294 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Listen to me very carefully. What YOU (YOU!) create for Hawke as a motivation is not the same thing (NOT THE SAME THING) as what the game provides. At no point in DA2, save for ACT 1, is there an overarching goal to ultimately achieve. 

I largely disagree, as much of what I do in DA2 matches my Hawke's motivations and, as I pointed out, is supported by the statements of the character itself. But you're right in that there is no obvious end goal to achieve here, which is partly why the game is so fascinating.

Am1_vf wrote...
No offense, but your nickname desn't fit you;)

Heh, you should read my fan fics.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 13 janvier 2012 - 07:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Listen to me very carefully. What YOU (YOU!) create for Hawke as a motivation is not the same thing (NOT THE SAME THING) as what the game provides. At no point in DA2, save for ACT 1, is there an overarching goal to ultimately achieve. Every other RPG in history has provided the PC such a goal.

I completely disagree.  Handing the PC motivation on a platter is very poor game construction, and most roleplaying games do not do that.  The good ones almost never do that.

That's one of the things I most like about DA2, but it's certainly also true of Skyrim.  While there is a grand plot in which the PC can take part, there's no requirement that the PC care about it or even be aware of it.  The game, unfortunately, makes the player aware of it through metagame information in the quest journal (DA2 makes the same mistake), but the PC himself need have no motivation at all relating to the main quest.

Such is the case in BG, as well.  BioWare mostly doesn't do that anymore, but they did in DA2.

Are you seeing the difference here? I can not explain it in any other way. DA2 does not provide a CORE (GAME GIVEN) motivation for Hawke. End of story.

Neither does Skyrim, and in both games it's a good thing.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Skyrim does, Sylvius. Your character is Dragon born, and your destiny is to be rid of the dragons. Whether or not you envision your character as caring about it is beside the point, it is still there and is still a core part of your character. I honestly cannot name an RPG that does not give your character a core motivation.

You can pretend your character is not aware of this plot mechanic and make him a wood-chopper, but that is purposefully doing away with a game aspect. I strongly disagree with video games not giving your character motivation to do anything, and evidently, so does the gaming industry.

[Ponendus]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

At no point in DA2, save for ACT 1, is there an overarching goal to ultimately achieve. Every other RPG in history has provided the PC such a goal.

I respectfully disagree with both these statements. There is a goal in Act 2, to investigate and mitigate the Qunari threat. It is delivered to the PC very early on. In Act 3 the goal is similar, to calm the tensions and resolve the conflict between the Mages and Templars. These are not constructed by me, the quest text tells you that these are the goals of the Acts. Also not every other RPG in history has provided the PC with an overarching goal.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

YOU can create other motivations for your character. In Act 1 maybe he is also out to free mages for example, or protect his family; but ultimately Hawke is attempting to net wealth (Which can then weave into your other motivations).

Are you seeing the difference here? I can not explain it in any other way. DA2 does not provide a CORE (GAME GIVEN) motivation for Hawke. End of story.

It may not give you motivations, but it does give you goals as outlined above. I think a game that gives you motivations sounds awful, those should be constructed by the player.

[Ponendus]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Your character is Dragon born, and your destiny is to be rid of the dragons. Whether or not you envision your character as caring about it is beside the point, it is still there and is still a core part of your character. I honestly cannot name an RPG that does not give your character a core motivation.

But destiny and motivation are two different things? The dragonborns destiny may well be that she/he is to rid the world of dragons, but his/her motivation for doing it is not outlined. Or at least I don't think it is, I haven't finished the main story quest in Skyrim but I am quite a long way through it. I am playing my Skyrim character as quite opposed to the idea of ridding the world of dragons in fact (I am playing it as though the dragons have a place there and I have no right to rid them) but I plan to ultimately lead to whatever the end is and accept it as some twist of fate.

A path, or a destination, is not the same thing as a motivation.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Perhaps i used the wrong term then. When i said "core motivation" i was assuming people thought of that as the ultimate overarching goal, the very thing your character is supposed to achieve. Lets use the word "goal" then, and leave the characters motivations for achieving that goal out of it.

All RPGs that come to mind have a "goal". Motivations to achieve that goal can be imagined, but the goal is still what the chyaracter is ultimately supposed to achieve. Only DA2 lacks this.

Also Popenduous, the Dragons in Skyrim are only there to destroy the land. They have no redeeming qualities. Having your character being indifferent about them is like making a Vietnamn veteran sit around while his country is being taken over by North-Koreans.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 13 janvier 2012 - 08:43 .

[Ponendus]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

All RPGs that come to mind have a "goal". Motivations to achieve that goal can be imagined, but the goal is still what the chyaracter is ultimately supposed to achieve. Only DA2 lacks this.

Also Popenduous, the Dragons in Skyrim are only there to destroy the land. They have no redeeming qualities. Having your character being indifferent about them is like making a Vietnamn veteran sit around while his country is being taken over by North-Koreans.

I still disagree that DA2 lacks a goal. It may lack a goal outlined in the beginning that is concluded at the end. But each Act has a goal. The goal of the game was marketed as the story of the Champion of Kirkwall. Why can there not be multiple achievements that lead to that title. Or can there be only one?

As for my Skyrim character: if I choose to play my character as evil or unethical as you are implying, what of it? I genuinely can't see a problem with that. Are you implying that I should only role play my character according to the most heroic or admirable route? Aren't I supposed to choose my character, that is the whole point of role play?

[Gibb_Shepard]

Alright, alright. I was under the impression that you didn't realize that the dragons were actually attacking the land, not simply living. Your post implied that you wished your character to live peacefully with the dragons, and that doesn't strike me as an evil character.

And each act does not have a goal. Each act eventually leads to something big, but there was never any intention to get there.

[Plaintiff]

Personally, I would welcome more games where the goal is not immediatly clear. It's too bad that that sort of experience can only occur on the first playthrough of a given game.

[Ponendus]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And each act does not have a goal. Each act eventually leads to something big, but there was never any intention to get there.

Well ... I disagree but I have pointed out why in previous posts so I think we are getting a bit circular now. 

[Ponendus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Personally, I would welcome more games where the goal is not immediatly clear. It's too bad that that sort of experience can only occur on the first playthrough of a given game.

Yes that's true. Replay ability is certainly a factor. 

[Vonbleak]

I think people complaining about a game should try and make one or shut up, if you cant do any better you have no right to complaining...

[Morroian]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Listen to me very carefully. What YOU (YOU!) create for Hawke as a motivation is not the same thing (NOT THE SAME THING) as what the game provides. At no point in DA2, save for ACT 1, is there an overarching goal to ultimately achieve. Every other RPG in history has provided the PC such a goal.

Yes and............ as far as I'm concerned that was a good thing, and the game provided some ideas to role play what Hawke's motivations might be in Act 2 and 3 whether its around Behtany in the chantry, protecting Kirkwall, making money........

[ManOfSteel]

Vonbleak wrote...

I think people complaining about a game should try and make one or shut up, if you cant do any better you have no right to complaining...

That's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to critisize something regardless of whether or not you can "do any better". Constructive criticism allows developers to get an idea of what people didn't like about their product. 

I liked Dragon Age 2, but coming from Dragon Age: Origins (and BioWare's own Mass Effect franchise) I found it to be a little disappointing. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were two steps in the right direction though, if you ask me. I look forward to seeing what's next.

[esper]

I too think that it is a good think that we ourself has to come up with why Hawke does as she does. It made it possible for me to roleplay Hawke into different person because there were no, 'no matter what both you and your characther knows that this goal must be achieved'.
Hawke doesn't know that the arishok and the chantry busniness will happen no matter what and thus they can try to accomplice different things allowing for roleplay even if it ends up in the same consequence.

[Gotholhorakh]

Vonbleak wrote...

I think people complaining about a game should try and make one or shut up, if you cant do any better you have no right to complaining...

So you should change your career before you can comment on anything in this world. Cool plan.

[Vonbleak]

haha, not really i like da2, i am a bit drunk...lol

[Malanu]

That's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to critisize something regardless of whether or not you can "do any better". Constructive criticism allows developers to get an idea of what people didn't like about their product. 

I liked Dragon Age 2, but coming from Dragon Age: Origins (and BioWare's own Mass Effect franchise) I found it to be a little disappointing. Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were two steps in the right direction though, if you ask me. I look forward to seeing what's next.

The word I was tought in my Art classes was Critique. If you don't have something nice to say (Critisize), do it with class and productive input. To Critique, I was taught, is to give constructive criticism, give advice how you think it could be made better. critisizing brings nothing productive to teh table and does nothing to make an improvement.

There's to much critisism and not enough critiquing happening.

That said, can the Devs please make the text larger so us poeple with old tired eyes can read the dialogue on a 60" screen TV from 20 feet away. Not all TVs are High Def you know:whistle:

[Plaintiff]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Vonbleak wrote...

I think people complaining about a game should try and make one or shut up, if you cant do any better you have no right to complaining...

So you should change your career before you can comment on anything in this world. Cool plan.

I don't think it's an unfair statement.

Do any of us really understand the amount of work that goes into making a game? Do you honestly think a lifetime of playing games makes you as qualified to review something as someone who spent a lifetime making them? The same goes for books, music, film... really any artform.

If people are going to act like authorities on the art, which many forum-posters do, I think it is perfectly justified to tell them to put their money where their mouths are. It doesn't even have to be a complete videogame. If they can even construct a basic marketing statement for their idea that outlines their vision of the story and the gameplay, I'll call it good enough, provided that they can demonstrate its theoretical merits over the game that they're lambasting.

Critque, good critique, ultimately comes from a place of understanding: understanding, whether you like a game or not, that a lot of work and a lot of money, more than you'll probably ever see at once, has been put into its production.

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't think it's an unfair statement.

Do any of us really understand the amount of work that goes into making a game? Do you honestly think a lifetime of playing games makes you as qualified to review something as someone who spent a lifetime making them? The same goes for books, music, film... really any artform.

If people are going to act like authorities on the art, which many forum-posters do, I think it is perfectly justified to tell them to put their money where their mouths are. It doesn't even have to be a complete videogame. If they can even construct a basic marketing statement for their idea that outlines their vision of the story and the gameplay, I'll call it good enough, provided that they can demonstrate its theoretical merits over the game that they're lambasting.

Critque, good critique, ultimately comes from a place of understanding: understanding, whether you like a game or not, that a lot of work and a lot of money, more than you'll probably ever see at once, has been put into its production.

I like to think that I fit this description when I try and make my case against the elements of DAII that disappointed me, as -- and especially if -- they pertain to threads.

Why it disappointed me, how I think it should've happened, why I think Scenario would've been better than Scenario A), etc.

@Gibb: Technically, the game does allow for a Hawke to have an ultimate goal at one certain point. Depending on how you view it -- and indeed I just remembered this now after getting a night's sleep -- the conversation with Varric about Hawke's plans can give the player an ultimate goal.

The problem is that you can never really act on that goal that you the player make.

[Cutlasskiwi]

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.

Funny, that was one of my biggest problems with DAO. In order for the character to make at least a little bit sense I had to adopt one stance (to a certain degree) that I never wanted to, i.e. I <3 Ferelden/The Wardens. 

[Gotholhorakh]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Vonbleak wrote...

I think people complaining about a game should try and make one or shut up, if you cant do any better you have no right to complaining...

So you should change your career before you can comment on anything in this world. Cool plan.

I don't think it's an unfair statement.

Do any of us really understand the amount of work that goes into making a game?

I didn't say I would fail to meet the (ridiculous) requirement myself - only that it's ridiculous. The only "credentials" required to review something are that one has consumed it, and can form/express an opinion on it.

How well one reviews things it is a different matter, of course.

One thing I can say is that people who understand something as a peer are by no means guaranteed to do this well.

Do you honestly think a lifetime of playing games makes you as qualified to review something as someone who spent a lifetime making them? The same goes for books, music, film... really any artform.

Yes. Absolutely - and this is the whole basis on which opinion and consumer review works, as opposed to, say, review and critique from one's peers.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 13 janvier 2012 - 02:17 .

[TEWR]

Cutlasskiwi 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.

Funny, that was one of my biggest problems with DAO. In order for the character to make at least a little bit sense I had to adopt one stance (to a certain degree) that I never wanted to, i.e. I <3 Ferelden/The Wardens. 

Yes that was a problem with DAO as well. Even a simple option for the Warden to say "No, I'm outta here" where he travels alone for a time before saving a village and you being forced to say "Fine... I'll fight the Blight. I don't see it as possible that we'll win, but I'll do it anyway" would've been enough.

That said, I would certainly expect a person playing as a Human Noble and a Dwarf character to definitely want to fight the Blight and save Ferelden. Dwarf characters would do it for a sense of pragmatism -- Darkspawn on their gates and all -- and the Human Noble should want the chance to tear Howe apart limb from limb. 

And if you're a Dwarf Noble, revenge on Bhelen could be a possible reason.