294 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

http://www.your-crit...ragedie-of.html 

That article makes me want to play Dragon Age II again.

And I hated Dragon Age II - but the reason I hate DA2 is the implementation of the PC.  That's really the only thing that I find seriously wrong with the game (yes, there are other problems, like the combat mechanics, or the level design, or the blatant railroading): the PC isn't able to be played as the player sees fit.

Before DA2 was released, I hoped that this PC problem would be mitigated by the presence of an unreliable narrator (Varric), but I didn't generally find that to be the case.  Varric's narrations were too infrequent, and we spent too much time following Hawke around watching him say or do things that I thought were out of character.

My point is that I can't really disagree with the good points highlighted by that article, and seeing them all laid out for me like that makes me want to try experiencing them again with the full knowledge that I can't have the sort of roleplaying gameplay I want.  But as long as I know that, and I know that Varric's unreliability ultimately allows me to correct any details I like once the game is over, I now find myself wanting to go through the game to see it do well the things it does well.

I maintain that DA2 can never be a good roleplaying game.  But maybe it's a good Dragon Age game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:46 .

[LinksOcarina]

I think the question about spirits and demons is more complex then were are making it out to be because it is an unexplored one, as many have pointed out. Yeah, some demons are bad, some are also morally ambiguous. One of the best examples I can think of is Mouse; here is a demon that does attempt to trick you into leaving the fade, but even if you are given the chance he doesn't, and instead gives the player one of the best quotes in Origins if you ask me,

"Keep your wits about you. True tests never end."

Now we can interpret it as a possession being futile against a powerful mage, or the fact that its a harrowing and he would just be killed anyway. But I think it shows some dynamism to the demon, it is perceptive enough to know about the mortal world, and when his efforts pass or fail, does nothing to go there.

Another example is the Desire Demon in the Circle Tower with the Charmed Templar. She saw his desires repressed, and brought them out. It asks an important question really; one that is hard to answer at times because of the ambiguity of the situation; is killing her, despite the fact she openly admits to feeding on his desires, is pointless because she is giving him what he always wanted, implying it is a choice by the Templar.

Does it make her benevolent? Not exactly. But it does serve a function in that sense. Obviously this is an interpetation of it. Avernus was right that controlling demons is difficult, but look at the demons he let loose, Rage demons mostly, and a Desire Demon to combat people with no real reasoning behind it. So it can go both ways; some demons can be just totally "evil" while others can be "good" in a sense.

Actually, lets look at that for a second. The demons augment different plains of internal feelings. Rage, Desire, Pride, Sloth; each of them however is a negative desire. We view Justice, Valor, Fortitude, etc as positive aspects that can be augmented, but they carry terrible connotations as well due to it just being one part of a whole. We saw with Justice/Vengeance that played out, sometimes Justice can be perverted, making it just as dangerous as Pride and Desire.

So I think it really goes both ways. Both in the mortal and in the fade, Demons and Spirits can be good or bad, it just depends on the demon or spirit in that case.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain that DA2 can never be a good roleplaying game.  But maybe it's a good Dragon Age game.

I'm really not even sure it is a good Dragon Age game. It introduces almost nothing new to the lore other than the events that happened at the end of Acts 2 and 3. We don't get deeper into any world we haven't seen before, we aren't introduced to any concepts that haven't already been introduced, we don't get a larger feel for what is going on in the world outside of Kirkwall, the bits that were tied to other characters or events were insginificant and shallow... ultimately, if DA3 started and said nothing more than the mages rebelled, and the Qunari were planning to invade, I wouldn't say we would need much of anything in the form of backstory? Given the vast majority of companions can be killed or lost, it is unlikely that they will have any major impact on the story of DA3.

So I would say it wasn't even a good Dragon Age game. Or, at least, not a good game to build upon the Dragon Age world and franchise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So I would say it wasn't even a good Dragon Age game. Or, at least, not a good game to build upon the Dragon Age world and franchise.

Is that necessary, though?

What I typically want from a roleplaying game is a rich setting filled with interesting events and characters around which I can craft my character.   Now, DA2 fails on that last point because I never get to have my character do anything of my choosing, but the events and characters are still there and still worth experiencing.

I would probably come away from another playthrough insisting that it was my character, not Anders, who blew up the Chantry, and Varric was simply protecting him by lying to Cassandra.  That's fairly interesting.  That could be worth my time.

[Am1vf]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'm really not even sure it is a good Dragon Age game. It introduces almost nothing new to the lore other than the events that happened at the end of Acts 2 and 3.

All the books, stories from Antiva, the Tevinter Imperium recent state, the Qunari history, beliefs, etc,...

We don't get deeper into any world we haven't seen before

well, it is set in the world of Dragon Age, if that is what you mean. If you mean new places there is the very city of kirkwall with all it's past history and current politics.

, we aren't introduced to any oncepts that haven't already been introduced,

Concepts like what exactly? The workings of the fade and the details about spirits merging with humans for example?

we don't get a larger feel for what is going on in the world outside of Kirkwall,

Again the characters tell their personal experiences about Tevinter and other places

the bits that were tied to other characters or events were insginificant and shallow...

Well that sounds like a personal opinion, and I disagree.

ultimately, if DA3 started and said nothing more than the mages rebelled, and the Qunari were planning to invade, I wouldn't say we would need much of anything in the form of backstory? Given the vast majority of companions can be killed or lost, it is unlikely that they will have any major impact on the story of DA3.

Yeah, I suppose we can just skip the whole series and live perfectly happy.

So I would say it wasn't even a good Dragon Age game. Or, at least, not a good game to build upon the Dragon Age world and franchise.

It is set in the same world and the principles by wich the world is ruled still stand. An there is also the stories and rumors fron Ferenden and the consecuences of the warden's actions. I would say that is more than most sequels have.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 13 janvier 2012 - 12:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would probably come away from another playthrough insisting that it was my character, not Anders, who blew up the Chantry, and Varric was simply protecting him by lying to Cassandra.  That's fairly interesting.  That could be worth my time.

And Cassandra yelling "Who is Keyser Soze?!" and after Cassandra dismisses Varric, an eye witness sketch comes in showing Hawke's face...



....wait, no. I'm thinking of something completely different.

My point being, if this wasn't a good Role Playing game, and if it didn't build upon the Dragon Age world, then what part of the game is left? The combat, the value of the game as an action/adventure experience? I'd say that is quite minimal.

[Ponendus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My point being, if this wasn't a good Role Playing game, and if it didn't build upon the Dragon Age world, then what part of the game is left? The combat, the value of the game as an action/adventure experience? I'd say that is quite minimal.

Not necessarily. It is a good for the human element, as an 'interactive film', etc as mentioned in the Kotaku article. I think that has some value for some, probably not for Roleplayers though, although I didn't feel completely left out. I enjoyed getting to know my companions and their stories for example.

[Fast Jimmy]

Am1_vf wrote...

All the books, stories from Antiva, the Tevinter Imperium recent state, the Qunari history, beliefs, etc,...

I recall no stories from Antiva. Maybe Rivain, where Isabella is from? Both her and Fenris' backstory give us no idea what those places are like compared to, say, Zevran's heartfelt description of Antiva as being the homeland of the Crows with its ports and seafood, or Leliana's images of Val Royeuax's fashion and musicians coupled with intrigue and deception or Sten's insights into Qunari thinking and methods of respect. Fenris talked about Tevinter only in the light that he was a slave and Magister's are bad guys. Not a huge insight there. And Isabella tells us practically nothing about Rivain.

well, it is set in the world of Dragon Age, if that is what you mean. If you mean new places there is the very city of kirkwall with all it's past history and current politics.

No, I don't mean new locations. The game could have been located in only Kirkwall and still given us a feel for what was happening in the outside world over ten years. Other than a tidbit about Ferelden recovering or the Qunari grumbling, its almost like Kirkwall is in a bubble where no news from the outside reaches in.

Concepts like what exactly? The workings of the fade and the details about spirits merging with humans for example?

Concepts already touched on with both Wynne and the original inhabitants of Justice. Try again.e

Again the characters tell their personal experiences about Tevinter and other places

 I reference above. They tell their experiences, but their tales are so generic about their homelands, they could have just as well happened in a Kirkwall back alley. Besides, the "tevinter" character has a large chunk of amnesia... how much insight into the country could he really bring, other than his life as a living weapon slave?

Well that sounds like a personal opinion, and I disagree.

Cameos from DAO charactes and import choices from previous games are what I was referencing, although I didn't make that abundantly clear. Nonetheless, the cameos and import choices were, in my opinion, shallow. However, I doubt anyone could make the case that they were deep.

Yeah, I suppose we can just skip the whole series and live perfectly happy.

I'm sorry, are you actually trying to have a meaningful dialogue, or are you just lashing out because of some misplaced sense of honor I may have offended?

It is set in the same world and the principles by wich the world is ruled still stand. An there is also the stories and rumors fron Ferenden and the consecuences of the warden's actions. I would say that is more than most sequels have.

Not true at all. Lots of sequels do not just occur in the same world, where whispers of the first game affect the events. Many, if not most, sequels directly build upon the events that were set in motion in the first game. Characters and events are HUGE determiners on story and history. 

Now, to say that the Dragon Age franchise gets a free pass because it actually tried to import choices that could vary depending on what the player did, then that's different. But to say most game sequels don't really have anything to do with the first game other than happen in the same world is pretty offbase. Most games have the same main character in sequels, and a story that builds of what has happened before.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ponendus wrote...

Not necessarily. It is a good for the human element, as an 'interactive film', etc as mentioned in the Kotaku article. I think that has some value for some, probably not for Roleplayers though, although I didn't feel completely left out. I enjoyed getting to know my companions and their stories for example.

True, there is good human interaction with the companions at points. But the pace at which this happens is so dragged out due to limitations on when you can talk to them, that it can be hollow and frustrating.

Not to mention that, to me, truly well-written characters have more than just good dialogue. They are defined by their actions. I loved the show Lost because we got to see the characters' lives before the Island, get a feel for the things they expeirenced and the loss and mistakes they made. And then, in the present, we got to see if they overcame those choices, or were still chained by them, doomed to repeat their past mistakes.

If I wanted to enjoy a piece of entertainment where every person was romanceable, has a tragic past and loves to tell their past in expositionary dialgoue, I would watch a soap opera.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 janvier 2012 - 12:52 .

[Am1vf]

I'm sorry if I sound too rude, I assure you it was not my intention.

But I'm not sure what is it that you expect from a sequel. Some follow the story of the exact same character right where it was left (sometimes to kill another bunch of the same games as before), but others go as far as setting the new story hundreds of years in the future and start a new plot unrelated to the previous and I don't see how that makes it any less worthy.

The way I see it Dragon Age 2 sends you to see another city within the same world, to experience it from a new rol within it. And in that new city, wich feels like neighbouring country to me, you get into new situations, some related to faces already known from the worl, other specific to the new location.

I would have liked, of corse more branching oprtions depending on your past decisions, but at least it has a reason/excuse for that, there is a sea on the way, and despite that you get plenty of content related to your actions in Ferelden, so much that I sometimes wonder if everyone is migrating north for some reason (maybe Fereldans are trying to avoid Orlais:lol:).

Dragon Age is a very flawed game, but to question it's sequelness, that I don't understand.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 13 janvier 2012 - 01:12 .

[Ponendus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

Not necessarily. It is a good for the human element, as an 'interactive film', etc as mentioned in the Kotaku article. I think that has some value for some, probably not for Roleplayers though, although I didn't feel completely left out. I enjoyed getting to know my companions and their stories for example.

True, there is good human interaction with the companions at points. But the pace at which this happens is so dragged out due to limitations on when you can talk to them, that it can be hollow and frustrating.

Not to mention that, to me, truly well-written characters have more than just good dialogue. They are defined by their actions. I loved the show Lost because we got to see the characters' lives before the Island, get a feel for the things they expeirenced and the loss and mistakes they made. And then, in the present, we got to see if they overcame those choices, or were still chained by them, doomed to repeat their past mistakes.

If I wanted to enjoy a piece of entertainment where every person was romanceable, has a tragic past and loves to tell their past in expositionary dialgoue, I would watch a soap opera.

Fair comments, there does need to be more than dialogue. I agree.

[TEWR]

one of the things that seriously made me dislike DAII -- or hate, take your pick -- is that I cannot give Hawke what motivations I want. The game forces Hawke to have his own motivations.

This is due in part to the linear narrative, something that wasn't required for the game.

In DAO, I could at least give my characters a certain amount of motivation. In DAII, Hawke's motivations are always the same.

[Am1vf]

Ethereal Writer Redux- Sometimes you could choose for Hawke some motivation or other, but I agree it was very limited in that regard, even more than Origins wich, for me, was not very complete in that area either.

[Brockololly]

Zjarcal wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Those eyebrows melting and bending like pipecleaners really brings those characters to life!

Yeah, post derp shots and glitches to showcase DA2's facial animations. Try and be more objective man, that's borderline trolling (one could easily do the same for DAO).

Mr.House wrote...
There was alot of derp shots in DAO, more then DA2. DA2 did facial expressions and emotions so much better then DAO.

I never said DAO's facial animations were amazing. They aren't. TW2's facial animations are pretty crappy too. Lots of games have rubbish facial animations. IMO, DA2's stood out when they were particularly bad due to the tighter cinematic focus of the game with the close ups, combined with the very underwhelming look of the character models on a technical, graphical level. So while DAO or TW2 have underwhelming facial animations, (IMO) I thought the actual faces looked good, on a technical level for the most part.

And no, the eyebrows and the way they move in DA2 are in no way natural. They shouldn't move around like this.

[Am1vf]

Brockololly wrote...

And no, the eyebrows and the way they move in DA2 are in no way natural. They shouldn't move around like this.

They don't necessarily have to be natural, they have to be expressive. I remember vaguely a making of a dreamworks movie in wich they mentioned that their digital actors (as they like to call them, aparently) couldn't move the face like that if they had a skull.

Oh, do you want to see a example in facial animation and visual improvements in a game franchise?
Just give me a sec to upload something...

edit:there.



Dungeon Siege 2: Broken World Expansion 2006 - Dungeon Siege 3 2011

edit (again): I say facial animation, well also character design, hud, composition,...

Modifié par Am1_vf, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:05 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

one of the things that seriously made me dislike DAII -- or hate, take your pick -- is that I cannot give Hawke what motivations I want. The game forces Hawke to have his own motivations.

This is due in part to the linear narrative, something that wasn't required for the game.

In DAO, I could at least give my characters a certain amount of motivation. In DAII, Hawke's motivations are always the same.

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3? It seems the only way to actually make Hawke's seemingly pointless acts hold water is by giving him some kind of vague motivation. Still, no in-game motivation is terrible, there should be something that the game binds you to as motivation (DAO has the DArkspawn, Mass Effect the Reapers, TW 2 the clearence of guilt). DA2 does not have this.

[TEWR]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

one of the things that seriously made me dislike DAII -- or hate, take your pick -- is that I cannot give Hawke what motivations I want. The game forces Hawke to have his own motivations.

This is due in part to the linear narrative, something that wasn't required for the game.

In DAO, I could at least give my characters a certain amount of motivation. In DAII, Hawke's motivations are always the same.

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3? It seems the only way to actually make Hawke's seemingly pointless acts hold water is by giving him some kind of vague motivation. Still, no in-game motivation is terrible, there should be something that the game binds you to as motivation (DAO has the DArkspawn, Mass Effect the Reapers, TW 2 the clearence of guilt). DA2 does not have this.

Hawke's motivation in game is to just sit around and be lazy. That's his motivation.

And that's what makes me really dislike/hate DAII. Hawke is never my character. He is the same character. His motivation is not mine.

I posted in the "Why does Hawke always screw up and let the bad guys escape" thread in the story section what should've happened in the game (IMO).

[thats1evildude]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3?

A desire to protect the city that he now calls home, as well as the friends he has there and the family that are still living in the city.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:12 .

[Am1vf]

Gibb_Shepard - family in the circle, or saving the city from the Qunary, or freedom for the mages, or more control over the mages. It is not perfect but there is plenty of motivation to choose from. If none fits your Hawke I suppose he is unwillingly dragged into de conflict.

[Gibb_Shepard]

thats1evildude wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3?

A desire to protect the city that he now calls home, as well as the friends he has there and the family that are still living in the city.

That is something you created, not something the game explicitly states. DA2 give it's protagonist no motivation. This is why enjoy Act 1 the most, because there is a point in your character's actions.

[Am1vf]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3?

A desire to protect the city that he now calls home, as well as the friends he has there and the family that are still living in the city.

That is something you created, not something the game explicitly states. DA2 give it's protagonist no motivation. This is why enjoy Act 1 the most, because there is a point in your character's actions.

If you need the game to explicitly state a motivation I don't recommend touching any Elder Scrolls game:D.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Am1_vf wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And what motivations are they? What possible motivation could Hawke have to do anything in Act 2 and 3?

A desire to protect the city that he now calls home, as well as the friends he has there and the family that are still living in the city.

That is something you created, not something the game explicitly states. DA2 give it's protagonist no motivation. This is why enjoy Act 1 the most, because there is a point in your character's actions.

If you need the game to explicitly state a motivation I don't recommend touching any Elder Scrolls game:D.

Skyrim, being the only one i've played, has a core motivation. Every RPG i've ever played gives your character a core motivation. There is a reason for that.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:19 .

[thats1evildude]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

That is something you created, not something the game explicitly states.

Actually, my Diplomatic Hawke says "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone" when other characters click on him. Plus, there's a few instances in dialogue where Hawke says he's fighting to protect the people he cares about.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:25 .

[Am1vf]

Gibb_Shepard - You mean the dragonborn thing? I don't think a majority of Eder Scrolls fans would say that it was the core motivation for them or their characters, but I can't say I have any data to prove that.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 13 janvier 2012 - 03:23 .

[TEWR]

thats1evildude wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

That is something you created, not something the game explicitly states.

Actually, my Diplomatic Hawke says "Let's make Kirkwall a better place for everyone" when other characters click on him. So it kinda does.

yet you can never actually do anything to follow up on that motivation, which contradicts it. That motivation becomes meaningless when the game doesn't actually let him try to make Kirkwall a decent place.