210 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is absolutely correct.

Also, Isolde is grasping at straws.  She'll cling to any sliver of hope she can get.  Grief-stricken people aren't generally rational.

Bann Teagan still suggests it if Isolde is dead.

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Bann Teagan still suggests it if Isolde is dead.

Well, that is his brother it's about so he has even more reasons for the grasping at straws behaviour.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 octobre 2011 - 10:24 .

[Herr Uhl]

tmp7704 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Bann Teagan still suggests it if Isolde is dead.

Well, that is his brother it's about so he has even more reasons for the grasping at straws behaviour.

Just saying that it isn't only Isolde.

If there was the option to say "bugger that", I'd  use that most of the time. I rarely play characters that would go along with that in the situation of the game.

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

If there was the option to say "bugger that", I'd  use that most of the time. I rarely play characters that would go along with that in the situation of the game.

It certainly would be nice if there was option to skip that part and maybe launch the Landsmeet arc with Teagan at the helm instead, even if it could end in a failure.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

No, if you got down that particular branch, it goes like this:

PC: I will see if I can find this relic.
Teagan: No one else can. Even if I wished to do it myself, I cannot abandon Redcliffe to its own devices.
Teagan: Perhaps you could seek out the brother's home in Denerim and see if any clues remain on his whereabouts. It is the only place to begin the search, I think.
Teagan: I must go to the hall and begin rebuilding. I wish you luck, and may the Maker go with you.
(end)

there's nothing here that'd openly suggest Teagan thinks you believe in the Urn. He only believes that you'll give it a try to find it, which is what you declare.

This is absolutely correct.

Also, Isolde is grasping at straws.  She'll cling to any sliver of hope she can get.  Grief-stricken people aren't generally rational.

As for correcting incorrect interpretations, I don't see why you'd usually bother.  Unless the misinterpretation affects what you'll actually be able to do, who cares whether someone misunderstood you?  They'll figure it out eventually when your actions match what you actually meant in the first place.

My warden quite commonly chose the "I will see if I can find x" options for a lot of things.  It may not be overtly skeptical, but I think it does come across as rather noncommittal.  But I do agree that the Sacred Ashes quest does seem like it could be avoided if Teagan would just man up. 

The other quest that always bothered me from that point of view was chasing Branka in the Deep Roads. 

Modifié par maxernst, 26 octobre 2011 - 10:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Noncommital is good. It could also be interpreted as an attempt to manage (and temper) Isolde and Teagan's expectations.

That's the great thing about a silent protagonist. The lines can be delivered however the player wants.  And without an obfuscatory paraphrase in the way, the player gets to know exactly what the line can mean before he selects it.  Imagine this exchange using DA2's dialogue system.  The player would have no idea whether the line would include a positive affirmation of the healing powers of the Ashes, or a promise to cure Eamon, or any other piece of unacceptable content.

The voice + paraphrase is an unmitigated disaster.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 octobre 2011 - 10:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the great thing about a silent protagonist. The lines can be delivered however the player wants.

Sure, if you buy that. 

But this ground has been covered before.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the great thing about a silent protagonist. The lines can be delivered however the player wants.

Sure, if you buy that. 

But this ground has been covered before.

As I've explained several times in reponse, David is just flat wrong about that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 octobre 2011 - 11:02 .

[AlexXIV]

Funny though that Shepard is voiced too but never feels out of place. I guess it is just a matter of covering the options or write a dialogue in a way that it isn't a big issue. Not that I'd know how to do that, but the guys over at ME seem to know.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I've explained several times in reponse, David is just flat wrong about that.

Which is why I said we've been over it.

It's possible to agree with him.  It's possible to agree with you.

It's another one of those approach things.

[indyracing]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

What I find interesting is that I read through your review, agreeing wholeheartedly with almost every single point, and yet I loved DAII while you didn't like it at all XD

Yeah - I pretty much can agree with every point made in the OP to at least some degree, and yet I enjoyed DA2.

I especially enjoyed Acts 1 and 2 (I don't think I saw enough setup in 1 and 2 for what Act 3 has).

I did NOT like my sibling leaving for most of the game.  I set Bethany up as my healer, and then my healer was simply gone.

But overall I enjoyed DA2.

[Malanek]

AlexXIV wrote...

Funny though that Shepard is voiced too but never feels out of place. I guess it is just a matter of covering the options or write a dialogue in a way that it isn't a big issue. Not that I'd know how to do that, but the guys over at ME seem to know.

The tone of Shepards responses are usually a lot more neutral regardless of whether it is paragon, renegade or something else. With DA2 it seemed the writers were so desperate to utilise the new tone icons that they wrote far too many over the top replies, which carried over into the voice acting direction, and didn't really have a neutral tone. You can still be completely surprised by what Shepard says though.

[Malanek]

indyracing wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

What I find interesting is that I read through your review, agreeing wholeheartedly with almost every single point, and yet I loved DAII while you didn't like it at all XD

Yeah - I pretty much can agree with every point made in the OP to at least some degree, and yet I enjoyed DA2.

I especially enjoyed Acts 1 and 2 (I don't think I saw enough setup in 1 and 2 for what Act 3 has).

I did NOT like my sibling leaving for most of the game.  I set Bethany up as my healer, and then my healer was simply gone.

But overall I enjoyed DA2.

Same with me. I guess it's just placing different importance on different things. Also I think being prepared to enjoy a game for what it is rather than what you wanted it to be.

[Joy Divison]

indyracing wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

What I find interesting is that I read through your review, agreeing wholeheartedly with almost every single point, and yet I loved DAII while you didn't like it at all XD

Yeah - I pretty much can agree with every point made in the OP to at least some degree, and yet I enjoyed DA2.

I especially enjoyed Acts 1 and 2 (I don't think I saw enough setup in 1 and 2 for what Act 3 has).

I did NOT like my sibling leaving for most of the game.  I set Bethany up as my healer, and then my healer was simply gone.

But overall I enjoyed DA2.

Priorities.  What's a trivial annoyance to one might be a dealbreaker to another.

[Asch Lavigne]

My only problem with the narrative was that every time Varric mentioned something/someone (like Flemeth or the Wardens) Cassandra seemed to always go "Aha! Their involvement makes perfect sense!" Uh no, if Varric mentions the Wardens how does that make sense regarding what happened at the end of the game? Half the time I think Cassandra didn't know what she was talking about. Shouldn't she know that the Qunari have nothing to do with the Mage/Templar thing? That ended what, 3 years prior?

I don't mind a story that takes place over a certain amount of years but I agree that the time jumps were poorly done.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 27 octobre 2011 - 01:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

Funny though that Shepard is voiced too but never feels out of place. I guess it is just a matter of covering the options or write a dialogue in a way that it isn't a big issue. Not that I'd know how to do that, but the guys over at ME seem to know.

I disagree.  Shepard being voiced is just as much of a problem as Hawke being voiced.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Which is why I said we've been over it.

It's possible to agree with him.  It's possible to agree with you.

His position doesn't withstand scrutiny.  It is not possible to hold that position reasonably.

I understand why he does - that's how he wrote the game, so his perception of the game's content is coloured by his expectations - but that doesn't make his position any better.

The content of the game demonstrably does not include the tone he's describing.

It's another one of those approach things.

No, it isn't.  You're claiming the tone of the line is contained within the game.  But it isn't.  If it were, I could perceive it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 octobre 2011 - 02:10 .

[AlexXIV]

Malanek999 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Funny though that Shepard is voiced too but never feels out of place. I guess it is just a matter of covering the options or write a dialogue in a way that it isn't a big issue. Not that I'd know how to do that, but the guys over at ME seem to know.

The tone of Shepards responses are usually a lot more neutral regardless of whether it is paragon, renegade or something else. With DA2 it seemed the writers were so desperate to utilise the new tone icons that they wrote far too many over the top replies, which carried over into the voice acting direction, and didn't really have a neutral tone. You can still be completely surprised by what Shepard says though.

Well I was mostly positively surprised. Maybe because I like Jenny Hale's voice or because I found it especially fitting. However, Shepard does have a special personality from start and never loses it. Things like 'rock in a hard place' and 'we fight or we die' come to mind. It is probably easier to voice a character that already does have a profile in opposite of characters that are rather undefinded.

[TEWR]

No, it isn't.  You're claiming the tone of the line is contained within the game.  But it isn't.  If it were, I could perceive it.

I think a player can in fact perceive the tone of the line in DAO.

For example: When Alistair asks the Warden to stop at the beginning of Redcliffe so they can talk for a moment, it's evident that he wants to be serious. Like "no jokes at a serious time until this is off his chest" serious, which is unusual for Alistair given that he makes jokes all the time. Usually in serious situations.

The player is then given the option of saying a few things, one being "Let me guess: you're an idiot". This should definitely be taken to be a derogatory joke on Alistair's character, and although he sort of plays along he's kinda mad that the Warden made a joke when Alistair had something big on his mind.

2nd example, same scenario: After he reveals his lineage and is content at having gotten it off his chest, the player can say "So.... you're not just a bastard but you're a royal bastard?". This is obviously a joke as well, but not a derogatory one on Alistair's character. It's just a way to make light of something Alistair never liked so as to cheer him up.

I think what the player can't perceive is how someone will react to what they say, which is true for real life as well. I can make a joke but I can't know how someone will react to the joke. They may see it as an insult or laugh at it.

This is -- IMO -- one of DAII's few good points. The player doesn't know how an NPC will react to what Hawke will say. The sad part is that the player also doesn't know what Hawke will say. So it sort of goes back to square one. The bad canceled out the good. But... it still establishes an obvious way of the player knowing how what's said is said.

And while people may misconstrue how something is said, in my experience people always make it a point to correct the person on what they misunderstood by saying "That was a joke" or "I was serious" or what-have-you.

[Satyricon331]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As I've explained several times in reponse, David is just flat wrong about that.

Which is why I said we've been over it.

It's possible to agree with him.  It's possible to agree with you.

It's another one of those approach things.

Yeah, I agree with Sylvius.  David's objectively incorrect there.  It's not a subjective matter because he's making an empirical claim on how the game constrains the players.  If there are players who are not constrained that way, as Sylvius is saying he is, then that really should be the end of the matter.  Maybe the players who play that way aren't a big market share - Bioware seems to have abandoned players like Sylvius and me - but that's a different question.

I'll add I'm with Sylvius in that I also didn't always feel the constraint.  Sometimes it was there, but take the example The Ethereal Writer Redux gives concerning the line to Alistair.  I'd agree its most obvious interpretation is derogatory, but there are others that are available and there's nothing incoherent about it.  Perhaps your mage character is trying to be supportive but doesn't have good social skills (lord knows that's happened to me), or perhaps your Dalish character is but doesn't understand human humor.  Or perhaps he does - the Warden and Alistair have had a longstanding thing of mocking Morrigan by taking her jibes as gospel, and developed a bonding thing where the Warden would often (but not always, since it doesn't appear in other dialogues) call him a moron and Alistair would call him something similar that Morri would say (in the year or two you travel with these people, you'd surely have interactions the game doesn't depict).  I mean, that situation is almost the perfect example since Alistair is preoccupied with his big news and so his reaction to you will naturally be less responsive to any alteration you make to Bioware's intention for the line.  

You can go even further when you've finished the game enough to know what the replies will be for that dialogue (or when you've just reloaded), and reimagine the line itself wholesale to be whatever would be consistent with the response you get.  Plus sometimes even without that knowledge you can reimagine the phrasing while preserving the propositional content of Bioware's line.  

[Anyroad2]

Emergent Narrative...

I agree with some of your points. Theres really not a whole lot of that going on in DA2, but thats because youre playing Hawke (not a character that you create from the ground up), and you're playing the story that Bioware wants you to play, probably because they have plans for the next game that revolve around this one. Certain elements need to be there.


Role-playing Systems...

Exploration in DAO was the same way. The mini map revealed everything. You couldn't go to places without having business there. Everywhere the Warden went, there was bound to be some main quest there. Orzammar,
The Forest, Denerim, Redcliff, Circle of Magi... all of those places had quests involving the main story.


Dialogue...

I disliked the paraphrasing, but I'd take it again if I had to choose that, or a silent protagonist. I love hearing the main character talk. Makes them feel more real to me than a hero who communicates by pantomime or telepathically with a blank stare.


Level Design...

How are narrow corridors unrealistic? You certainly dont know what things are like around Kirkwall and the Freemarches, because, they dont exists outside of fantasy. The only authority on the geography of these places are the people who created them.

If the mini map ruins the game so much for you, just don't look at it. I rarely did.
DA2 never forces you to examine the map, ever.

I agree that level design in DA2 reused areas far, far to much. Its a good thing that Bioware has been addressing this with their amazing DLC.


Companions...

You dont care about well written characters that the game is partially written around simply because you arent in control of them? Okay.

I feel that the companions in DA2 are some of the best examples of party members in any RPG. Each of them have a unique back-story, their own motives, their own senses of right and wrong, their own secrets (that may or may not be reveled to Hawke), and they have pretty unique skills. Heck, they dont even need to like Hawke at all.

Why would you be upset when companions leave your group (especially being such an avid RPer)?
Are they not allowed to leave you for reasons beyond your control?

If Isabella doesnt feel any need to come back to Hawke at the end of Act 2, then she doesnt. If Hawke hasnt done enough to gain her loyalty, she leaves forever. This is Isabella, shes more concerned with herself than she is of the citizens of Kirkwall.


Art Direction...

Firstly Sebastains eyes dont glow, at all.

Secondly... yeah the animations were pretty nuts. I liked them for the most part. Watching combat was much more entertaining for me in DA2 than it was while watching my squad hobble around with sticks up their bums in DAO.

DA2 needed less flipping, and I wondered why the enemies weren't using the same animations as my group was. It wasnt a big deal to me though. I can easily imagine that this was some flare that Varric was putting into his story to make it more flashy.


Encounters...

You talked about how you cant prepare for combat. I agree with you here. I found it to be pretty frustrating as well. We knew that we were about to fight, but all our attempts to set up for it were futile every single time in DA2.

This is something that they worked on in Legacy and MotA. So its getting better. Still, cant set up if you need to talk to someone to start the fight however.

You complain that you dont know if enemies will have reinforcements unless you play a second time. Why is this an issue with you? Youre an avid RPer... right? How in the world would anyone know if theres 12 more carta dwarves inside a building preparing to fight you?


Combat Mechanics...

This is how most games (especially RPGs) work. Youre the hero, you do more damage than anyone else. You are meant to survive the majority of encounters in the game.

Open World RPGs like Fallout and TES dont follow this exactly though. In Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and in Morrowind you could easily wander into territory you arent supposed to be in yet resulting in you running for your life or losing it when you encountered an enemy. Still you could level up and come back and try again. Eventually those creatures would be kill-able.

Attack animations? Youre complaining that you cant interrupt an attack animation. Swing a large 2 handed sword and see if you can stop it mid swing to go do something else with the weapon. Or see how accurate you are with a bow when you just rapid fire without the proper stance, or aim.

I don't play with the auto attack on. Everytime I attack its something that I'm controlling. Maybe
your problem has to do with that.


Documentation...

"What effect does +184 Cold Resistance have?" Easy. Open your character sheet and open the Resistance tab. There you go. It should tell you the exact mitigation value.

On the UI...

Theres an option to have the UI fade away when you aren't in combat.

Inventory management is something that the player has to do. If you find yourself
wading through tons of items you dont want or use, maybe its time to sell or stash them away.


Other...

I've never had any clipping, falling through the world, ability directional issues
in DA2. Ive played maybe close to 200 hours of it now... at least.

I agree with the Hold command thing. Covered this when talking about how you cant set up for a battle very often in DA2. I can maybe count on one hand how many times I was able to set things up before being in direct combat. The quest where you help the guards take out those mercs at the Wounded Coast is one of them. Just hang back and pull with range. Some of them will come out eventually.

[Heimdall]

Anyroad2 wrote...
Companions...

You dont care about well written characters that the game is partially written around simply because you arent in control of them? Okay.

I feel that the companions in DA2 are some of the best examples of party members in any RPG. Each of them have a unique back-story, their own motives, their own senses of right and wrong, their own secrets (that may or may not be reveled to Hawke), and they have pretty unique skills. Heck, they dont even need to like Hawke at all.

Why would you be upset when companions leave your group (especially being such an avid RPer)?
Are they not allowed to leave you for reasons beyond your control?

If Isabella doesnt feel any need to come back to Hawke at the end of Act 2, then she doesnt. If Hawke hasnt done enough to gain her loyalty, she leaves forever. This is Isabella, shes more concerned with herself than she is of the citizens of Kirkwall.

Sylvius believes the companions are his characters just as much as the protagonist character is.  I've been part of a dispute over this before, though that was talking about the announcement of locked companions outfits before DA2 was released I believe.  His veiw is "if I can control those characters in battle, if I can choose the abilities they gain, I am RPing those characters."  He wants more control over the companions, not less.  He'd use them as party lead in conversations if he could.  His veiw of RPing is far more overarching than most, only NPCs not in the party are not his characters.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 31 octobre 2011 - 10:21 .

[Satyricon331]

Filament wrote...

As far as how the game is designed to be played, he's not really wrong. He acknowledged in the second paragraph that it was possible to play in ways it wasn't designed to be played, and that that possibility has indeed been removed.

His "Asperger's" comment was part of the constraint, but of course it is possible to play someone who doesn't always follow Bioware's intention for the line and who doesn't have Asperger's.

[tmp7704]

Anyroad2 wrote...

Combat Mechanics...

This is how most games (especially RPGs) work. Youre the hero, you do more damage than anyone else. You are meant to survive the majority of encounters in the game.

That's not true, at least in the context it's something present in "most games, because they're games". Plenty of games utilize generally level field for the player's side and the opponent side, and they focus on the challenge that's to come out victorious when the odds aren't stacked in your favour. That's something you can observe in many genres, from the old side-scrolling shooters, through simulators, beatem-ups, squad-based tactics games, strategy games and whathaveyou.

[Quething]

In fact many games rely on enemies much *more* powerful than the player-controlled character. I mean, Mario dies in one hit, koopas take two.