
I'm kind of confused about your notions on the companions leaving. Other than Isabela in Act 2 who can really leave and you never see her again if certain conditions aren't met, no other companion abandons you until you tell them to leave (ie Anders asking specifically if he should go.) Unless you are referring to the Final Choice where you might have some companions abandon you if their friendship/rivalry is not high enough, which can be argued against the entire meta game of relationship building in the first place.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Also, the excessive use of waves of reinforcements eliminates the ability to plan even within a given encounter. The player cannot know (until a second playthrough) whether his enemy's numbers will be replenished.

...

Legacy was no better in this regard.[/quote]
Believe me, they know all about how people hate the waves. Actually, I don't really recall a great deal of waves during Legacy or MotA...


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The core gameplay mechanics are entirely undocumented. What effect does +184 Cold Resistance have? This is completely unacceptable. The game's systems must be written down somewhere in a devloper's office. Publish that.[/quote]
While I agree with you completely here, there reasoning might be similar to Blizzard's in designing World of Warcraft raid encounters (they have gotten more complex over the years - 6 years ago a boss had one or two abilities, nowadays there are typically over 10 encountered in different phases, requiring different positioning and different reactions.) With the internet being what it is today, there is such a huge wealth of information available that they assume people who really want to know this information will seek it out, and likewise that there will always be individuals willing to provide such information. This line of thinking has generally proven to be true.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

... neither game approaches the level of hotbar customisation permitted by NWN, which is by far BioWare's high-water mark for UI design and inventory management.[/quote]
I too really enjoyed NWN's inventory and hotbar management.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2 lacks polish.[/quote]
I think this is the key takeaway really. It really shows in certain areas.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How do you resolve the obvious incrongruities asymmetrical combat mechanics create within the emergent narrative?  Hawke and his companions strike blows with vastly more power than any other being in the world.  Surely they've noticed this.  Surely others have, as well.  And yet this knowledge doesn't seem to affect anyone's non-combat behaviour.

You do not resolve it. It's a poetic license that serves a narrative purpose. The focus of a storytelling RPG is not combat in itself. Combat is a storytelling tool like dialogues and so on that advances the story and charachterize the PC (and the NPCs). Combat's focus is not levelling and tactics. The focus is to express the "eroic persona" of the PC and NPCs. In that context asymmetrical combat design is the way to go, imho.

You sacrifice inner logic for the narrative.

We can discuss if DA2 is really effective in that sense. We can discuss if the game could find narrative reasons to justify the superior qualitities of the PC and the NPCs beside the fact that "they are awesome". In a storytelling RPG like Vampire The Masquerade, the superiority of the PC is justified by being a vampire. In DA:O there were reasons for the superiority of the members of the party. In DA2, a lot less.

[Kidd]

Very interesting review! You really explained your points very well, and I could follow your thought process everywhere. I may not agree with everything you've put, but it's an excellent review!

Some things such as not explaining resistances, and bosses having 100000hp while dealing damages of 30, are things that really annoy me as well btw ^^

[Xewaka]

An excellent review, Sylvius. Well thought out and well expressed.

[Ulicus]

Impressive review, Sylvius. I agreed with more of it than I expected.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And while I would rather lore was imparted through expository conversations rather than simple codex entries, that's more of a design problem than a writing problem.

Wow, really? I hate that. It's normally handled in such a way that makes my character look like an ignorant buffoon.

FedericoV wrote...
In a storytelling RPG like Vampire The Masquerade, the superiority of the PC is justified by being a vampire. In DA:O there were reasons for the superiority of the members of the party. In DA2, a lot less.

A lot more, I think, given Varric is talking them all up.

Modifié par Ulicus, 25 octobre 2011 - 11:23 .

[FedericoV]

Ulicus wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
In a storytelling RPG like Vampire The Masquerade, the superiority of the PC is justified by being a vampire. In DA:O there were reasons for the superiority of the members of the party. In DA2, a lot less.

A lot more, I think, given Varric is talking them all up.

Oh, yeah. I completely forgot the whole framed narrative thing. You are right off course.

[Dubya75]

What?! Sylvius, you only managed to complete the game now? Only once?
For a person who have been quite opinionated about DA2 since day 1 I would have thought that you had completed it at least a few times, exploring all the different approaches and forming a good overall impression. But as it is, I don't think you have experienced all that DA2 (DLCs included) has to offer and therefore won't take your review serious.
Still however, you are entitled to your opinion (not that there is a lot I can agree with).
Kind of puts it in the same review category as the gaming sites. Unreliable.

Modifié par Dubya75, 25 octobre 2011 - 03:15 .

[MerinTB]

Dubya75 wrote...

What?! Sylvius, you only managed to complete the game now? Only once?
For a person who have been quite opinionated about DA2 since day 1 I would have thought that you had completed it at least a few times, exploring all the different approaches and forming a good overall impression. But as it is, I don't think you have experienced all that DA2 (DLCs included) has to offer and therefore won't take your review serious.
Still however, you are entitled to your opinion (not that there is a lot I can agree with).
Kind of puts it in the same review category as the gaming sites. Unreliable.

I don't think it is required to play a game more than once, or even to play it all the way to the end, to know if you don't like the story, mechanics, graphics, etc.

If you get 2/3rds of the way through the game you have seen a good majority of everything the game has to offer.  It isn't like a movie or a novel that you need to see the end of the story to get the whole effect... gameplay mechanics, dialog mechanics, etc. won't magically be "great" because of something at the end if you didn't particularly like them through the whole rest of the game.

And *semi-spoiler on my review* I am on my third play of DA2, and I've played each class and each dominant personality taking each stance of the three major stances on all major choices in the game (save not having Anders help my sibling in the Deep Roads, the one thing I've missed in all playthroughs.)  My views from one playthrough were more positive than my views after the following two plays, so if Sylvius did force himself through more plays of the game (especially considering how he likes to role-play his cRPGs) he'd probably think even poorer of the game.

[Dubya75]

MerinTB wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

What?! Sylvius, you only managed to complete the game now? Only once?
For a person who have been quite opinionated about DA2 since day 1 I would have thought that you had completed it at least a few times, exploring all the different approaches and forming a good overall impression. But as it is, I don't think you have experienced all that DA2 (DLCs included) has to offer and therefore won't take your review serious.
Still however, you are entitled to your opinion (not that there is a lot I can agree with).
Kind of puts it in the same review category as the gaming sites. Unreliable.

I don't think it is required to play a game more than once, or even to play it all the way to the end, to know if you don't like the story, mechanics, graphics, etc.

If you get 2/3rds of the way through the game you have seen a good majority of everything the game has to offer.  It isn't like a movie or a novel that you need to see the end of the story to get the whole effect... gameplay mechanics, dialog mechanics, etc. won't magically be "great" because of something at the end if you didn't particularly like them through the whole rest of the game.

And *semi-spoiler on my review* I am on my third play of DA2, and I've played each class and each dominant personality taking each stance of the three major stances on all major choices in the game (save not having Anders help my sibling in the Deep Roads, the one thing I've missed in all playthroughs.)  My views from one playthrough were more positive than my views after the following two plays, so if Sylvius did force himself through more plays of the game (especially considering how he likes to role-play his cRPGs) he'd probably think even poorer of the game.

Fair enough. One more person's opinion/review in the bucket.
But I stand by what I said before, if I had written a review after my initial playthrough it would have looked a hell of a lot different than after my 4th or 5th playthrough.

A full review from one playthrough just doesn't have a lot of credibility with me. Not for a game like this (RPG).

Modifié par Dubya75, 25 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .

[MerinTB]

Dubya75 wrote...
Fair enough. One more person's opinion/review in the bucket.
But I stand by what I said before, if I had written a review after my initial playthrough it would have looked a hell of a lot different than after my 4th or 5th playthrough.

A full review from one playthrough just doesn't have a lot of credibility with me.

Such a review can miss a lot of nuance in the game... and some reactions to the game do need to be taken with a grain of salt.

If someone felt railroaded in one playthrough you could say that they didn't experience making different choices, for example.  But if they've played it, say, three times making wildly different choices and seeing the same end results everytime then you know they aren't missing much.

Your point isn't without merit.   Unfortunately you will find few reviews of games where the review is written after multiple plays.

I'll be doing one, though.

[Dubya75]

MerinTB wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...
Fair enough. One more person's opinion/review in the bucket.
But I stand by what I said before, if I had written a review after my initial playthrough it would have looked a hell of a lot different than after my 4th or 5th playthrough.

A full review from one playthrough just doesn't have a lot of credibility with me.

Such a review can miss a lot of nuance in the game... and some reactions to the game do need to be taken with a grain of salt.

If someone felt railroaded in one playthrough you could say that they didn't experience making different choices, for example.  But if they've played it, say, three times making wildly different choices and seeing the same end results everytime then you know they aren't missing much.

Your point isn't without merit.   Unfortunately you will find few reviews of games where the review is written after multiple plays.

I'll be doing one, though.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people reviewing the game whenever they want. But as said before, it removes credibility, especially when it is belivered in a way that is saying "Here is it, the definitive Dragon Age II review!"...after a single playthrough.

But on the other hand, if you're saying you've explored all avenues, then I'm ready to listen...read. 

[ScotGaymer]

I agree with some of what Sylvius said but not everything. This is because I think Dubya75 is right in that you cant really form a complete opinion about something if you havent actually bothered to play it all the way thru.

Sylvius claimed in this very thread he ran out of content to play in DA2. And then in the next breath confessed to have not actually completed the game.
So he cant have actually run out of content to play if he hasnt completed the game; claiming there is nothing more to do in game when there is still quests left to play makes ZERO sense.

You can form an opinion on certain elements of the game such as combat mechanics and whatnot. But you cant then make claims about the stuff you havent played thru.

Dubya is right that it does damage his credibility and the credibility of his review.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 25 octobre 2011 - 02:54 .

[Urazz]

MerinTB wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...
Fair enough. One more person's opinion/review in the bucket.
But I stand by what I said before, if I had written a review after my initial playthrough it would have looked a hell of a lot different than after my 4th or 5th playthrough.

A full review from one playthrough just doesn't have a lot of credibility with me.

Such a review can miss a lot of nuance in the game... and some reactions to the game do need to be taken with a grain of salt.

If someone felt railroaded in one playthrough you could say that they didn't experience making different choices, for example.  But if they've played it, say, three times making wildly different choices and seeing the same end results everytime then you know they aren't missing much.

Your point isn't without merit.   Unfortunately you will find few reviews of games where the review is written after multiple plays.

I'll be doing one, though.

Yeah, you are right that you will find few reviews of games where it is written after multiple playthroughs.  But also most reviews are written at the time when the game is released.  Anything after that will be quite thorough and done over multiple playthroughs usually and is usually more objective.  It kind of doesn't help that Sylvius has the reputation in these forums as constantly criticising this game though and hasn't played through the entire game (only has 1 from his reckoning so that means he hasn't actually completed the game).

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I agree with some of what Sylvius said but not everything. This is because I think Dubya75 is right in that you cant really form a complete opinion about something if you havent actually bothered to play it all the way thru.

Sylvius claimed in this very thread he ran out of content to play in DA2. And then in the next breath confessed to have not actually completed the game.
So he cant have actually run out of content to play if he hasnt completed the game; claiming there is nothing more to do in game when there is still quests left to play makes ZERO sense.

You can form an opinion on certain elements of the game such as combat mechanics and whatnot. But you cant then make claims about the stuff you havent played thru.

Dubya is right that it does damage his credibility and the credibility of his review.

I agree.  If you haven't at least played through the game at least once then you can't really make a reliable review.  I agree with some of the thing Sylvius said as well but I'll actually listen more to a negative review that has at least completed one playthrough of the game over one that hasn't.  Not only that but alot of the stuff I agree with him over is what alot of the better constructive reviews mention.

Modifié par Urazz, 25 octobre 2011 - 03:12 .

[Joy Divison]

FedericoV wrote...

You do not resolve it. It's a poetic license that serves a narrative purpose. The focus of a storytelling RPG is not combat in itself. Combat is a storytelling tool like dialogues and so on that advances the story and charachterize the PC (and the NPCs). Combat's focus is not levelling and tactics. The focus is to express the "eroic persona" of the PC and NPCs. In that context asymmetrical combat design is the way to go, imho.

You sacrifice inner logic for the narrative.

We can discuss if DA2 is really effective in that sense. We can discuss if the game could find narrative reasons to justify the superior qualitities of the PC and the NPCs beside the fact that "they are awesome". In a storytelling RPG like Vampire The Masquerade, the superiority of the PC is justified by being a vampire. In DA:O there were reasons for the superiority of the members of the party. In DA2, a lot less.

If the PCs are so "awesome" how come they get wiped out by an errant mighty blow while the NPC loses 10% of its health?

[FedericoV]

Joy Divison wrote...

If the PCs are so "awesome" how come they get wiped out by an errant mighty blow while the NPC loses 10% of its health?

Simply because the player is not as awesome as the charachter he is roleplaying and even because the game was not balanced to be played with FF on. FF in DA2 is simply an innatural layer of difficulty for the player who likes an absurd level of challenge. It's called nightmare for a reason. But I'm not saying that DA2 is balanced perfectly. I'm just saying that asymmetrical combat is better for storytelling RPGs (especially for videogames that have to focus on visual storytelling).

[tmp7704]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Sylvius claimed in this very thread he ran out of content to play in DA2. And then in the next breath confessed to have not actually completed the game.
So he cant have actually run out of content to play if he hasnt completed the game; claiming there is nothing more to do in game when there is still quests left to play makes ZERO sense.

He's explained it here and elsewhere -- it didn't make sense for his character to respond to Meredith's letter in act 3 so he left it unanswered. He then ran out of other tasks the game would offer (side-quests and such) and that was effectively the end of his Hawke's story.

[TheRealJayDee]

First, great review, Sylvius, lots of valid points. I actually agree with most of them. I also gave BioWare credit for trying something new in terms of the narrative, I just think they pretty much failed completely, which is a shame. I guess I would have prefered a strong, 'traditional' approach.

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I agree with some of what Sylvius said but not everything. This is because I think Dubya75 is right in that you cant really form a complete opinion about something if you havent actually bothered to play it all the way thru.

Sylvius claimed in this very thread he ran out of content to play in DA2. And then in the next breath confessed to have not actually completed the game.
So he cant have actually run out of content to play if he hasnt completed the game; claiming there is nothing more to do in game when there is still quests left to play makes ZERO sense.

You can form an opinion on certain elements of the game such as combat mechanics and whatnot. But you cant then make claims about the stuff you havent played thru.

Dubya is right that it does damage his credibility and the credibility of his review.

I haven't read any opinion in his review that to form would have required a full playthrough (although I agree that the horrible finale should be taken into account for any complete, objective review). As to him actually finishing the game or not, he played as far as his character could advance in the narrative. Sylvius is pretty hardcore when it comes to roleplaying, and I respect him for that. Had I his attitude, my first Hawke wouldn't even have seen the beginning of Act 3.

I don't think you have to have half a dozen complete playthroughs to judge a game like DA2. I have completed the game twice, started it with some other characters, and I just didn't like it very much and more or less abandoned it after three weeks or so. The things I didn't like were there on my first playthrough, my second one mostly made my dislike of certain aspects even stronger.

Did two complete playthroughs with a total of about 60 hours give me satisfying experience for my money? Objectively yes, I guess, cause it's not a bad money/playtime ratio these days. Still DA2 to me is one of the greatest dissapointments of my gaming life.

[n2nw]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think DA2's authored narrative is very strong. If BioWare's goal is to tell interesting stories in their games, DA2 succeeds, and I say that with no reservations at all.

I agree.

My problem with the storytelling came with the fact that every mage, except my Hawke, Alain, and a few nobodys in the Circle (siding with the Templars), gave in to temptation.  I loved Orsino.  I would have romanced him had I been able.  He spends years fighting Meredith and trying to convince her that most mages are clean (and even sends me after some) and then.....poof!  He just switches sides.  I just wanted to say, "Know what?  Screw all of you.  You deserve each other...." and walk off.  But it didn't give me that option.

A much better ending would have been to have someone else either kill him with blood magic or find out that it had been implanted in him as it had with the templars. 

And there are people who would rather die than turn against their beliefs.  They should not have made everyone resort to it.  It was frustrating.  When everyone just gives in, why in the world would anyone *want* to save any mage??

Dialogue
I also hated the tone and the paraphrases.  I can get used to a voiced protagonist, but ME taught me to save before each and every conversation.  I used to only do that to have fun going back and picking other choices.  Now, it's a life saver.  I hate picking an option that looks like something I would say ("make it worth my while") and getting something totally different ("if you don't pay me, I'll drown your puppies and kittens").

I also don't like that the "humorous" option almost *always* sounds like you're such a smart alec.  I would have said a lot of those things, but mostly in a different tone.  But, such is the limits of VO.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't typically find the companions in BioWare games that interesting on their own.

Jaheira.
Edit - how could I forget Daelan Red Tiger?  I loved him.

I admit that the DA2 companions were a little one-dimensional, but some were really fun (Varric), and I've enjoyed most of the companions in Bioware games.   And since Bioware games are mostly what I've played, I really don't have a lot to which to compare them, but the reason I stick with Bioware is because they *have* companions...even ones that you can romance.  Would I like to see them a little more fleshed-out?  Sure.  But, baby steps, Carver.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I will object to their tendency to leave the party, however

As a roleplayer (and being Dr. Spock), wouldn't you *like* this? It's totally illogical that if someone really hated what you did that they would stay with you.  Do you really see Anders slaughtering the mages?  I don't like losing a party member, but them leaving makes sense.  It would irritate me if they stayed, regardless of their personal beliefs or how much they hated me, unless I somehow bribed or talked them into it. It just doesn't fit otherwise.
That said, I would like to be able to throw them out, too. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Being unable to do that - particularly when forced to accept a specific companion for a particular quest...

I hate *having* to take someone. It would be nice to have the option of not taking them and failing the quest and/or ticking them off about it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Similarly, being unable to sort the Inventory

Being OCD, I hated this. *I* wanted to sort it. I know some people hate inventory tetris, but it was one of my fav mini games.
And I don't want to know what's junk. Though it's nice not to have to worry about selling something more valuable, it takes away my right to go, "DOH!" later on when I realize that the torn trousers I destroyed were actually worth 50 silver and the broken bracelet I kept was only worth 20.
And I'll just throw this in here:
Mages & robes - WHY?!?!? I'm trying to HIDE that I'm a mage and I hate robes.  Give me some other options.  It doesn't have to be armor, but let me wear PANTS for pete's sake.  Or a sexy-looking dress.  They can be enchanted like a robe...it's all material, you know.  Or is it a cardinal rule that mages can only look dowdy?  And why in the world should I be all hush-hush around the templars when I'm wearing a robe and casting spells in their faces (with a 7 foot stick attached to my back)?  Seriously.  Give me pants and I'll spellcast behind their back.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The party members (including Hawke) would disobey the Hold command....

Yes, it was very irritating when my party members kept running through the traps I was trying to disarm. Grrrrrrr.....

My conclusion?  I agreed with much of your review.  However, I still like DA2 and enjoy(ed) playing it.  I certainly hope to see improvements in the next one and what I like about Bioware is that they really do seem to care about their gamers, so I'd like to think that we'll see a change.  I, for one, am looking forward to #3.

Modifié par n2nw, 25 octobre 2011 - 04:42 .

[tmp7704]

FedericoV wrote...

I'm just saying that asymmetrical combat is better for storytelling RPGs (especially for videogames that have to focus on visual storytelling).

I'd say it may be useful mechanics for certain, narrow variant of storytelling which has the PC as unnaturally gifted "chosen one".

But at the same time it can go completely against other types of characters one might want to roleplay -- like say, ordinary person thrown in the events, or someone who preserves through either brains or tenacity rather than through happening to be just way better than everyone else.

[FedericoV]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'd say it may be useful mechanics for certain, narrow variant of storytelling which has the PC as unnaturally gifted "chosen one".

Well, I don't agree. Asimmetry is the way to go for any kind of "heroic" RPG storytelling (if the focus is storytelling). Asymmetry allows a lot of flexibility and can be used in many different ways.

But at the same time it can go completely against other types of characters one might want to roleplay -- like say, ordinary person thrown in the events, or someone who preserves through either brains or tenacity rather than through happening to be just way better than everyone else.

Well, it depends on how you handle and fix asimmetry. DA:O used a largely asymmetric system but the PC was not the chosen one. Same for the ME series. And they work both quite well.

[tmp7704]

FedericoV wrote...

Well, it depends on how you handle and fix asimmetry. DA:O used a largely asymmetric system but the PC was not the chosen one.

DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats. Any modifiers applied to both sides were tied to difficulty level and as such up to the player's discretion.

[Malanek]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having now played one entire playthrough (by my reckoning), I am now comfortable writing a review.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...I don't actually know what happens at the "end" of the game, because I never reached the the conclusion of the authored narrative.  Since the game didn't force me to pursue a specific "Main Quest" (and that's a good feature of DA2), and doing so would have been out of character for my Hawke, I ran out of game content somewhat earlier than I suspect the writers intended.

Don't you think this is, at best, misleading? Just how far did you get? Perhaps you should state that clearly when writing a review rather than giving the impression you have finished the game.

The endings were the weakest part of what was otherwise a very good story. 

[Malanek]

tmp7704 wrote...
DAO was largely symmetric, actually -- both the NPCs and PC + companions utilized the same abilities, levelling mechanics, tactical systems and stats. Any modifiers applied to both sides were tied to difficulty level and as such up to the player's discretion.

Chain Lightning wasn't that symetrical. Although I think being symetrical is a desirable feature it brings a lot of baggage with it. You should be able to one shot certain enemies, you should have more lethal crowd control, the reverse should never apply because it feels unfair and gets frustrating. Games which don't try to be symmetrical almost inevitably play better.

[tmp7704]

Malanek999 wrote...

Chain Lightning wasn't that symetrical.

How so? THere's nothing in the script of that ability that even checks whether the caster/target is on the player's side or not, nevermind changing anything in the code based on that.

[TEWR]

Malanek999 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having now played one entire playthrough (by my reckoning), I am now comfortable writing a review.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...I don't actually know what happens at the "end" of the game, because I never reached the the conclusion of the authored narrative.  Since the game didn't force me to pursue a specific "Main Quest" (and that's a good feature of DA2), and doing so would have been out of character for my Hawke, I ran out of game content somewhat earlier than I suspect the writers intended.

Don't you think this is, at best, misleading? Just how far did you get? Perhaps you should state that clearly when writing a review rather than giving the impression you have finished the game.

The endings were the weakest part of what was otherwise a very good story. 

He apparently only played up until the beginning of Act 3 where Meredith sends him a letter. I'm assuming he sided with Orsino in the opening.

Frankly, that's where I didn't quite get what Act III was supposed to be about. I sided with Orsino over Meredith and Meredith is the one asking me for help. Orsino should've been the one asking for help.

The whole game only makes sense if you play a pro-Templar ****, and that makes me mad.